David Cameron's Foolish (or Cynical) Naivete about the Laffer Curve

Even though he's allowing the budget to grow twice as fast as inflation, some people seem to think the new U.K. Prime Minster is a fiscal conservative. I'm skeptical. Not only is spending rising much too fast (there are promises of more restraint in the future, but I'll believe it when it happens), but Cameron and the Tory/Liberal coalition government are increasing the value-added tax and increasing the capital gains tax. Perhaps worst of all, they are leaving in place the new 50 percent tax rate that former Labor Prime Minister Gordon Brown imposed in hopes that class-warfare policy would help him get elected. But as this Daily Telegraph story suggests, it is quite likely that the higher tax rate will lose revenue as productive people escape to Switzerland and other jurisdictions not influenced by the politics of hate and envy.

One-in-four hedge fund employees has already left London to move to Switzerland, which is said to have a more stable tax regime, according to consultancy Kinetic partners. Calculations by the company claim the UK could have already forgone about £500m in tax revenues, based on the 1,000 or so hedge fund managers it says have already left the country. ...High-profile departures this year include Alan Howard, founder of Brevan Howard, and Mike Platt, founder of BlueCrest Capital.

This story shows both the power of the Laffer Curve and the importance of tax competition. The greedy politicians in England doubtlessly resent the "brain drain" to Switzerland. Like their U.S. counterparts, politicians view taxpayers as serfs who are supposed to blindly produce more income for the ruling class to expropriate and redistribute.

While I'm obviously not a big fan of British fiscal policy, America is worse in one important way. At least British taxpayers have the liberty to leave without being raped by the U.K. tax authority. Once they leave the United Kingdom and make their home in Switzerland, they are no longer British taxpayers. Americans who want to move, by contrast, are unable to escape the punitive internal revenue code. Indeed, the United States is one of the few nations in the world to have exit taxes, an odious approach generally associated with loathsome regimes such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Obama Tax Plan: Putting Demagoguery Before Jobs

I've already commented on the Democrats deciding to wait until after the election before figuring out what to do about the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. This was a remarkable development since failure to extend these pieces of legislation means a big tax increase next January. But this doesn't mean the Democrats are sitting on their hands. The President has a proposal to significantly increase the tax burden on American companies that compete in world markets, and Democrats on Capitol Hill think this is a winning political issue. They think higher taxes will encourage companies to keep more jobs in America, and they hope voters agree. But as the Wall Street Journal opines, this is a recipe for undermining the competitiveness f American companies. This means fewer jobs, and probably less tax revenue.

...the President's plan reveals how out of touch Democrats are with the real world of tax competition. The U.S. already has one of the most punitive corporate tax regimes in the world and this tax increase would make that competitive disadvantage much worse, accelerating the very outsourcing of jobs that Mr. Obama says he wants to reverse. At issue is how the government taxes American firms that make money overseas. Under current tax law, American companies pay the corporate tax rate in the host country where the subsidiary is located and then pay the difference between the U.S. rate (35%) and the foreign rate when they bring profits back to the U.S. This is called deferral—i.e., the U.S. tax is deferred until the money comes back to these shores. Most countries do not tax the overseas profits of their domestic companies. Mr. Obama's plan would apply the U.S. corporate tax on overseas profits as soon as they are earned. This is intended to discourage firms from moving operations out of the U.S. ...Mr. Obama believes that by increasing the U.S. tax on overseas profits, some companies may be less likely to invest abroad in the first place. In some cases that will be true. But the more frequent result will be that U.S. companies lose business to foreign rivals, U.S. firms are bought by tax-advantaged foreign companies, and some U.S. multinational firms move their headquarters overseas. They can move to Ireland (where the corporate tax rate is 12.5%) or Germany or Taiwan, or dozens of countries with less hostile tax climates. We know this will happen because we've seen it before. The 1986 tax reform abolished deferral of foreign shipping income earned by U.S. controlled firms. No other country taxed foreign shipping income. Did this lead to more business for U.S. shippers? Precisely the opposite. According to a 2007 study in Tax Notes by former Joint Committee on Taxation director Ken Kies, "Over the 1985-2004 period, the U.S.-flag fleet declined from 737 to 412 vessels, causing U.S.-flag shipping capacity, measured in deadweight tonnage, to drop by more than 50%." ...Now the White House wants to repeat this experience with all U.S. companies. Two industries that would be most harmed would be financial services and technology, and their emphasis on human capital makes them especially able to pack up and move their operations abroad. CEO Steve Ballmer has warned that if the President's plan is enacted, Microsoft would move facilities and jobs out of the U.S.

I've commented on this issue before, but I think the best explanation is in this video, which makes the key observation that American tax law may be able to discourage U.S. firms from building factories in other nations, but that simply means that companies from other countries will be able to take advantage of those opportunities.



