銀行擠兌專家：塞浦路斯計(jì)劃真“荒唐”

????是的，我有割一磅肉的欲望，但存款稅不會(huì)阻止國家和銀行的債務(wù)上升，特別是，如果這是一次性征稅的話，那就更不可能了。如果潛臺(tái)詞是，這是我們唯一的一次對(duì)存款征稅，那么下次又會(huì)發(fā)生些什么——我們會(huì)把這個(gè)國家的年輕人都變成奴隸。這種說法不可信。這就是號(hào)稱一次性的問題。

????似乎有些極端。最后的提議是對(duì)小額賬戶僅征稅3%。

????針對(duì)銀行賬戶、而不是一般財(cái)富或收入征稅，這種征稅方式有些古怪，看起來也很不公平。無論稅率多低，都可能對(duì)銀行體系造成很大傷害。存款稅一旦開征，就會(huì)促使人們尋找其他選擇。這意味著更多的金錢最終將流入監(jiān)管難度更大的影子銀行體系。而影子銀行問題正是引發(fā)美國金融危機(jī)的原因之一。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

????Yes, I get the desire for a pound of flesh, but a tax on deposits, especially when you are saying this one-time thing won't stop countries and banks from running up debt. If the subtext is that this is the only time we are going to ask for deposits, what's going to happen the next time - we put that country's youth into slavery. It's not believable. That's the problem with selling one-offs.

????Seems a little extreme. The last proposal was to tax small accounts just 3%.

????A tax focused on bank accounts and not general wealth or income will have a strange incidence, and seems extremely unfair. And no matter how small, it can do a lot of damage to the banking system. Whenever you impose a tax on deposits you push people to find alternatives. And that means more money ends up in the shadow banking system, which is much harder to regulate. That's what in part led to the U.S. financial crisis.