In Defence of Eduardo Saverin

If a tax evader is someone that actively attempts to minimize his tax burden than Eduardo Saverin is a tax evader. A Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin has given up his US citizenship and moved to Singapore. The effective tax rate in Singapore is of only 20% and by giving up his American citizenship before last Friday’s 16 Billion dollar IPO Saverin stands to save hundreds of millions of dollars in capital gains taxes. Whether he admits it or not he is a tax evader. However he is not a tax cheat. What he has done is legal, moreover it is also moral. Avoiding taxes is never really frowned upon until American politicians get involved. Was Bill Gates lambasted in the media for setting up shop in a state with no income tax where he probably saved Billions in dollars in taxes? No he was lauded for helping reserve the US’s hegemony in the information technology sector.

Why has Saverin received no equivalent praise? He was the first investor in Facebook plucking his life savings into an idea that would probably never have developed into the phenomenon it now is. Without Saverin there might never have been a Zuckerberg. Can you imagine the risk involved in putting thirty thousand dollars of your savings into your friends company based on nothing but entrepreneurial faith?

Democrats and left leaning media often like to remind people that they ‘owe’ their wealth to the country that cradled their aspirations, educated them and provided the consumers to underpin their wealth. This whole social contract idea is their main justification for gouging the wealthy with taxes. But should Saverin and Zuckerberg be thanking America for their success or should it be America thanking them? America was built on the entrepreneurial and industrious spirit of its citizens, without entrepreneurs their would be no America, at least not as we know it today. Without taxes dependent on the wealthy there would be no medicaid, medicare, government backed student loans or military, so one could probably be excused for believing that society owes as much to the wealthy as they do to society.

In any case Facebook’s success cannot only be attributed to America alone. Facebook did not receive any meaningful business press coverage or Hollywood interest for that matter, until it reached 500 million users or roughly double the internet population of the US. At almost a Billion users much of Facebook’s success can be attributed to its global reached and not its American footprint. Without Saverin initial investment there wouldn’t be a Saverin to tax.

What is more worrying though is not the accusations of immoral wealthiness but rather the legal ramifications of some political fomentations against the Facebook co-founder. Attempts to legislate against individuals rights to choose their country of residence even for tax purposes is Orwellian indeed. One’s right to vote with his feet is probably the most important right of all. Enshrined in the American Constitution is the right to free mobility, why can this right be stopped at the border, are we talking about the US or the USSR here? Wealth leaving a country is the price to be paid for choosing high taxes that aren’t globally competitive. The price to be paid for imposing mobility restrictions on capital however will be tantamount to putting a stop sign at the borders entries not just exits. Saverin is of Brazilian of origin and chose the US for its perceived liberties commercial and otherwise, how many future Saverins, Sergei Brins or George Soroses will chose Singapore from the get go instead of New York and California.

There will be a high economic price to pay for this liberticide political behaviour and that is the real scandal here!

A Conservative Budget

Minister Flaherty scratching his shoe instead of his head

This was probably one of the more tame federal budgets in decades. Although it may be spilling a lot of ink now, expect the upheaval to be very short lived. While the Opposition may pay a little more attention than most to the budget, it is so unremarkable that they will probably return to criticizing such bills as C-10 and C-30 and keep the focus on the Robocalls scandal. As unremarkable as this budget may be, like all budgets it deserves much scrutiny for what was in it, what wasn’t and why its measures are so incremental.

Before we begin scrutinizing the budgets fine print, it must be said that the budget speech had one element in it deserving much praise. Rising up in the house of Commons to deliver his budget, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty spoke often of Canada’s fiscal leadership among industrialized nations. He noted recurring that Canada led the G7 in some manner or form when it came to public finance. Something in the rhetoric changed. After lavishing his government with much praise he proceeded to explain that Canada could not only benchmark itself against the wealthiest nations of the World, but should also compare itself with the ‘fastest’ and most dynamic growing nations of the World. It seems that if anything the conservatives have at least learned that comparing oneself to the wealthiest is no sign of merit when they are the economies that are the most stagnant in the World. This kind of talk can only lead to policy better aligned with the realities of the 21st century World dynamic.

Moving on to some of the less praise worthy moments of yesterday, let’s look at some of the new policies introduced and their short comings. In an effort to fill the glut of job openings in the western provinces the federal government will move to enhance immigration matching. The intentions of the action are praise worthy, the means may also be effective and fair, however one solution has not been explored. Employment insurance in Canada is atomized. While the program is national in scope and the premiums equal in all provinces, the hours contributed necessary for eligibility vary widely across regions, payout lengths are also regionally discriminatory. The result of this is while unemployment remains elevated in eastern Canada, job openings go unfilled in the west. Canada’s EI system encourages Canadians not to move to seek employment it encourages regional structural unemployment. So while the Premier of Saskatchewan is off in Ireland to go recruit that countries skilled unemployed labourers Newfies sit at home cashing in the dole waiting for the fishing season to start again. With standardization of EI across Canada the government could have hit two birds with one stone: reduce lost output in the west because of labour shortages and reduced unemployment in the east because of -job shortages. Than economist say they are puzzled with Canada’s international un-competitiveness, simply shameful.

