IMF告诉约翰·希利:应针对养老金或福利,而非银行
Target pensions or welfare, not banks, IMF tells John Healey
以下为原文逐段中文翻译,保留图表与说明。AI 翻译并经 AI 对照复核,仍可能存在错误;核对数据和引用时请同时查看原文。译文发布:2026年10月17日 06:30(北京时间)。
国际货币基金组织(IMF)敦促约翰·希利(John Healey)在本月晚些时候的预算中,把节约的目标对准养老金和福利,而不是对英国的银行征税。
在《卫报》披露希利计划向银行业寻求额外收入后,IMF欧洲部副主任赫尔格·贝格尔(Helge Berger)被问及银行税问题。
贝格尔回答说,鉴于英国当前的高税收占GDP比率,或许最好把“重点”放在削减开支上。
他说,如果需要额外的税收收入,改革房产税或增值税可能是一个不错的起点。
他补充说:“归根结底,当税收约占GDP的40%——对英国来说,这在历史上是个很高的数字——那么当然,在财政(支出)方面平衡这些措施,在那方面多做一点,是很有道理的。”
作为例子,他提到了养老金三重锁——工党已表示将对其进行改革——以及“更好地瞄准社会福利”,并补充说:“我认为这才是你应该着重的地方,而不是你提到的那种税。”
贝格尔是在曼谷发表上述言论的,IMF本周在那里举行了年会。
金融城的游说者倾巢而出,警告政府更高的税收可能迫使银行收紧放贷,冲击经济,甚至迫使一些银行将工作岗位和业务迁往海外。
在10月12日——计划增税的消息传出前几天——发给希利并抄送首相安迪·伯纳姆(Andy Burnham)的一封信中,英国金融协会(UK Finance)首席执行官戴维·波斯廷斯(David Postings)分享了该游说团体委托进行的研究。
该研究提出,撤销保守党对银行附加税的削减——将其从3%恢复到8%——将使英国2029-30年的年度GDP实际值比原本应有的水平低12亿英镑。
他说,这还将导致银行发放更少的商业贷款和抵押贷款,2029-2030年的放贷额可能比附加税保持在3%时低104亿英镑。
“英国银行业已经为整体经济做出了至关重要的贡献,”波斯廷斯的信中写道。“为了维持这一至关重要的贡献,预算应避免对银行专项税的任何上调,因为这将可能制约该行业放贷和投资的能力。”
然而,英国工会联盟(TUC)对英国税务海关总署(HMRC)企业税收数据的分析显示,自2023年附加税削减生效以来的三年里,财政部已损失了60亿英镑。
与此同时,银行一直报告强劲的利润,很大程度上得益于高利率,高管们随后增加了银行家奖金池,并向股东派发了数十亿英镑。
总体而言,英国四大银行——汇丰(HSBC)、国民西敏寺(NatWest)、巴克莱(Barclays)和劳埃德(Lloyds)——今年前六个月报告的利润为292亿英镑,其中近一半、即137亿英镑通过股息和股票回购承诺给投资者。过去五年,这些银行攫取了2000亿英镑的税前利润。
作家、前银行家菲利普·奥格(Philip Augar)表示,银行正“享受着繁荣的环境”,部分归功于良好的管理,但部分归功于“并非它们自己造就的”经济环境。他说,仍有“适度增税”的空间,每年可增加约20亿至30亿英镑的收入。
“首相说过,税收负担必须落在肩膀更宽的人身上,而目前,很难想到有哪个行业的肩膀比银行业宽得多,”奥格周五对BBC《今日》节目说。
虽然银行不能指望利率带来的好处永远持续,奥格说,银行——包括那些在2008年金融危机中获救的银行——不能两头都占。
“银行业具有周期性,这是事实。但当它遭遇真正艰难的时刻时,它指望纳税人出手纾困,”奥格说。“当它迎来繁荣时期时,它又指望某种特殊待遇。银行不能既‘大到不能倒’又‘大到不能征税’。”
一些银行威胁称,如果英国增税,它们将撤出在英投资,并可能撤走工作岗位,游说团体指出,法兰克福、都柏林和阿姆斯特丹等竞争性金融中心的总体税负更低。
美国最大银行摩根大通(JP Morgan)的掌门人杰米·戴蒙(Jamie Dimon)今年5月表示,如果英国政府对银行怀有敌意,他可能会放弃在伦敦建造30亿英镑新总部的计划。
但奥格说,政府需要看穿这些虚张声势。“看来在英国有业务的大型国际银行——摩根大通、花旗集团(Citigroup)、桑坦德(Santander)、汇丰等——发起了一场协同行动。
“但他们总是这么说,(而)他们很少真的搬走。我认为,如果财政大臣拿捏得当,通过适度增税或某种其他形式从银行获取资金,那么业务仍会留在英国。”
展开英文原文 · 与中文逐段对应
Target pensions or welfare, not banks, IMF tells John Healey
The International Monetary Fund has urged John Healey to target savings on pensions and welfare, instead of taxing Britain’s banks at the budget later this month.
