Gates Report highlights role of innovation in expanding development resources

In a report about financing for development delivered today at the G20 Summit, Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, urged leaders to commit to increasing the pool of resources dedicated to development or risk causing irreparable damage to the livelihoods of millions of the poorest people. Underlying these recommendations is the idea that innovation can multiply the impact of the resources devoted to development. Gates’ report, Innovation with Impact: Financing 21st Century Development, was presented to heads of State and Governments in Cannes, France, at the request of G20 chairman French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

In his report, Gates stresses the need for rich countries to continue their generosity and meet their foreign aid commitments – which are generally between one and two percent of government’s budgets – while ensuring that aid is spent effectively in areas such as health and agriculture. Beyond rich countries’ responsibility, Gates says rapidly emerging economies represented in the G20 also play a growing role in driving progress in development. In his report, he proposes ideas for enabling speedier transfer of the innovations these countries are pioneering – particularly in the areas of health and agriculture, such as vaccines and seeds – to transform the lives of poor people in Africa and beyond. “I am particularly excited about the possibility of ‘triangular partnerships’ among rapidly growing countries, traditional donors, and poor countries, because they exploit the comparative advantages of many different countries,” Gates says in his report.

“Ultimately, developing countries’ domestic resources will be the largest source of funds for development,” according to Gates, who recommends measures the G20 could take to help poor countries’ maximize their own resources to reduce poverty. Ideas include directing foreign aid at helping developing countries better collect tax revenue, which could raise approximately $20bn a year at today’s GDP, and increasing transparency requirements for mining and oil companies. Gates calls on poor countries to focus resources on priorities which directly benefit poor people, like health and agriculture, and urged African leaders to meet the targets they had set in the Abuja Declaration to devote at least 15% of their budgets to improving health, and in the Maputo Declaration, which calls for devoting 10% of budgets on agriculture.

The report to G20 leaders also calls for adopting innovative ways to mobilize private sector finance and encourage private sector growth as a way to raise funds for development. Recommendations include making sovereign wealth funds available for infrastructure investments in poor countries, continuing to lower transaction costs of remittances by diaspora communities, and using pull mechanisms in agriculture to encourage innovation in agricultural technologies.

Gates also uses the report to identify new streams of funding, by directing a percentage of funds from a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT), Solidarity Tobacco Contribution, and an aviation and bunker fuel tax, to fund development and climate change. Concerning the FTT the report says: “Some modelling suggests that even a small tax of ten basis points on equities and two basis points on bonds would yields about $48bn on a G20-wide basis, or $9bn if it were confined to larger European economies. Other FTT proposals offer substantially larger estimates, in the S100bn to $250bn range, especially if derivatives are included.”

EU FTT plan is a historic opportunity

Today, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso announced before the European Parliament that the Commission has adopted a proposal to set up a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) in the European Union. Civil society organisation such as the international alliance of Catholic development agencies CIDSE call on the Finance Ministers of all EU member states to endorse the plan when they meet on 5 October 2011, making sure sufficient money is earmarked for the fight against poverty and climate change. Bernd Nilles, Secretary General of CIDSE, qualified the initiative as “an important victory for justice and solidarity” being in sight.

The Directive would establish an EU-wide tax applied on a broad range of financial transactions ranging from stocks and shares to futures and derivatives in organised markets and over-the-counter trading. Unfortunately, the Directive remains vague about what FTT revenues should be spent on. CIDSE reckons it is inconceivable that they would simply go to replenish the EU budget or national coffers.

A closer look to the draft version of the Directive reveals a mixed picture. Positive elements are:

* Establishment of an EU-wide tax applied on a broad range of financial transactions ranging from stocks and shares to futures and derivatives in organised markets and over-the-counter trading.
* It will be difficult to evade the tax, as the FTT will be applied on the basis of residence. This means that one of the parties to the transaction should be authorised to act, or be registered, or reside, or have a branch, in a member state for it to be taxable.
* The Directive could also contribute to fiscal transparency by taxing transfers even between daughter concerns within the same mother company. Such transactions are notorious for being non-transparent and under-valued. Taxes on such transactions will be calculated on the basis of the market price, making it more difficult for parties to ‘fix’ the value of a transaction to suit their own purpose.
* EU member states must implement an FTT by 2014, rather than the earlier mentioned implementation by 2018 at the latest.