A lot of Democrats, at least in private, admit that going after "deferral" is bad policy. But this makes the current proposal especially disgusting. People in the White House and on Capitol Hill know it will hurt jobs and reduce competitiveness, but they don't care. Or at least they put political ambition before doing what's right for the American people.

If they really cared, the would fix what's wrong with the current system. A very effective way to encourage more jobs and investment in America is to lower the corporate tax rate, which is the point I made in the Center for Freedom and Prosperity's first video.

Another Measure of American Decline

I don't know if this is hope or change, but the United States fell from 2nd to 9th in the Forbes index of "Best Countries for Business." Denmark is first, which may be a surprise, but the Scandinavian country is very free market other than fiscal policy. Hong Kong, meanwhile, enjoyed the biggest increase.

The U.S. economy is teetering on the edge of a double-dip recession. High unemployment and a weak housing market are dragging down economic growth. But there's another major issue that isn't getting much attention these days: The business climate for entrepreneurs and investors in the U.S. is starting to lag behind other countries'. The U.S. dropped from No. 2 to No. 9 in our fifth annual ranking of the Best Countries for Business. Blame the high tax burden and a poor showing on trade and monetary freedom compared with many other developed nations. The 35% federal corporate tax rate is the highest of any OECD country according to the Tax Foundation. Meanwhile the government’s significant intervention in the economy during the economic downturn has weakened economic freedom in the U.S. ...A big mover up the rankings is Hong Kong, which swapped places with the U.S., moving up to No. 2 from No. 9. It scored in the top three for taxes, investor protection and both trade and monetary freedom.

The Top 10

1. Denmark
2. Hong Kong
3. New Zealand
4. Canada
5. Singapore
6. Ireland
7. Sweden
8. Norway
9. United States
10. United Kingdom

Don't Be Afraid of the Chinese Economic Tiger

The news that China has surpassed Japan as the world's second-largest economy has generated a lot of attention. It shouldn't. There are roughly 10 times as many people in China as there are in Japan, so the fact that total gross domestic product in China is now bigger than total gross domestic product in Japan is hardly a sign of Chinese economic supremacy. Yes, China has been growing in recent decades, but it's almost impossible not to grow when you start at the bottom - which is where China was in the late 1970s thanks to decades of communist oppression and mismanagement. And the growth they have experienced certainly has not been enough to overtake other nations based on measures that compare living standards. According to the World Bank, per capita GDP (adjusted for purchasing power parity) was $6,710 for China in 2009, compared to $33,280 for Japan (and $46,730 for the U.S.). If I got to choose where to be a middle-class person, China certainly wouldn't be my first pick.

This is not to sneer at the positive changes in China. Hundreds of millions of people have experienced big increases in living standards. Better to have $6,710 of per capita GDP than $3,710. But China still has a long way to go if the goal is a vibrant and rich free-market economy. The country's nominal communist leadership has allowed economic liberalization, but China is still an economically repressed nation. Economic Freedom of the World ranks China 82 out of 141, just one spot above Russia, and the Index of Economic Freedom has an even lower score, 140 out of 179 nations.

Hopefully, China will continue to move in the right direction. As Jonah Goldberg notes in his Townhall column, it is good for America to have China become a more prosperous nation.

Yes, technically, China's gross domestic product is now slightly ahead of Japan's. But GDP is a gross statistic. It doesn't tell you nearly as much as you might think. In a very real way, China is still poorer than Japan. It's also poorer than Tunisia, Ecuador, Gabon, Kazakhstan and Namibia. ...China still has enormous problems, many of which aren't reflected in its GDP growth rates, and without democracy, a free press and the rule of law, we can't know what all of the problems are until they explode (and neither can the Chinese). But all of this misses the most important point. Economic "competitiveness" is a con. It assumes that when other countries prosper, America loses. That's nonsense. If the average Chinese worker were as rich as the average Japanese worker, it would be an economic windfall for the United States. Conversely, if China's economy imploded tomorrow, we would "gain" competitively but suffer economically. The cult of competitiveness is just a ruse used to justify the ambitions of economic planners and the pundits who worship them.

Pontificating about Class Warfare Taxation in the New York Post

I have a column in today's New York Post about Obama's plan for higher taxes next year. My main point is that higher tax rates on the so-called rich have a very negative impact on the rest of us because even small reductions in economic growth have a big impact over time. This is a reason, I explain, why middle-income people in Europe have been losing ground compared to their counterparts in the United States. This is an argument I'm still trying to develop (this video is another example), so I'd welcome feedback.