Another issue Minister Flaherty often raises is the problem of an over heating real-estate market. No signs of cooling down the next Canadian Bubble. While almost all agree Vancouver and Toronto’s markets are over heating and the country is building condos at a breakneck pace, the minister choses to do nothing about it in his budget. The simplest and most efficient way to calm down the real estate market AND reduce the deficit would have been to phase out interest deductibility. This would in a sense incentivise the deleveraging of the entire Canadian economy which could have adverse effects on output if implemented too fast. A measured and gradual elimination of interest deductibility would reduce the tax incentive to speculate with borrowed money hence reducing leverage (bad), speculation, (bad), bubbles (bad) and the deficit (bad). So in fact this could have been a 4 birds 1 stone kind of solution.

One categorically adverse proposition in the budget has to do with the new R&D regime. The current plethora of R&D programs cost Canada $3 Billion or so. The Jenkins Report submitted to the federal government essentially called the money wasteful. The report stated that the money wasn’t helping to foster technology or competitive improvements. While a simple solution would have been to scrap this corporate welfare all together and just drop the corporate tax rate proportionally to the savings, the government decided to go down another path. The Conservatives chose to transform the R&D tax credits into direct subsidies. Completely reprehensible and irresponsible. Not only will bureaucrats start picking winners and losers. The R&D programs will now be open to graft, bribery or political interference as has been seen in other jurisdictions. Canadians often admonish Americans for not emulating their successful policies. Well I think it appropriate for Americans to admonish Canadians for emulating their failures. That the federal government hasn’t heard of Solyndra, a near household name down south, is a testament to narrow vision. At least government intervention, interference and market distortion seems to stop there in this budget.

Corporate and personal taxes not part of the plan, eh? No new corporate tax rate reductions planned. This is probably the Conservatives not adding salt to their unions wounds. Why unions love corporate taxes is still beyond me, but in any case no drops in personal and corporate taxes are envisioned. This is objectionable. The corporate tax remains one of the largest sources of economic inefficiencies  and a double tax on the wealthy and middle class. Any lack of effort on this front is meritorious of its own lambasting post. Canada remains middle of the pack in the OECD in terms of corporate taxes, as the Finance Minister said himself we need to compete aggressively with the up and coming economic powers of tomorrow not the stale economies of the yesterday.

The cuts to government departments’ operating budgets are mild and inconsequential to say the least. As has been mentioned by other commentators, the cuts in civil service employment levels do not even match the Conservatives hirings since 2006. Canada will still be saddled with more bureaucrats than before the Conservatives took office. The planned yearly operating efficiencies of $5.2 Billion. When Canadians were being fed numbers between 4 and 10 Billion dollars the actual number is only conservative in its timidity and aversion too splashiness. In terms of defining themselves as fiscal conservatives, the governments efforts are halfhearted at best. Some of the long term efforts at spending consolidation deserve applause: OAS change from 65 to 67, enhanced OAS benefits after 70 and all civil servants increased pension plan contribution. The short term efforts leave many, including the Canadian Taxpayers Association, short of admiration.

One important announcement, although not budgetary in nature, will surely get greeno Mulcair riled up. The government’s plan to cap all environmental reviews to 24 months (thats two whole years for those not paying attention) is a great boon to Canada. Let’s just admit it their is no reason (even for environmentalists) to want businesses to expand resources, government bureaucrats to waste time and the Canadian economy to lose steam just so that great business projects get merely slowed down by our overly stringent and public review system. That’s not to say that when talking about Canada’s pristine Wild we should all be environmentalist, but when an energy project is good and going to get approved anyway why waste everybody’s time. Seriously Green Peace, the Oil Sands may be bad (I didn’t say are, I said maybe) they’re a bleep in the environments radar, you should be scared of China’s industrialization, not northern Alberta’s botox gone awry.

The bottom line is that this is a timid, non-game changer budget. This is not how to win fiscal conservatives votes. This is not how to improve fiscal or macro-prudential policy. None the less it’s not a terrible budget, there is more good than bad. Let’s hope this budget is popular enough to convince people to let the Conservatives do what they got elected to do: Make government smaller!

Shout out to our Malaysian readers,

Cius

“Francois Hollande” or “Homo Economicus Has Left the Room”

Many people may be forgiven for forgetting that France is one of the Worlds great nations. Let’s gloss over some of France’s economic credentials. Fifth largest nominal GDP, ninth largest in PPP adjusted terms and second largest economy in the European Union. Fifth largest exporter in the World, with over half a trillion of exports annually. Member of the G8 countries, G20 group, OECD, third highest military spending in the World and second largest gross foreign aid provider. Needless to say this stature and success has arisen because of the hard work, industriousness, and entrepreneurial spirit of the French people. The French people while reveling in their stature externally are much more cynical about their successes at home. Most Frenchmen speak of the “Glorious Thirty” and the “Pitiful Thirty” years, eras of post-war economic boom and subsequent economic stagnant malaise. Much attention and commentary is dedicated in political and intellectual circles to restoring the lost equilibrium of previous times of plenty. Much media analysis revolves around the stagnant fortunes of the French way of life and the middle class’ dwindling standard of living.