Negative aspects include:

* There is no clear stipulation that the revenues of the FTT should be used to tackle poverty and climate change. While the Directive does acknowledge that the call for the FTT also stems from the desire to generate additional revenue among others for ‘specific policy purposes,’ it merely states that the tax would create a new revenue stream for the EU and its Member States.
* Trading in currency and commodities are exempt from the FTT which could reduce its revenue raising potential and have unforeseen implications on these markets.
* The Directive also recommends a low tax rate for derivatives to reduce the risk of tax avoidance, evasion and abuse. Yet, many other measures could be put in place to prevent tax evasion, especially with regards to the issue of where a party to the transaction is established.

FTT gains momentum in Europe

EuroStep – Ahead of a European Council meeting last week, European Commission (EC) President José Manuel Barroso announced to table a communication on the imposition of a financial transactions tax (FTT) in the EU after the summer break. Following heated debates among the different EU institutions that were divided on this issue, Barroso’s announcement has been regarded as a significant breakthrough by FTT advocates. The European Parliament (EP) has continually advocated for an EU level FTT to make the financial sector actively contribute to the recovery of the current financial and economic crisis. Previously the EC has only supported such a tax only on a global level, thus stalling progress on an EU level FTT. The split between the EC and EP became specifically apparent when EU Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union Algirdas Šemeta called the EP ‘premature’ for actively supporting the introduction of an EU FTT.

Despite the EC’s continued efforts to advocate for the introduction of a FTT at global level, Šemeta has now announced “there [were] ways to implement a financial transaction tax in the EU while mitigating the main risks identified”, and that he would recommend this to other commissioners as well. Activists have argued that this change of opinion can largely be explained by the overwhelming support for an EU FTT in the public consultations and the pressure from trade unions and civil society movements.

With efforts to agree on a global tax in the group of 20 major economies (G20) being blocked due to significant opposition by some of the G20's members, the EU should take responsibility and move ahead with the introduction of the tax, Barroso said. “Our analysis shows that there is a strong case for deciding on a financial sector tax in the EU as a first step” whilst in parallel continuing “to work for a global agreement on a financial transaction tax”, the EC President stated.

Finance Ministers in Paris: Early acid test for G20

The world’s leading economies must act now to stop the price of basic foods from surging further out of the reach of poor people. They must also commit to a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) to help millions of people hit by the economic crisis and climate change. International agency Oxfam has welcomed the promise of action on these issues from France, the current G20 chair. Oxfam says that this week’s Finance Ministers’ meeting in Paris, on Feb 18-19, is an early acid test as to whether the G20 can turn words into action.

“Finance ministers will define the G20’s development credentials this weekend. They could make or break Sarkozy’s pledges to tackle the food price crisis and push through an FTT,” said Oxfam spokesperson Luc Lampriere. “The G20’s money ministers must now plan how exactly they will deliver on these promises – or otherwise G20 leaders will be left looking like emperors with no clothes.” Oxfam is seeing mounting impacts on poor people as a result of the economic crisis and food price hikes. Countries are being affected differently, but in general poor people are having to spend more of their limited income on food, and are therefore eating less, less often, and in some case less nutritious food. “We see anecdotal evidence of people slipping into food insecurity and malnourishment,” Lampriere said.”We hear about affected rural communities cutting back on health spending and having to sell productive animals earlier than they normally would in order to buy food.”