The most important indirect costs are lost economic growth and reduced competitiveness. You don't have to be a radical supply-sider to recognize that higher tax rates -- particularly steeper penalties on investors and entrepreneurs -- are likely to slow economic growth. Even if growth only slows a bit, perhaps from 2.7 percent to 2.5 percent, the long-term impact can be big. After 25 years, a worker making $50,000 will make about $5,000 more a year if economic growth is at the slightly higher rate. So if this worker gets hit next year with a $1,000 tax hike, he or she understandably will be upset. In the long run, however, that worker may be hurt even more by weaker growth. ...The Obama administration's approach is to look at tax policy mainly through the prism of class warfare. This means that some of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts can be extended, but only if there is no direct benefit to anybody making more than $200,000 or $250,000 per year. That's bad news for the so-called rich, but what about the rest of us? This is why the analysis about direct and indirect costs is so important. The folks at the White House presumably hope that we'll be happy to have dodged a tax bullet because only upper-income taxpayers will face higher direct costs. But it's the rest of us who are most likely to suffer indirect costs when higher tax rates on work, saving, investment and entrepreneurship slow economic growth. When the economy slows, that's bad news for the middle class -- and it can create genuine hardship for the working class and poor. Indeed, punitive taxation of the "rich" is one reason why middle-class people in high-tax European welfare states have lost ground in recent decades compared to Americans.

New Academic Study Shows Obamanomics Will Undermine Prosperity

These results won't come as a surprise to anyone who has compared long-run growth rates in Hong Kong, the United States, France, and North Korea, but there's a new study by three economists showing that nations with better tax policy grow faster and create more jobs. There are many other factors that also determine growth, as this video explains, but punishing investors and entrepreneurs with high tax rates is never a good idea. Here's a passage from the study's abstract, including a specific warning about the anti-growth impact of Obama's plan for higher taxes in 2011.

Results indicate that lower tax rates are associated with more favorable economic activity, including growth in GDP, lower unemployment, and higher savings. These findings suggest that at the micro-level, corporate managers should consider tax rates when deciding to locate or not locate business operations within a given country, especially if the goal is to locate where the economy is dynamic. At the macro-level, before making changes to tax law, policy makers should carefully consider how tax rates affect economic activity. For example, policy makers in the US Congress, at the time of this writing, are considering whether to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010. If the Congress allows that to happen, the outcome would effectively be the largest tax increase in US history.

The White House Has Declared Class War on the Rich, but the Poor and Middle Class Will Suffer Collateral Damage

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of this year, which means a big tax increase in 2011. Tax rates for all brackets will increase, the double tax on dividends will skyrocket from 15 percent to 39.6 percent, the child credit will shrink, the death tax will be reinstated (at 55 percent!), the marriage penalty will get worse, and the capital gains tax rate will jump to 20 percent. All of these provisions will be unwelcome news for taxpayers, but it's important to look at direct and indirect costs. A smaller paycheck is an example of direct costs, but in some cases the indirect costs - such as slower economic growth - are even more important. This is why higher tax rates on entrepreneurs and investors are so misguided. For every dollar the government collects from policies targeting these people (such as higher capital gains and dividend taxes, a renewed death tax, and increases in the top tax rates), it's likely that there will be significant collateral economic damage.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration's approach is to look at tax policy only through the prism of class warfare. This means that some tax cuts can be extended, but only if there is no direct benefit to anybody making more than $200,000 or $250,000 per year. The folks at the White House apparently don't understand, however, that higher direct costs on the "rich" will translate into higher indirect costs on the rest of us. Higher tax rates on work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship will slow economic growth. And, because of compounding, even small changes in the long-run growth rate can have a significant impact on living standards within one or two decades. This is one of the reasons why high-tax European welfare states have lost ground in recent decades compared to the United States.

When the economy slows down, that's not good news for upper-income taxpayers. But it's also bad news for the rest of us - and it can create genuine hardship for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. The White House may be playing smart politics. As this blurb from the Washington Post indicates, the President seems to think that he can get away with blaming the recession on tax cuts that took place five years before the downturn began. But for those of us who care about prosperity more than politics, what really matters is that the economy is soon going to be hit with higher tax rates on productive behavior. It's unclear whether that's good for the President's poll numbers, but it's definitely bad for America.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner took the lead Sunday in continuing the Obama administration's push for extending middle-class tax cuts while allowing similar cuts for the nation's wealthiest individuals to expire in January. ...The tax cuts, put in place between 2001 and 2003, have become an intensely political topic ahead of the congressional elections this fall. Republicans have argued that extending the full spectrum of tax cuts is essential to strengthening the sluggish economic recovery. Geithner rejected that notion, telling ABC's "This Week" that letting tax cuts for the wealthiest expire would not hurt growth. ...On Saturday, the president used part of his weekly address to chide House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) and other Republicans who oppose the administration's approach, saying the GOP was pushing "the same policies that led us into this recession."

Driving Companies from the U.S. Market with too Much Regulation and Litigation

Almost every regulation presumably produces some benefit. The real issue is whether the benefits are significant and - even more important - whether they exceed the costs. Unfortunately, most regulations fail this common-sense test. A German magazine provides some good evidence, reporting that major companies from Germany are choosing to "de-list" from the New York Stock Exchange because of pointless regulation and costly litigation. This may not seem like much, but it is symbolic of a market that is increasingly unfriendly to business and entrepreneurship. Something to think about the next time you hear a politician wonder why more jobs aren't being created.

