April 21 (Bloomberg) — Richard Stovin-Bradford of the Financial Times’ Lex commentary team talks with Bloomberg’s Erik Schatzker about the International Monetary Fund’s recommendation to the Group of 20 nations to tax financial institutions’ non-deposit liabilities and the sum of profit and compensation to help pay for future bailouts of the industry. (Source: Bloomberg)…(read more)

LEARN MORE ABOUT: Bank Failures

REVEALED: Best Investment During Inflation

HOW TO INVEST IN GOLD: Gold IRA Investing

HOW TO INVEST IN SILVER: Silver IRA Investing

Recently, the Financial Times’ deputy opinion editor, Robert Stovin-Bradford, discussed the proposed bank tax for bailouts in a video in English. The video, titled “Should banks pay for bailouts?” explores the idea of a tax on banks to cover the costs of any future bailouts.

Stovin-Bradford starts by discussing the 2008 financial crisis and the damage it caused. He notes that governments around the world were forced to bail out many of their banks with the use of taxpayers’ money. The costs of the bailouts were enormous, and there was a sense that the banks had been reckless in their lending practices, leading to the crisis in the first place.

In response to this, the idea of a bank tax was proposed. The thinking was that the banks should shoulder some of the costs of any future bailouts, rather than relying solely on the taxpayers. Stovin-Bradford explains that there are two types of bank tax that have been proposed: a levy on bank profits and a tax on the liabilities of banks.

A levy on bank profits is the simpler of the two options, and would involve taking a percentage of bank profits as a tax. This would mean that banks would be contributing to a bailout fund each year, and the fund could be drawn on if needed in the future. The downside of this type of tax is that it would be difficult to implement fairly, as some banks may have larger profits than others.

A tax on the liabilities of banks would be more complex. This would involve taking a percentage of a bank’s total liabilities, including debts and deposits. The idea behind this tax is that it would make the banks more aware of the risks they are taking, and would encourage them to be more careful in their lending practices. The downside of this tax is that it could discourage lending, which could have a negative effect on the economy.

Stovin-Bradford concludes the video by noting that neither of these taxes is perfect, but that something needs to be done to ensure that the banks are held accountable for their actions. He suggests that a combination of the two taxes may be the best approach, as it would help to spread the burden of any future bailouts across the industry.

Overall, Stovin-Bradford’s video on the proposed bank tax for bailouts is a thought-provoking and informative explanation of one of the key issues facing the financial industry today. Whether or not a bank tax is introduced in the future remains to be seen, but for now, it is clear that the debate surrounding the issue will continue to rage on.