On a Financial Transaction Tax, Oxfam says: “This is the zeitgeist tax, a popular and progressive policy worth as much as $400bn a year. It would be small change from those who can most afford it but make a big difference to those who most need it. A financial transaction tax would be like a breath of fresh air clearing away the stench of bankers’ bonuses and offering hope to those trapped by the economic crisis,” he said. Oxfam is calling for an average tax of 0.05% on share, currency, bond and derivative deals. Recent research for Oxfam shows that 56 of the poorest countries in the world face a combined $65bn hole in their budgets as a result of the economic crisis. Oxfam also wants the G20 to endorse a recent finding by the UN High Level Advisory Group on Climate Finance (AGF), that at least $12 billion a year can be raised from levies on international transport, particularly on shipping.

G20: Take Action on Financial Transaction Taxes

A global alliance of 183 organisations from 42 countries has just released the following open letter to the G20 Heads of State and Government meeting to their fifth summit later this week in Seoul:

International Civil Society Statement to the G-20 Leaders Summit in Seoul

We, the undersigned 183 civil society organisations from 42 countries collectively representing over 200 million people, urge G20 leaders to make concrete progress towards the introduction of an internationally coordinated financial transactions tax (FTT) at the upcoming summit in Seoul.

Our organizations have long advocated that such taxes are a practical way to generate revenues needed to fill domestic and international financing gaps, discourage the type of short-term financial speculation that has little social value but poses high risks to the economy and serve as a desperately-needed and sustainable source of financing for health and development. In recent months, the case for an FTT has been strengthened with new inputs from sometimes unexpected sources. Several developments have contributed to building a solid foundation for going beyond discussion of options to implementation:

IMF research commissioned by the G-20 recognizes technical feasibility of FTTs
At the 2009 Summit in Pittsburgh, the G20 charged the International Monetary Fund (IMF) with preparing a report on various financial sector taxation options. While the IMF report delivered in June 2010 favoured an alternative approach (devoting only 3 of its 74 pages to FTTs), it did confirm the administrative feasibility of this option. A follow-up IMF technical paper has pointed out that most G20 countries have already implemented some form of transaction tax, and offered useful information on how to design the taxes to make them most effective. The paper also confirmed that such taxes can generate substantial revenues.

A report by the ‘Leading Group on Innovative Financing’ endorses one form of FTT
In July 2010, a group of international finance experts confirmed the feasibility of taxing financial transactions, with a view to financing international commitments for health and development made to developing countries. The experts had been commissioned to produce a feasibility study for a group of 12 governments -- Germany, UK, Japan, France, Belgium, Korea, Norway, Senegal, Brazil, Spain, Austria and Chile. These countries are part of the Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development, comprised of 60 nations (including 75% of G20 member states). In their report, the experts point to foreign exchange transactions between banks as the easiest option for collecting a solidarity tax. They calculated that an extremely small tax of only 0.005% on such transactions would generate $33bn per year.

European Union and UN High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing consider FTT
Meanwhile, the European Commission is considering the possibility of introducing an FTT at European level, following the support shown by the European Parliament earlier this year. A European Commission report notes that, depending on the rate and coverage, an FTT could potentially generate more than $1 trillion per year. The FTT is also being addressed by a workstream of the High Level Advisory Group of the UN Secretary General on Climate Change Financing (AGF). The Group, made up of heads of state, high-level officials from ministries and central banks, and other finance experts, is expected to release a report on climate finance options this week.

The need for FTTs has grown more urgent

FTTs are one of the few available options that could generate the enormous financial resources required to pay for the continuing costs of the global financial and economic crisis, including reducing the unacceptably high rate of job loss, and to achieve key development, health, education and climate change objectives in developing countries. Several hundred billion dollars worth of untapped revenue could potentially be harnessed. This new financing is required in addition to official development assistance in order to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Alternative financial sector taxes as proposed by the IMF would fall far short of the volume required. At the same time, the potential benefit of FTTs to enhance market stability is of equal interest as the world has become more aware of the dangers posed by automated high-frequency trading that increasingly predominates in financial markets. Even extremely low transactions tax rates would reduce the incentive for such speculative activities.