With expensive accounting rules, an increased threat of litigation and hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for some firms, the once prestigious New York Stock Exchange and other American markets have become unattractive to Germany's biggest companies. Daimler and Deutsche Telekom have fled this year and the few remaining are likely to follow. ...regulations introduced by the United States government in the wake of the accounting scandals in the early 2000s brought extra oversight and added costs for foreign companies listed on the NYSE. Of the 11 firms on Germany's DAX index of blue chip companies that were at one time listed on the NYSE, only four still remain: Deutsche Bank, Fresenius, SAP and Siemens. ...The attractiveness of the American capital market to German firms began to erode with Sarbanes-Oxley. ...From the start, companies voiced their displeasure with the high costs required to comply with the reforms. In one provision, companies were obligated to hire an independent auditor to monitor and report on the company's financial reporting. ...German firms cross-listed in the United States spent between €10 and €15 million annually on SEC compliance, a survey conducted by Stadtmann and his colleagues found. Most companies would not disclose the exact amount of money they spent on SEC compliance, but a Deutsche Telekom spokesperson told SPIEGEL ONLINE costs were in the "low double-digits" of millions of euros and another at Daimler said they did not exceed €10 million. When Telekom and Daimler announced their departures from the NYSE in April and May respectively, the main reason the companies said publicly was to reduce the complexity of financial reporting and administrative costs. On average, companies must add another five to 10 people to their payroll for SEC compliance alone, and a company may need a dozen workers for required executive compensation disclosures, says Miers. ...The double-digit costs of SEC compliance, however, are paltry compared the hundreds of millions of dollars in liability -- either through lawsuits or investigations and prosecutions -- to which a US listing can expose foreign firms. ..."What the SEC fully doesn't grasp to today is that dealing with the US regulation system is a nightmare," he says. "It's another reason to run to the exit door." Sarbanes-Oxley reforms also require a company executive to approve on all financial reports. "The most important thing (about Sarbanes-Oxley) is that the CEO and CFO sign for the financial statements," says Stadtmann. "All it takes is one person in the company to make a mistake and (an executive) can go to jail." ...Stadtmann believes Siemens will pull out at the first opportunity.

One Fish, Two Fish, High Tax, Low Tax

With apologies to Dr. Seuss, maybe that will be the name of a future book I'll write about the anti-competitive impact of high tax rates. And one of my chapters will be about what we can learn from the states. Richard Rahn's column in the Washington Times reviews some of the key evidence on this issue, noting that states without income taxes are enjoying better economic performance than states with income taxes. Not surprisingly, he also finds states with the highest tax rates are the ones in the most trouble.

Why is it that some of the states with the biggest fiscal problems have the highest individual state income tax rates, such as New York and California, while some of the states with the least fiscal problems have no state income tax at all? High-tax advocates will argue that the high-tax states provide much more and better state services, but the empirical evidence does not support the assertion. On average, schools, health and safety, roads, etc. are no better in states with income taxes than those without income taxes. More importantly, the evidence is very strong that people are moving from high-tax states to lower-tax-rate states - the migration from California to Texas and from New York to Florida being prime examples. ...It is interesting that the high-tax-rate states also, on average, have much higher per capita debt levels than states without income taxes. ...There have been a number of both empirical and theoretical studies showing the negative impacts of state income taxes and particularly those with high marginal rates on economic growth within the state. A recent study published in the Cato Journal by professors Barry W. Poulson and Jules Gordon Kaplan, which was carefully controlled for the effects of regressivity, convergence and regional influences in isolating the effect of taxes on economic growth in the states concluded: "Jurisdictions that imposed an income tax to generate a given level of revenue experienced lower rates of economic growth relative to jurisdictions that relied on alternative taxes to generate the same revenue." ...Income taxes, as contrasted with consumption (i.e., sales) taxes and modest property tax rates, are far more costly to administer and do far more economic damage (by discouraging work, saving and investment) and are far more intrusive on individual liberty. The states without state income taxes overall have had far better economic performance for most of the past several decades than have the income tax states - particularly those with high marginal taxes.

Good News from Romania

Redistributionists hate the flat tax, and this sentiment is widely shared by other statists. These proponents of big government want the tax system to to punish success and generate loot that can be used to buy votes (though they don't seem to understand that if they punish success too much, they won't actually get any additional money to spend, but that's a separate issue). This is why it's been amusing to watch nations in Eastern Europe adopt flat tax systems and compete with each other to have the lowest tax rate. The people who actually lived under communism are the ones most anxious to jettison the notion that a tax system should be based on "from each according to ability, to each according to need."