Helge Berger, deputy director of the IMF’s European department, was asked about bank taxes after the Guardian revealed Healey plans to tap the sector for additional revenue.
Berger replied that given the UK’s current high tax-to-GDP ratio, it might be better to “put the emphasis” on cuts.
He said if additional tax revenue were needed, reforming property taxes or VAT might be a good place to start.
He added: “Ultimately, with taxes roughly at 40% of GDP – historically, for Britain, a high number – then of course balancing these measures on the fiscal [spending] side, doing a bit more there, makes good sense.”
As examples, he highlighted the pensions triple lock – which Labour has already said it will reform – and “better targeting [of] social benefits”, adding: “I think that’s where you would put the emphasis, rather than the tax that you mentioned.”
Berger was speaking in Bangkok, where the IMF has held its annual meetings this week.
City lobbyists have been out in full force, warning the government that higher taxes could force banks to throttle lending, hitting the economy and even forcing some lenders to move jobs and operations abroad.
In a letter sent to Healey and copied to the prime minister, Andy Burnham, on 12 October, days before news of the planned tax hike broke, the chief executive of UK Finance, David Postings, shared research commissioned by the lobby group.
It suggested that reversing Tory cuts to the bank surcharge – taking it back to 8% from 3% – would leave annual UK GDP £1.2bn lower in real terms by 2029-30 than it would have otherwise been.
He said it would also see banks issue fewer business loans and mortgages, with lending likely to be £10.4bn lower in 2029-2030 than if the surcharge was held at 3%.
“The UK’s banking sector already makes a vital contribution to the wider economy,” Postings’ letter said. “To sustain this vital contribution, the budget should avoid any increases in bank-specific taxes, as this would risk constraining the sector’s ability to lend and invest.”
However, TUC analysis of HMRC corporate tax receipts shows the Treasury has already lost out on £6bn over the three years since the surcharge cut came into force in 2023.
At the same time, banks have been reporting strong profits, largely off the back of high interest rates, with bosses subsequently increasing banker bonus pots and handing billions of pounds to shareholders.
Collectively, the UK’s four largest lenders – HSBC, NatWest, Barclays and Lloyds – reported £29.2bn in profits over the first six months of the year, with almost half, £13.7bn, pledged to investors through dividends and share buybacks. Over the past five years, those banks have raked in £200bn in pre-tax profits.
Author and former banker Philip Augar said the banks were “enjoying boom conditions”, partly due to good management but partly due to economic conditions “not of their own making”. He said there was room for a “moderate increase in taxation” that would raise about £2bn to £3bn a year.
“The prime minister has said that the burden of taxation has to fall on those with the broader shoulders, and at the moment, it’s hard to think of a sector where the shoulders are much broader than the banking sector,” Augar told the BBC’s Today programme on Friday.
While banks could not expect interest rates benefits to continue forever, Augar said that banks – including those that were bailed out in the 2008 financial crisis – could not have it both ways.
“Banking is cyclical, it’s true. But when it hits really rocky times it expects the taxpayer to bail them out,” Augar said. “When it hits boom times, it expects some kind of special treatment. Banks can’t be too big to fail and too big to tax.”
Some banks have threatened to pull investment, and potentially jobs, from the UK if it hikes taxes, with lobby groups noting smaller overall tax charges in rival financial centres like Frankfurt, Dublin and Amsterdam.
Jamie Dimon, who heads up the largest bank in the US, JP Morgan, said in May that he could scrap plans for a new £3bn London headquarters if the UK government became hostile towards banks.
But Augar said the government needed to see past the bluster. “There seems to have been a coordinated campaign by the big international banks who have businesses in Britain – JP Morgan, Citigroup, Santander, HSBC and others.
“But they always say this, [and] they rarely move. I think that if the chancellor judges this right, with a moderate increase in taxation or some other form of getting money from the banks, then the business will remain in the UK.”
查看本期独立摘要
中文独立摘要 · AI 整理
这件事
国际货币基金组织敦促英国财政大臣约翰·希利在本月晚些时候的预算中,将节流重点放在养老金和福利上,而非对英国银行业征税。《卫报》此前披露希利计划向银行业额外征税。IMF欧洲部副主任赫尔格·伯杰被问及银行税时回应称,鉴于英国税收占GDP比重已很高,或许更应“把重点”放在削减开支上。他表示若确需增加税收,改革房产税或增值税可能是好的起点。他指出,英国税收约占GDP的40%,并提及养老金“三重锁定”和更精准地发放福利。
本页概括所列来源的重点,属于独立摘要;完整报道请阅读原站。整理时间:2026年10月17日 04:44(北京时间)。
信息从哪里来
依据 The Guardian 的RSS 摘要与原文节选整理,事实核对限于列明材料;不是原文全文翻译。
- The Guardian 来源报道(RSS 摘要与原文节选)