The French are also quite the political people. A country were successive constitutions have put the onus of wealth creation on governments and on individuals but only through their political choices. France thus, has seen successive ideologies and political currents wrestle with the central question of balancing collective wealth and well being with that of the individual. One might assume that through its rich political and governmental experiences certain lessons of history might have been learned. Moreover, the French being great internationalists and multilateralists, one might further assume that the country strives to benefit from the experience of its fellow nations with regard to its great equity dilemma. One would, seemingly, be wrong to assume these things. The popularity of France’s current presidential candidate front-runner would leave any Homo economicus perplexed.

The first big splash by the ‘Parti Socialiste’ presidential candidate came when he announced on live television that he wanted to impose a 75% top marginal income tax rate for revenues over a million euros. Other policies announced supposed to reduce ‘inequality’ were; a maximum lowest paid worker to CEO salary ratio of 1 to 20 and a new tax bracket from 150 000 euros to 1 000 000 at a higher 45% marginal rate (currently standing at ~41%). In Hollande’s campaign platform other musings are added to the effect of reducing income tax deductibles for the wealthy. Now, what might be the effect of such policies? (aside from giving Swiss bankers a collective orgasm). One effect would be to vilify the wealthy, to the point where many might leave, if not most. Since most wealthy people (first generation at least) are entrepreneurial and industrious business builders, maybe the intention is to reduce wealth and job creation? One French daily has aptly called the phenomenon of geographical tax jurisdiction arbitrage “Fiscal Exodus”. If the Laffer curve central thesis remains correct, all other things equal, the number of wealthy Frenchmen in Brussels, Geneva and London may well continue to swell.

Ultimately these measures are only for show. They only serve the populist and demagogic purpose of insuring the poor and disenfranchised vote with the socialist. A Hollande aide confessed that the measure might only bring in 250 million extra euros to the treasury, a paltry sum compared to the economic damages the policies will wrought. A policy that is sure to impact the treasury much more severely will be the promise to return the minimum legally insured retirement age back to 60 years of age. The present right of center French administration pushed through an increase in the minimum legally guaranteed retirement age to 62 from sixty back in 2010. The measure was put into place to more or less avoid a Greek fiscal fiasco when baby boomers begin to retire ‘en masse’. Francois Hollande plans to jettison that law, because he believes, apparently, that for every 2 years worked in one’s life, one deserves a year of retirement on average. Add on to that policy his intention to re-tinker the corporate tax rate (35% for large co.’s and as low as 15% for very small enterprises) this would cement France’s third place in the highest corporate tax rates for industrialized nations category. Combine the fact that progressiveness in corporate tax rates is just an incentive for small corporations to generate a maximum of dividend by not reinvesting profits into growth and the fact those marginal rates are going up and it would seem the French Socialist Party is on a war against international competitiveness!

While the above policies don’t really hold up to current economic thought standards, they can be forgiven as staples of the Left’s campaigning and showmanship. The policies that really drive me up the wall are Hollande’s policies towards the Euro. The first policy is one of negotiating a new fiscal treaty where Euro bonds would be issued. With benchmark French 10 year bonds yielding over 90 basis points over similar maturity German Bunds, the trans-Rhine cash grab is barely veiled. No wonder Angela Merkel does not want to meet her greedy potential counterpart. The second Euro Zone focused policy is even more morally hazardous than the first. The socialist candidate wants the ECB to adopt a dual mandate of inflation targeting and growth promotion. Never mind the moral hazard of bailing out broke Euro members, has nobody in the socialist party opened a Monetary Policy introductory book in the last 20 years? Since the early 1990’s central bank after central bank have shifted their monetary policy objectives from currency targeting and growth maximization to inflation targeting with invariably positive results. For a leading candidate to the highest public office of one the greatest nations of the World, to have such a crass and laymen understanding of fundamental economics is astounding to say the least.

So, while arguably the most archaic central bank of them all (the Fed) moves towards greater transparency and is subtly shifting its policy onus from a balance between inflation and growth towards inflation targeting, the French socialists want the ECB to move 20 years backward and forsake its stellar inflation record. Hollande could just as well shout out “To hell with responsibility and orthodoxy”. So let us recap. While the American Left embodied by the democrats and President Obama talk of lowering corporate taxes (to 28% at last check) and encourage the Fed to be more contemporary, the French Left embodied by Hollande wants to turn back the clock of time to a time were symbolism and intentions matter more than results, where its central bank would be ‘nicer’ to poor countries and its corporate tax rate would be higher. Let’s hope that sober economic thought prevails at the end of this campaign, because so far it’s only been mired in intellectual mediocrity. France has always wanted to go against the grain of conformity, who would have know that being conform even in success was so distasteful.

Shout out to our Ghanaian readers!

Cius