But this doesn't mean the flat tax is a permanent feature of the fiscal landscape in Eastern Europe. The high-tax nations of Western Europe don't like the flat tax. The bureaucrats at the OECD and European Commission don't like the flat tax. The IMF and World Bank don't like the flat tax. And, of course, there are always redistributionists in every nation who resent success and politicians who want more power. So it is remarkable that flat tax systems have been so durable. But I've seen several stories in recent weeks that the flat tax in Romania might be repealed and replaced with a class-warfare system. This would be bad news, and could be even worse news if it was the beginning of a trend. The good news, though, is that the Prime Minister just announced that there are no plans to change the system (notwithstanding the misguided views of the nation's Financed Minister). Tax-news.com reports.

During a recent gathering of small- and medium-sized enterprises in Bucharest, Romania’s Prime Minister Emil Boc announced government plans to maintain the flat tax of 16% imposed on income and profits, while also confirming plans to abolish the minimum tax from the autumn. Emphasizing that maintaining the flat tax was a fundamental objective of the government, Prime Minister Boc confirmed that the existing system would not be replaced by a progressive system of taxation, as it would not serve to generate additional income for the state budget. The government therefore has no reason to abolish the flat tax, Boc reasoned, which is also a symbol of stability and coherence of economic activity. Romanian Finance Minister Sebastian Vladescu had urged the government to move from the flat tax system of income tax, representing a bygone era, to a system of progressive rates, vital to supporting the state.

Americans Voting with their Feet to Escape Obama Tax Oppression

The Financial Times reports that the number of Americans giving up their citizenship to protect their families from America's onerous worldwide tax system has jumped rapidly. Even relatively high-tax nations such as the United Kingdom are attractive compared to the class-warfare system that Obama is creating in the United States. I run into people like this quite often as part of my travels. They are intensely patriotic to America as a nation, but they have lots of scorn for the federal government. Statists are perfectly willing to forgive terrorists like William Ayres, but they heap scorn on these "Benedict Arnold" taxpayers. But the tax exiles get the last laugh since the bureaucrats and politicians now get zero percent of their foreign-source income. You would think that, sooner or later, the left would realize they can get more tax revenue with reasonable tax rates. But that assumes that collectivists are motivated by revenue maximization rather than spite and envy.

The number of wealthy Americans living in the UK who are renouncing their US citizenship is rising rapidly as more expatriates seek to escape paying tax to the US on their worldwide income and gains and shed their "non-dom" status, accountants say. As many as 743 American expatriates made the irreversible decision to discard their passports last year, according to the US government – three times as many as in 2008. ...There is a waiting list at the embassy in London for people looking to give up citizenship, with the earliest appointments in February, lawyers and accountants say. ...“The big disadvantage with American citizens is they catch you on tax wherever you are in the world. If you are taxed only in the UK, you have the opportunity of keeping your money offshore tax free.”

To grasp the extent of this problem, here are blurbs from two other recent stories. Time magazine discusses the unfriendly rules that make life a hassle for overseas Americans.

For U.S. citizens, cutting ties with their native land is a drastic and irrevocable step. But as Overseas American Week, a lobbying effort by expatriate-advocacy groups, convenes in Washington this week, it's one that an increasing number of American expats are willing to take. According to government records, 502 expatriates renounced U.S. citizenship or permanent residency in the fourth quarter of 2009 — more than double the number of expatriations in all of 2008. And these figures don't include the hundreds — some experts say thousands — of applications languishing in various U.S. consulates and embassies around the world, waiting to be processed. While a small number of Americans hand in their passports each year for political reasons, the new surge in permanent expatriations is mainly because of taxes. ...expatriate organizations say the recent increase reflects a growing dissatisfaction with the way the U.S. government treats its expats and their money: the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that taxes its overseas citizens, subjecting them to taxation in both their country of citizenship and country of residence. ...Additionally, the U.S. government has implemented tougher rules requiring expatriates to report any foreign bank accounts exceeding $10,000, with stiff financial penalties for noncompliance. "This system is widely perceived as overly complex with multiple opportunities for accidental mistakes, and life-altering penalties for inadvertent failures," Hodgen says. These stringent measures were put into place to prevent Americans from stashing undeclared assets in offshore banks, but they also make life
increasingly difficult for millions of law-abiding expatriates. "The U.S. government creates conflict and abuses me," says business owner John. "I feel under duress to understand and comply with laws that have nothing to do with me and are constantly changing — almost never in my favor." ...Many U.S. expats report being turned away by banks and other institutions in their countries of residence only because they are American, according to American Citizens Abroad (ACA), a Geneva-based worldwide advocacy group for expatriate U.S. citizens. "We have become toxic citizens," says ACA founder Andy Sundberg. Paradoxically, by relinquishing their U.S. citizenship, expats can not only escape the financial burden of double taxation, but also strengthen the U.S. economy, he says, adding, "It will become much easier for these people to get a job abroad, and to set up, own and operate private companies that can promote American exports."

The New York Times, meanwhile, delves into the misguided policies that are driving Americans to renounce their citizenship.