At the recent UN Summit on Millennium Development Goals, French President Nicolas Sarkozy made a very welcome vow to press for an international agreement on FTTs during his term as G-20 chair in 2011. There is, however, no reason to delay. We call for G-20 action on this critical issue to begin in Seoul.

The complete list of signatories can be accessed >>> here.

Ecofin meeting: Not the end of Robin Hood Tax debate

The recent meeting of the EU ministers for economy and finance (Ecofin) could not find an agreement on the implementation of the Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) also known as Robin Hood Tax. But according to Peter Wahl of weed Germany, “this is not yet the end of the discussion”. The official communiqué says: “Ministers will further discuss the issue at an informal meeting in Brussels on 30 September and 1 October." This is confirmed by a statement of the German finance minister Schäuble who said (according to the German edition of the Financial Times) that the implementation of the tax was not for sure but there would be a chance for which one must fight. The British finance minister Osborn said instead: "This has been discussed since decades and will continue to be discussed for decades."

Unofficial sources said that Greece would have joined the camp of the proponents which by now consists of Austria, Belgium, France, and Germany.

The president of the EU Commission (the executive of the Union) Barroso said in a speech at the European Parliament yesterday: "I am also defending taxes on financial activities and we will come with proposals this autumn." It is unclear what he means by "financial activities". It could be the "Financial Activities Tax" as proposed by the IMF, but it could also be something else. Probably the opacity is by intention in order not to occur partisan between the big shots Germany and France on the one hand and the UK at the other.

France announced to raise the issue of the FTT again in the G20, although the Toronto summit had refused the FFT.

As the Germans had announced that in case that an implementation at EU level would not be possible - and the statement of Osborn points very much in that direction - an implementation in the Euro Zone should be considered. The finance minister of Luxembourg, Luc Frieden, opposed this and said the FTT "in the Euro zone only is not acceptable."

Despite the political differences on the subject Peter Wahl still sees a window of opportunity for the FTT:

“The differences between the elites are obvious. They are not capable to come to an agreement in either direction. Pressure from civil society should therefore continue. This is also important in those countries, where the government is in favour of the FTT, in order to prevent a retreat. There are some major countries such as Italy and Spain where the government is silent. There, pressure should try to reach a positive attitude.
The option of the implementation in the Euro zone should be looked at more in detail. The Europeans should prepare for the October Ecofin and the proposal announced by the Commission. At global level, the UN conference on the MDGs and the General Assembly and the G20 summit in Seoul could be further landmarks for campaigning.”

UN Summit should endorse financial transactions tax

The International Trade Union Federation (ITUC) is calling on governments to commit to introducing a financial transactions tax (FTT) at September’s United Nations Development Summit to help tackle global poverty and accelerate action on jobs and climate change. The UN Summit, to review progress on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), will take place against a background of growing global unemployment and inequality and major set-backs on economic development in countries across the globe. An FTT could raise between US$200bn and US$900bn depending on the way it is structured and the level at which it is set, according to the ITUC submission which is being sent by its national affiliates to governments in preparation for the Summit. Even a small percentage of the funds raised by an FTT would help put in place a social protection floor, which would give a major boost to tackling poverty. The submission sets out the case for putting an FTT at the centre of an overall package of measures which would also tackle corporate tax evasion and ensure effective regulation of banks and finance.

According to the trade union body, instead of simply focusing on spending cuts, governments need to increase revenues to ensure employment, public services and development aid. Parts of the finance sector are awash with money, just two years after taxpayers had to bail out poorly regulated banks. An FTT would not solve all the world’s problems, but it would certainly be a good starting point by moving capital from speculative profiteering to kick-starting the real economy and helping avoid a double-dip recession which would have horrendous consequences for the poorest countries in particular, trade unionists say.

