Taxing Banks: Divergent Proposals to Address Extraordinary Profits

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

January 30, 2026

Overview Of The Debate

The ongoing discourse in Parliament has taken a new turn as political factions spearhead proposals to levy additional taxes on banks, aiming to capture the extraordinary profits these institutions have generated in recent years. Two parties have taken differing legislative approaches, each proposing a tailored fiscal measure set to be scrutinized before Parliament’s dissolution in April, amid expectations of early May elections.

AKEL’s Proposal: An Extraordinary Solidarity Levy

AKEL advocates for an extraordinary solidarity levy targeting banks for the fiscal years 2025-2026. The measure seeks to impose a 40% charge on the increment of net interest income compared to the benchmark year of 2022—the year that marked the rise in interest rates. In effect, approximately 20% of total banking profits would be subject to additional taxation, with generated revenues earmarked for the State General Fund. According to the proposal, these funds would later support targeted initiatives such as subsidizing new and existing mortgage loans and providing relief to vulnerable borrowers. More details can be found in AKEL’s outline of the solidarity levy.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

ELA’s Proposal: Revising The Special Bank Tax

In contrast, ELA (ΕΛΑΜ) has tabled a legislative amendment aimed at revising the framework of the current special bank tax. The proposal recommends raising the tax on total deposits from 0.00375% to 0.07%. ELA defends this adjustment as both equitable and fiscally advantageous, arguing that it will foster a fairer redistribution of the financial sector’s returns, while concurrently reinforcing public finances.

Political Dynamics And Anticipated Challenges

Despite the robust fiscal rationale behind these proposals, both measures face significant headwinds. Parties such as DISY and DIKO, consistent with their previous coalitions on similar issues, are likely to align against these proposals. Moreover, the Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank, and the Bankers’ Association have already expressed reservations, indicating complex negotiations ahead as these proposals await review by the Parliamentary Committee on Economic Affairs prior to a full Assembly vote.

Conclusion

The contrasting initiatives from AKEL and ELA underscore a broader debate on how best to harness bank profits for public benefit. As discussions progress, the outcome will not only shape the national fiscal landscape but may also set a precedent for future fiscal policies in the financial sector.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

Copyright Law Struggles To Keep Up With AI Training

by News Editor

August 24, 2026

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.

Breaking news