Posted on 02/26/2008 3:57:18 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The German government's purchase of data stolen from a Liechtenstein bank has reinvigorated longstanding debates about privacy, law enforcement and international relations. Much of the fallout has followed predictable patterns. Some argue that Germany's richest citizens should be brought to justice for failing to comply with the tax laws, while others point out that it is unseemly for a nation to spy on a peaceful neighbor.
The conflict between Germany and Liechtenstein also has triggered a broader debate about tax competition and the role of so-called tax havens. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is trying to use the imbroglio to resuscitate its initiative against tax competition. Willem Buiter, a professor at the London School of Economics, is using the issue to push an even more radical agenda: the forcible annexation -- by nations like Austria and France, under some unknown authority -- of jurisdictions such as Liechtenstein, Andorra and Monaco.
At best, these crusades against tax havens are misguided. At worst, they are an effort to create a tax cartel for the benefit of high-tax nations. This OPEC for politicians would mean higher tax rates for everyone and bigger government.
Wealthy tax evaders may not be sympathetic figures, especially to those of us who meekly comply with the law. But low-tax jurisdictions serve a valuable role in the world economy. Simply stated, they keep other governments honest. Globalization makes it easier for labor and capital to cross national borders, forcing governments to improve tax policy to keep the geese with the golden eggs from flying away.
Tax competition first became a big issue following the Thatcher and Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s. Responding to the increased attractiveness of the U.K. and U.S. economies, every single industrialized nation has been forced to lower personal tax rates in an effort to stay competitive. The average top tax rate in the developed world has dropped from more than 67% in 1980 to barely 40% today.
The same thing is happening to corporate tax rates. Back in 1980, corporate tax rates averaged nearly 50%. Today, led by Ireland's 12.5% corporate tax, the average corporate rate in the industrialized world is less than 27%. As the World Bank explained in its recent "Paying Taxes" report, these lower rates create incentives for more investment, which leads to faster growth, more jobs, higher incomes and what Berlin seems to be most concerned about: better compliance.
Perhaps most amazing, there is now a flat-tax revolution sweeping the globe. In 1980, there were just three flat-tax jurisdictions. Today, prompted by Estonia's 1994 reform, there are 25 governments with simple and fair flat-tax regimes.
All of these reforms have yielded big benefits -- particularly for the nations that have been the most aggressive tax cutters, notably Ireland, Estonia and Slovakia.
But tax rates are just part of the equation. In an ideal tax system, income also should be taxed just one time. This means no death tax, no wealth tax and no double taxation of interest, dividends or capital gains. Politicians often are tempted to impose extra layers of tax on saving and investment, both because they think such policies will give them more money to spend and because voters sometimes are sympathetic to class-warfare campaigns to "tax the rich." Yet the academic literature increasingly shows that excess taxation of capital income causes significant economic damage, largely because people have less incentive to set aside some of today's income to finance tomorrow's growth. High tax rates on saving and investment also cause inefficient tax-avoidance behavior.
Tax havens are particularly helpful since they encourage governments to reduce tax biases against saving and investment. From Sweden to Spain, politicians in Europe have been lowering tax rates on capital income. Death taxes have been killed. Wealth taxes have been abolished. And many nations have adopted lower tax rates for capital income.
Governments are improving their tax systems because they know that punitive tax burdens cause capital flight. In other words, they have finally realized that it is better to have modest tax rates and collect more tax revenue than it is to have confiscatory tax rates and collect less revenue.
But more important, the changes caused by tax competition and tax havens are good for ordinary people. The global economy today is much stronger than it was in the 1970s, in part because tax laws are much less hostile to work, saving and investment. This mean more jobs, higher income and greater prosperity. As Richard Teather of Bournemouth University noted, in a 2005 book published by London's Institute for Economic Affairs, "tax havens benefit us all, whether or not we personally invest through them."
Liechtenstein has a tax code that rewards productive behavior, and it is now the world's third-richest jurisdiction according to the World Bank. German tax laws, by contrast, are rated among the world's worst by the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report. Liechtenstein has privacy laws that respect individual rights, but which also have received a green light from the Financial Action Task Force and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for being tough on dirty money. Perhaps most interesting, Liechtenstein scores highly on the World Bank's six governance indicators, beating out nations such as -- you guessed it -- Germany.