Trade unions warn G20 finance ministers against inaction

As G20 finance ministers and central bankers meet in Busan, Korea, on 4-5 June 2010, with proposals to introduce new taxes on banks and other financial institutions high on their agenda, trade unions are calling for a firm and comprehensive G20 agreement to re-regulate global finance, including the introduction of a financial transaction tax. “Current proposals to introduce new bank taxation and new limits on bank loans in a strengthened Basel II agreement fall far short of the bold and ambitious action that is needed to deliver the necessary changes and quell the rising tide of public anger caused by speculative pressure on countries like Greece and Portugal,” said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder. “We need a real hands-on approach to banking supervision and to excessive bankers’ pay, and to shielding commercial and retail banking from irresponsible shadow banking and speculation.”

“Concerns about preciously guarded national sovereignty or disrupting the slow economic recovery are misplaced,” stated TUAC General Secretary John Evans. “On the contrary, regulation is key to attaining recovery. Such concerns can be addressed by well-designed and coordinated international cooperation, and G20 Finance Ministers should instruct the Financial Stability Board to undertake comprehensive modelling to pave the way for the creation of a financial transaction tax at global or regional level.”

“The reports by the Financial Stability Board and its members released in the past year reveal the extent to which governments and supervisory authorities have lost control over global finance,” UNI General Secretary Philip Jennings emphasised. “It is essential that all derivatives and alternative investments, including hedge funds and private equity, should be brought under the scrutiny of proper regulation and public authorities. Moreover, worker representation in bank and insurance risk management systems needs to be enhanced.”

See trade union statement to the Financial Stability Board >>> http://www.ituc-csi.org/trade-union-statement-to-the-4th.html

G20 must seize this moment to make the world a fairer place

A global bank tax to help poor countries survive the economic crisis must be urgently agreed, Oxfam said ahead of the G20 meeting of finance ministers in Busan, South Korea. International development agency Oxfam is pressing for a bank tax that will raise a minimum of $200 billion per year globally to help pay for the impact of the crisis on the poorest and for the costs of climate change, and which will raise the same amount for rich countries to spend on domestic priorities.

Oxfam spokesperson Mark Fried said: “This is a once-in-a generation opportunity for the G20 to reshape the global economy in favor of poor people. We can never return to a situation where the greed of the richest takes precedence over the needs of billions. However the G20 chooses to structure the tax, it should bail out not banks, but the world's poorest people. A financial sector tax is the best option to deliver the scale of resources needed to recover from the financial crisis. The G20 must now seize the moment and deliver a tax that will to raise resources to tackle poverty and climate change. Finance ministers meeting this week must agree a roadmap for taxing the financial sector, and close the deal at their upcoming Canada summit.”

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) gave its preliminary report on a financial sector tax to G20 finance ministers in April. The IMF proposal is two taxes to repay the costs of the global economic crisis and to pay crises to come: a levy payable by all financial institutions, and a tax on their profits and pay. The G8 has broken its promise of $50 billion in aid to poor countries by 2010, and 50,000 more children in Sub-Saharan African countries died last year because of the financial crisis.

Commissioner Barnier’s bank levy proposal

The EU commissioner for Internal Market, Michel Barnier, also responsible for the EU package on financial reforms, issued an official communication last week on a European project of a bank levy with some relevance for the debate on the FTT. Peter Wahl has analyzed the proposal:

Very interesting is that Barnier makes clear, that he considers the bank levy not as a tactical manoeuvre to kick the FTT off the agenda. Speaking of "levies or taxes whose purpose is to recoup the public funds committed during the current crisis to stabilise the banking system or to tackle excessive risk- taking or speculation," he declares: "The examination of such measures should continue in parallel as a useful complement to the preventive funds that are considered in this Communication."

This corresponds to the position of France (Barnier is French) to consider both a bank levy and the FTT. Barnier had spoken out before a commission of the European Parliament in favour of the FTT.

There is some more quite progressive language in the Communication. For instance: "Political support is growing for applying the so-called "polluter pays" principle, known from environmental policy, also in the financial sector so that those responsible for causing it will pay for the costs of any possible future financial crisis."