Amid mounting frustration over taxation and banking problems, small but growing numbers of overseas Americans are taking the weighty step of renouncing their citizenship. ...frustrations over tax and banking questions, not political considerations, appear to be the main drivers of the surge. Expat advocates say that as it becomes more difficult for Americans to live and work abroad, it will become harder for American companies to compete. American expats have long complained that the United States is the only industrialized country to tax citizens on income earned abroad, even when they are taxed in their country of residence, though they are allowed to exclude their first $91,400 in foreign-earned income. One Swiss-based business executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of sensitive family issues, said she weighed the decision for 10 years. She had lived abroad for years but had pleasant memories of service in the U.S. Marine Corps. Yet the notion of double taxation — and of future tax obligations for her children, who will receive few U.S. services — finally pushed her to renounce, she said. ...Stringent new banking regulations — aimed both at curbing tax evasion and, under the Patriot Act, preventing money from flowing to terrorist groups — have inadvertently made it harder for some expats to keep bank accounts in the United States and in some cases abroad. Some U.S.-based banks have closed expats’ accounts because of difficulty in certifying that the holders still maintain U.S. addresses, as required by a Patriot Act provision.

Forget LeBron, the U.K.'s Crazy Tax Laws Are Chasing Away the World's Fastest Man

The tax benefits of LeBron James' move to Miami have received a lot of attention, but there's an even more interesting case on the other side of the Atlantic. The tax laws in the United Kingdom are so punitive that Usain Bolt might actually lose money if he took a big check for competing in England next month. The Tax-news.com story excerpted below reveals that many global superstars already avoid or minimize their appearance in Britain. Indeed, the top English soccer league is losing players to leagues in other nations for the same reason. The only silver lining to the story is that the U.K. government has decided to grant occasional exemptions for things like the 2012 Olympics. Wouldn't it be a better idea, though, to just get rid of the bad worldwide tax policy that is causing all the mess?

World and Olympic sprint champion Usain Bolt may pull out of a major sprint meeting in London next month because of Britain’s severe tax rules for foreign sportsmen and women. Jamaican Bolt was expected to line up against fellow stars Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell at the Crystal Palace event but faces a situation whereby he may pay more in UK tax than he actually earns from appearing in the event. This situation stems from a House of Lords ruling against tennis star Andre Agassi in 2006, which allows HM Revenue and Customs to impose tax on a portion of foreign endorsement earnings relating to performance of the endorsement contract in the UK. Other sporting stars have already curtailed their appearances in the UK for the same reason, among them Spanish golf star Sergio Garcia, who now restricts his UK appearances to once per year in the British Open. There was some concern in sporting circles that the tax burden would mean that some of the world’s top stars may decide not to appear at the 2012 Olympic Games in London. HMRC has granted an exemption for this event and for next year’s Champions League Final to be held at Wembley, but refuses to grant individual exemptions. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Mike Warburton, Tax Director at Grant Thornton, called the rule "stupid" and "damaging" to Britain's sporting reputation and its economy.

While Obama Fiddles, Ukraine and Taiwan Reduce Corporate Tax Burdens

The United States has the world's worst corporate tax system, with a job-killing tax rate of about 40 percent. In the European Union, the average rate is about 25 percent, but that's just one part of the world that is moving in the right direction. My Cato colleague recently did a blog post about Taiwan's politicians lowering that nation's corporate tax rate to 17 percent. Now Tax-news.com is reporting that Ukraine's government is doing something similar, reducing the corporate tax rate from 25 percent to 17 percent.

Ukraine’s new Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov has announced his government’s intention, in a revised tax code, to slash the country’s corporate income tax rate starting 2011, and then further on a transitional basis through 2014 to enhance the nation’s economic performance and fiscal attractiveness. According to the Prime Minister, the corporate income tax will be cut from 25% to 20% in 2011, and cut 1% annually from then on, until 2014 when the rate will stand at 17%. The Value Added Tax is to also to be reduced on a progressive basis over a similar timescale. Explaining the government’s methodology, Azarov was quoted by the national radio station NCRU as saying: “This innovative document is a real tax reform that will improve the investment climate in Ukraine and will improve the nation’s attractiveness for conducting business.”

It's worth noting that a low corporate tax rate is not a silver bullet for an economy with other bad policies. Ukraine has one of the world's most repressive economies, so reducing the corporate tax rate is just one of many reforms that is needed. But, all other things being equal, lower tax rates always are a good idea.

Russia Getting Rid of Capital Gains Tax

The former communists running Russia apparently understand tax policy better than the buffoons in charge of U.S. tax policy. Not only does Russia have a 13 percent flat tax, but the government has just announced it will eliminate the capital gains tax (which shouldn't exist in a pure flat tax anyhow). Here's a passage from the BBC report:

Russia will scrap capital gains tax on long-term direct investment from 2011, President Dmitry Medvedev has said. ...Mr Medvedev told the St Petersburg International Economic Forum that long-term direct investment was "necessary for modernisation". ...Its oil revenues fund, which has been financing the deficit, is expected to end next year, and the government wants to attract more foreign investment to boost the economy.