None of this should be surprising. Researchers have found that tax havens consistently rank as the best governed, most stable, fastest growing and most prosperous places in the world. Promoting better policy in other nations, though, may be their most important role. If Liechtenstein is forced to act as a deputy tax collector for other nations, the world's taxpayers will be the biggest losers.
Just invade...then it won’t be able to be such a pesky tax haven anymore.../sarc
One of the big reasons why leftists vilify Reagan and Thatcher.
And the United States has a bill before congress that eliminates the income tax completely and creates a national sales tax. It would make the US the strongest tax haven in the world.
With the Fair Tax, the US would attract rivers of international investment capital. It would drive down interest rates, support the dollar and send the stock market soaring. Everyone, with the exception of democrat pols and their imagined victims wins.
BTTT
I have been on many tax threads and anti FairTaxers make themselves heard loud and clear about all the "pitfalls" of a national retail sales tax. Sure there are pitfalls. But where are the tax reform ideas?
The only one that I know of that has gotten any traction with politicians and voters is the FairTax. If someone has a better idea they sure haven't done anything about it.
Thanks for helping to promote the Flat Tax.
The FairTax is a truly American innovation far superior to any of the various flat-income-tax schemes that are in turn superior to their graduated income tax cousins.
Americans need not follow others in their flat-income-tax success, they have a better system that is much closer to the original ideas of its founders, the FairTax.
Got proof?
Hard numbers?
oh... wait...
Tell me how we ever get to a flat tax and stay there without a constitutional amendment prohibiting tax incentives and tax penalties.
“Perhaps most amazing, there is now a flat-tax revolution sweeping the globe.”
He must mean the part of the globe outside of North America because “the flat tax” (as if that term denoted a single proposal) sure isn’t sweeping the US. Politically, it’s on life support. If the flat taxers really wanted to get their proposal some traction, the first step would probably be to get the leaders like Dan Mitchell, Dick Armey and Steve Forbes together and let them determine the design of a specific plan that they could all get behind. And that proposal would not be a flat tax option, which I believe is what Mr. Forbes advocates.
Well you certainly don't do anything to promote it. It would be a hell of a lot better than your current income tax scheme.
Do you favor a flat tax or a tariff?
Oh, what's the use. You already spent your wad on estate planning and, if the income tax disappeared tomorrow, you would have wasted your money. You have a vested interest in keeping the income tax so, never mind.
You really love to live in the world of wild speculation, don’t you.
People go with what works... that is unless your “fairtax people”
Speculation? It was you, Mr. Dromedary, who made the outlandish claim that you (and your lawyers) engineered the largest tax free generational transfer of wealth in history. (At least that's what the lawyers told you as they handed you the bill).
In order to do that one must spend a substantial amount of money on design and trusts and so forth. It ain't cheap. Therefore you have a vested interest in keeping the income tax as it exists.
That's why you have never answered this question that I have asked you numerous times:
Do you favor maintaining the income tax and the IRS as they currently exist?
All: He's never answered that question although he comes on these threads as disruptor endlessly.
You still feel the need to trade on personal information and denigrate others to feel better about yourself, when indeed you could learn something?
How’s your “best buds” TGA20 and b_babe doing? You keeping in touch?
Only an income tax preservationist could call returning someone's tax payment welfare and ignore the Marxist origins of the income tax.
You still feel the need to trade on personal information and denigrate others to feel better about yourself, when indeed you could learn something?
I have never traded in personal information and you know it. You, OTOH have attacked me and my profession and my clients in a very personal and base manner. You should have been banned from Free Republic.
How’s your “best buds” TGA20 and b_babe doing? You keeping in touch?
No.
It speaks volumes that you have ignored the substance of my previous post. Instead you make personal attacks. Typical, and not at all surprising.
You attempt to denigrate everyone you disagree with as many, many would attest.
Worst of all, you attempt (unsuccessfully) to turn it around, acting all innocent, when everyone can see your version of “the emperor’s new clothes”
And when you post something with substance, naaah... not gonna happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.