The communication also takes on board the critique, that the bank levy would increase moral hazard: "The Commission recognises that this is a major concern which needs to be addressed by making it clear and unambiguous that shareholders (up to the value of their investment) and creditors (excluding depositors which are guaranteed by deposit guarantee schemes) must be the first to face the consequences of a bank failure and that resolution funds must not be used as an insurance against failure or to bail out failing banks, but rather to facilitate an orderly failure."

Barnier also is aware of the risk that a bank levy would be passed on to the clients: "It should also be avoided that increased costs are passed on to bank customers in the form of higher charges." Furthermore, the bank levy should be part of a broader framework of regulation which is able to "mitigate the implicit guarantees associated with institutions deemed ‘too big to fail’.

The communication makes already some proposals on the size of the revenues (2%-4% of GDP) and other details.

A detailed draft will be presented in October and the legislation process should start in 2011. The communication is also meant as an input to the G20 finance ministers meeting in Seoul in June.

Of course, it is by now only an official declaration of political will, and during the further process attempts will come up to water it down. Nevertheless, its general tone reflects the deep shock of the Euro crisis and an increasing awareness of European political elites, that they have to do more than they did by now.

German government decided on bank levy

The German government decided today to introduce a bank levy. During a period of 10 years an amount of approximately €1.2bn shall be raised per year. All banks - i.e. also savings and cooperative banks - will have to pay the fee. However, the bulk of the amount (900bn) should come from the systemically relevant big banks. The revenues would go into a special fund. The fee should not be tax deductable. The government also decided rules which allow for breaking up banks which are "too big to fail" and new rules on the liability for managers.

The French minister of finance, Christine Lagarde, participated in the meeting of the German cabinet and said that France would introduce a similar levy. However, the revenues would not go into a special fund but into the current budget.

The civil society alliance for the Financial Transaction Tax came up with strong critique on the decision:
* The revenue is too small.
* It is only for future crises and not for paying for the burden of the present crisis.
* It has no regulatory effect.

Thus, the reasons for introducing the FTT continue to exist. Therefore the alliance will continue to pressure for the FTT. All three opposition parties in the Bundestag reject the decision.

EU Council : Lack of agreement on a Financial Transaction Tax

Brussels-based NGOs are deeply disappointed that European leaders have failed to agree on the introduction of an EU wide Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) at the EU Spring council on 25-26 March. The international alliance of Catholic development agencies CIDSE says a mini tax on short-term and high-risk transactions would stabilise the current financial system and generate millions of Euros badly needed to alleviate poverty and combat climate change. CIDSE campaigned for the inclusion of an EU wide adoption of a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) on socially unproductive and speculative trading on financial markets in the run up to the Council.


Yesterday, while European leaders were arriving in Brussels to attend the Council, CIDSE, along with a coalition of development, environmental and health organizations, staged a ‘tug of war’. It saw bankers on the one side and Robin Hood, the symbol of a massive ongoing popular campaign demanding the adoption of a FTT, on the other, with EU leaders in the middle to decide if money should go to speculators or to people and the planet (see photo).

The European Parliament has asserted unequivocal support for robust and properly resourced EU action to tackle poverty and climate change and asked EU member states to agree on a financial transactions tax to help developing countries cope with the effects of the global financial and economic crisis. Despite broad public support and the backing of the European Parliament EU leaders have failed to come to terms on the FTT.

ONE: Creative thinking urgently needed to tap alternative sources of climate finance

An agreement of $10bn a year in fast track financing for the next three years and $100bn a year by 2020 for poor countries to cope with climate change must come over and above existing aid promises, Africa advocacy group ONE said after the Copenhagen climate summit. Currently these sums will largely be subtracted from promised resources to help these same countries fight poverty. But climate change is putting additional stress on poor countries – which is why they need additional funds to cope with it – on top of existing and promised aid levels,” said Jamie Drummond, Executive Director of ONE UK.