Sounds like President Medvedev has watched the Center for Freedom and Prosperity's video explaining why there should be no capital gains tax. Now we just need to get American politicians to pay attention.

When Billionaires Attack!

Here's a cheerful story I saw linked on Drudge, which shows that sometimes rich people are not guilt-ridden statists and instead stand shoulder to shoulder with ordinary people to fight bad government policy. In Australia, the leftist government wants to impose a class-warfare tax on the mining industry, but the scheme is backfiring as opponents point out such a levy will undermine national competitiveness.

It was, by any measure, a most unusual rally. Many of the placard-waving protesters gathered in a Perth park wore suits and ties, and impassioned speeches were delivered from the back of a flat-bed truck by two billionaires, including Australia's richest woman. Gina Rinehart's pearls glistened in the sunlight as she bellowed through a megaphone: "Axe the tax!" Ms Rinehart has a personal fortune of $4.8bn (£2.7bn). Andrew Forrest, in monogrammed worker's overalls, told the well-mannered crowd that Australia was "turning Communist". Mr Forrest is the country's fourth richest person, worth an estimated $4.2bn. ...Now Kevin Rudd's Labour government is planning to levy an extra tax on the mining industry, and the industry is furious. The issue has dominated the political agenda for weeks, and is even threatening to torpedo Mr Rudd's chance of being returned to power at an election due to be held before the end of this year. Labour, which had an unassailable lead over the conservative Liberal-National Party coalition six months ago, is now trailing by six percentage points, according to a poll this week. If that were translated into votes on election day, Mr Rudd would become the first prime minister for nearly 80 years to lose office after just one term. ...the mining companies, led by the multi-nationals BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, claim the tax will reduce their competitiveness and threaten thousands of jobs. Amid much fanfare, they have already shelved a number of projects. They have also launched a major advertising campaign. The government has responded with its own advertisements, using $38m of public money. Before coming to power, Mr Rudd promised to curb taxpayer-funded advertising on political issues. So far, the miners appear to be winning the argument. A poll commissioned by the industry, and conducted in nine marginal seats, found 48 per cent of people opposed to the super tax, with 28 per cent in favour. Nearly one in three said they were less likely to vote for Labour because of it.

America Becoming Less Competitive Thanks to Obama (and Bush)

For the past 15 years, America has been ranked as the world's most competitive economy according to the Swiss-based IMD World Competitiveness Center. In the 2010 report that was recently released, the United States fell to number three, trailing Hong Kong and Singapore. Obama deserves much of the blame, but a nation rarely become less competitive overnight and it is quite likely that the big government policies of the Bush years also are responsible for what will probably be a long-term decline in America's economic vitality. Here's a blurb from the Associated Press, followed by the top 10 from the IMD report:

Singapore and Hong Kong are the world's most competitive economies, an annual survey said Friday, demoting the United States from the top spot for the first time since 1993. The study lists 58 economies according to 328 criteria that measure how the nations create and maintain conditions favorable to businesses - a formula that had favored the U.S. for 16 years. ...Switzerland and Australia rounded out the top five. Then came Sweden, Canada, Taiwan, Norway and Malaysia.

Killing Jobs with Class Warfare Corporate Taxation

Richard Rahn's Washington Times column makes several key points about corporate taxation, including the fact that excessive taxation of capital (the corporate income tax being just one example) is extremely foolish such taxes impose the most damage - per dollar collected - when compared with other forms of revenue. To add injury to injury, the U.S. corporate income tax is especially destructive in a competitive global economy.

The majority of taxaholics are particularly addicted to the most destructive taxes, being the taxes on capital. Up to a point, perfectly sound arguments can be made for taxing tobacco, alcohol, gasoline, etc. However, taxing capital at high rates or double or triple taxing is nothing more than self-destruction. Capital is what business people use to hire workers and purchase new plants and equipment. Taxes on corporations, capital gains, dividends and interest are primarily taxes on capital - and the heavier the tax, the fewer new jobs. In a new report published by the Cato Institute, international tax experts Duanjie Chen and Jack Mintz at the University of Calgary in Canada state that the U.S. "statutory corporate income tax rate is one of the highest in the world ... which harms the economy and encourages companies to shift investment and profits abroad to lower-tax jurisdictions." (See attached chart.)The authors estimated effective tax rates for 80 countries. (Effective tax rates take into account statutory tax rates plus tax base items that affect taxes paid on new investment, such as depreciation allowances.) They found that the "U.S. effective corporate rate is 35.0 percent, which is much higher than the 80-nation average of just 18.2 percent."

For a more detailed explanation of why the corporate income tax should be reduced, see the very first video produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. It was supposed to be a test for internal purposes, and the production values are not as advanced (hopefully) as more recent videos, but the message is worth sharing.