“Promises of aid made by the G8 in Gleneagles in 2005 must not be lost in Copenhagen. Without a clear commitment that these climate funds are additional, the dollar amounts are next to meaningless. This debate over ‘additionality’ might seem arcane, but within the details lie billions of dollars - and very real impacts on millions of lives,” Drummond said. “Without this additionality, Copenhagen adds up to nothing. It is not clear how a cap on two degrees will be achieved, but it is very clear that much more can and must be done, including harnessing the potential of African and other developing countries to be renewable energy hubs and help capture carbon through growing trees."

ONE supports the African proposal for an interim target of $50bn by 2015 on top of existing and promised aid to help the poorest countries – many of them in Africa – with pressing adaptation needs. The Copenhagen Accord mentions a High Level Panel to assess how alternative sources of funding can contribute to raising genuinely additional funds. ONE says this urgent High Level Task Force should be convened immediately and with links to the highest political level to look into alternative sources of climate finance to complement additional public funding from rich countries. These sources could include: revenue from aviation and shipping, international auctioning of emissions allowances, a financial transactions tax and the proposal to use the IMF’s own currency, known as Special Drawing Rights. ONE also highlighted the need for accountability and transparency for these new funds.

Oxam reacts to G20 finance ministers

According to Max Lawson, Oxfam senior policy adviser, a tax on banks would be a major step towards clearing up the mess caused by their greed. “The G20 has a responsibility to act. Every minute around the world 100 people are forced into extreme poverty as a result of the economic crisis. Money raised by a financial transaction tax on banks could make a massive difference to the lives of ordinary people.” A global financial transaction tax could raise $1.15 trillion annually to help those affected by the economic crisis in both poor and G20 countries.

On tax havens Lawson said: “It is not sustainable for the G20 to protect themselves from tax havens while allowing them to continue to deprive poor countries of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. A multilateral deal to ensure all countries are protected from tax havens must be a key priority for the G20 in 2010.”

The Steinbrück tax proposal: No reason for too much optimism

Peer Steinbrück (see photo), Germany’s minister for finance, and Frank Steinmeier, his colleague in the foreign ministry, are in favour of a global financial transaction tax. They announced their proposal in a conversation with the national newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. "The costs for the crisis must not stay with the small and medium taxpayers", they said. "There must be a fair burden sharing." They suggest an international financial transaction tax, which is levied not only on currency transactions, like the Tobin Tax, but on all kinds of financial transactions, including equity, certificates and derivatives.

The idea had been initially suggested last year by the Vienna Institute for Economic Research WIFO (>>> Stephan Schulmeister, Margit Schratzenstaller, Oliver Picek, General Financial Transaction Tax Motives, Revenues, Feasibility and Effects). They propose a tax rate of 0.05%. Steinbrück also said, he would bring the issue on the agenda of the Pittsburgh G20 summit. The initiative comes two weeks after the head of the British supervisory authority, Lord Turner, had proposed to introduce a currency transaction tax.

Although the initiative gives a strong boost to civil society advocating the Tobin Tax or variants of it such as the Spahn Tax for decades “we should not be overoptimistic”, says Attac Germany’s Peter Wahl. According to him, the proposal has very much to be seen in the light of the German election campaign in the run-up to 27 September. “The Social Democratic Party (SPD) is, like all parties of New Labour, in a desperate situation. In recent regional and European elections the SPD was suffering the deepest decline in its 100 years of existence. At the same time the new left party DIE LINKE is getting stronger with the crisis and the issue of social justice becoming more and more to the forefront.”

Furthermore, Wahl explains, the Steinbrück proposal has not been agreed with the chancellor. Merkel has not yet reacted. But given her ideological and political dependence on the finance industry, it would be a miracle if she would accept to present the proposal in Pittsburgh. Last but not least, Steinbrück says that such a tax would have to be implemented at global level. This is a preventive explanation of failure, because he knows very well that Wall Street and the London City will not allow their governments to accept such a proposal. Nevertheless, civil society should use the opportunity and intervene strongly into the debate.