Awful Tax System Causing a Growing Number of Americans to "Go Galt"

Being an American citizen is an honor in many ways, but it is a huge millstone around the neck for highly successful investors and entrepreneurs because of an oppressive and complex tax system. This is particularly true for those based in and/or competing in global markets. Indeed, because the tax system (and regulatory system) is so onerous and because it is expected to get far worse in the future, a growing number of Americans are actually giving up citizenship and "voting with their feet." The politicians view these people as "tax traitors" and are trying to erect higher barriers to hinder economic migration, particularly in the form of confiscatory "exit taxes" that are disturbingly reminiscent of the totalitarian practices of some of the world's most unsavory regimes. The Wall Street Journal recently reported on this issue:

The number of American citizens and green-card holders severing their ties with the U.S. soared in the latter part of 2009, amid looming U.S. tax increases and a more aggressive posture by the Internal Revenue Service toward Americans living overseas. According to public records, just over 500 people world-wide renounced U.S. citizenship or permanent residency in the fourth quarter of 2009, the most recent period for which data are available. That is more people than have cut ties with the U.S. during all of 2007, and more than double the total expatriations in 2008. An Ohio-born entrepreneur, now based in Switzerland, told Dow Jones he is considering turning in his U.S. passport. Mounting U.S. tax and reporting requirements are making potential business partners hesitate to do business with him, he said. "I still do dearly love the U.S., and renouncing my citizenship is not something I take lightly. But more and more it is seeming like being part of a dysfunctional family," said the businessman, who asked that his name not be used for fear of retribution. "The tax itself is only a small part of the issue," the Swiss-based entrepreneur said. "It's the overall regulatory environment." ..."Fifteen or 20 years ago there was a big rush to make sure your kids became U.S. citizens, for access to U.S. schools for example," said Timothy Burns, a tax lawyer at Withers law firm in Hong Kong. "Now we're seeing just the opposite." Last month, the Treasury Department announced more rigorous requirements for Americans living abroad to report information on foreign bank accounts. The reporting requirement has been in place for years, but only in the most recent couple of years has the IRS gotten tough about enforcing penalties. ...Others are giving up their U.S. nationality to avoid tax increases in the U.S., as the government struggles under huge budget deficits. The top marginal tax rate is set to rise to 39.6% from 35% at the end of this year. A proposal to tax fund manager pay at ordinary income rates, instead of the 15% capital gains rate, is gaining currency in Congress. "Everybody sees the tax rates are going up. At a certain point, it gets beyond people's pain threshold," said Anthony Tong, a tax partner at accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers in Hong Kong. Unlike most jurisdictions, the U.S. taxes the income of citizens and green-card holders no matter where in the world it is earned.

Europe Should Not Copy America's Imperialist and Anti-Growth Worldwide Tax Regime

The overall fiscal burden in the United States may be lower than it is in Europe, but there are some features of the internal revenue code that are far worse than what can be found on the other side of the Atlantic. America has a "worldwide" tax system, for instance, which means that our government interferes with the sovereignty of other nations by taxing income earned by Americans inside their borders. Good tax policy, by contrast, relies on the "territorial" principle of only taxing income earned inside national borders - and every other developed nation uses this system. Not surprisingly, both the flat tax and national sales tax are based on this common-sense approach. If an American earns income in Hong Kong, it should be up to Hong Kong to decide how that money gets taxed. Likewise, if a German earns money in the United States, then he is fair game for the IRS. There's an old saying that good fences make good neighbors, and territorial taxation is the fiscal policy equivalent of this sound rule. Not surprisingly, however, other nations want to mimic this horrible feature of the American tax code. The Financial Times is even urging European nations to jointly make that misguided choice. Fortunately, it is almost certain that some nations will refuse to join in such a statist cartel:

The US is unique in using citizenship in determining whether a person’s worldwide income is subject to taxation. Most countries do not impose tax on their citizens who are not resident within their borders – apart from any income that is sourced in that country. But the US system has much to commend it. After all, any citizen of a country enjoys the implicit legal and physical protection it affords. ...provision is made to avoid double taxation. Moreover, there is an exit for individuals who do not accept it as they can renounce their citizenship and move elsewhere. But perhaps the best thing about it is that a worldwide system linked to citizenship is simple and easy to understand. Most American citizens do accept it, although more have handed back their passports recently. It would be hard for, say, the UK or Germany to introduce such a system unilaterally. There would be the risk of citizens jurisdiction-hopping by swapping one passport for another within a common economic area. But all European Union states could introduce the same rule. That would not be impossible. After all, EU countries already co-ordinate their policies on savings taxes and their tax authorities exchange information.

The Flat Tax: Good for America, Bad for Washington

America's biggest fiscal challenge is excessive government spending. The public sector is far too large today and it is projected to get much bigger in coming decades. But the corrupt and punitive internal revenue code is second on the list of fiscal problems. This new video, narrated by yours truly and produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, explains how a flat tax would work and why it would promote growth and fairness.