Categories
Economics

[1969] Of Obama’s offshore tax is a protectionist taxation

The Obama administration plans to tax US-based corporations for revenue not originated from the US as part of effort to create more jobs in the US.[1] This will help neither the US economy nor the world economy to recover.

There are of course legitimate concerns with respect to tax havens as money laundering tend to happen there more often than not compared to elsewhere. But Obama administration’s proposed action will punish corporations for operating in countries with low taxes as well. The administration thinks that by doing this, those corporations will relocate its foreign operations to the United States if they are faced with the possibility of being taxed for operating abroad.

Indeed, if passed by the US Congress, the proposal may force corporations to reduce or abandon its operations outside of the US, unless they are willing to pay those taxes. Under a scenario where these corporations do relocated into the US, the corporations will suffer higher operations cost due to  prevailing environment in the US, compared to places like China or India. It is worth noting that these corporations operate parts of their business out of the US to take advantage of low cost environment, especially if industries which those corporations are in are labor-intensive.

With higher production cost, higher prices will have to be charged and consequently, less will be sold.

If the proposal goes through, it will not only punish those corporations. It will also punish low-tax countries. Worse, such tax is likely to hurt trade volume in times when many countries including Malaysia are heavily reliant on trade to recover.

This of course will only happen if the tax actually convince these US corporations — in reality, multinational corporations — to relocate into the US. Given lower operations cost abroad, the other possibility is that these corporations may actually relocate more of its businesses abroad, avoiding being labeled as US corporations to avoid the tax altogether. This will be bad for the US economy.

So, the possibilities here are: one, the US bringing the world down together with it; two, the US bringing itself down. Either way, the US will lose out. The third and better possibility, of course, is for the US to not impose that tax.

The proposed move should not be too surprising to too many people. The Democrats since at least 2004 — the days of John Kerry and John Edwards — have wanted to somehow punish firms that they accuse as shipping American jobs abroad, either through outsourcing or offshoring. That thinking is protectionist and the Obama administration’s proposal should be seen as a follow-up to that protectionist tendency that Democrats are known for.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — May 4 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama proposed raising about $190 billion over the next decade by outlawing three offshore tax-avoidance techniques used by U.S. companies such as Caterpillar Inc. and Procter & Gamble Co.

Obama’s plan also would make it riskier for Americans to stash money in tax-havens. [Obama Seeks End of Corporate Tax Break to Raise $190 Billion. Ryan J. Donmoyer. Bloomberg. May 4 2009]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Economics Science & technology

[1964] Of local pig rearers are panicking and unreasonably resorting to protectionism

Some people are panicking:

KUALA LUMPUR, April 27 (Bernama) — In light of the swine-flu outbreak in Mexico, the Federation of Livestock Farmers’ Association of Malaysia (FLFAM) has strongly urged the government to stop pork imports until the situation is resolved.

FLFAM market development manager and veterinarian Dr Kaw Eng Sun Monday advised the government to temporarily stop importing any pig breeding stocks from the United States, Canada and Mexico along with any pork products from around the world including Vietnam and China. [Pork Imports Should Stop Immediately: FLFAM. Bernama. April 27 2009]

A good move to follow?

I think he is panicking.

Or, really, I smell rats. After all, this appears like a conflict of interest. Here we have a local producer  requesting for a sweeping ban of imports of pork product. After all, the FLFAM not only wanted to stop imports from North America, it wants to stop imports from Vietnam and China too.

It is like hiding behind something to achieve a protectionist goal.

Why do I smell rats?

At the highly reputable Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

Can I get swine influenza from eating or preparing pork?
No. Swine influenza viruses are not spread by food. You cannot get swine influenza from eating pork or pork products. Eating properly handled and cooked pork products is safe. [Swine Influenza and You. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. April 26 2009]

Hmm…

Just say no to monopoly.

Categories
Economics

[1881] Of hypocritical protectionist

Do not resort to protectionism they say!

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 20 (Bernama) — Malaysia has cautioned World Trade Organization (WTO) members not to resort to protectionist measures as it can adversely impact the growth of global trade.

In making the call, Malaysia said countries should continue to adhere to their commitments to WTO when introducing domestic measures to counter the current economic and financial crisis.

“Malaysia remains non-protectionist despite the current global economic and financial crisis,” the Ministry of International Trade and Industry said in a statement here today. [Don’t Resort To Protectionist Measures, Says Malaysia. Bernama. January 20 2009]

And not 48 hours later:

Malaysia has banned the hiring of new foreign workers in factories, shops and other services.

The government said the move was to protect its citizens from unemployment during the economic downturn.

It has also told employers that if they want to cut back their workforce they must sack foreign staff first. [Malaysia bans foreign recruitment. BBC. January 22 2009]

It is hard to take the government seriously these days.

Categories
Economics

[1813] Of what is RM18 billion compared to RM100 billion?

In the Parliament, a Member of Parliament was concerned with the outflow of money due to foreign workers sending part of their wages back home. Finance Minister Najib Razak, in answering the MP, gave a piece of statistics which highlights the benefit of foreign workers.

PARLIAMENT, Oct 22 – Malaysia’s 2.1 million foreign workers repatriated RM9.11 billion for the first half of 2008 and Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak said the government expects it will total RM18.1 billion for the entire year.

“This averages out to RM720 per month sent home by each worker. However, the strong national reserve can withstand this as it amounts to just 4.7 per cent of our current reserve,” the Finance Minister told Parliament today.

He added that for every one per cent increase in foreign labour, Malaysia’s real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by 0.19 per cent.

Datuk Halimah Sadique (BN-Tenggara) had asked if any action would be taken to address the outflow and whether the government intends to impose any levy or tax on it. [Foreign workers repatriate RM9 billion until June 2008. The Malaysian Insider. October 22 2008]

Let us see. It says 1.00% increase of foreign workers leads to 0.19% increase in GDP. With nominal GDP of Malaysia being approximately RM505 billion in 2007, that means an additional 21,000 foreign workers add almost RM1 billion to the GDP. Now, assuming there is a linear correlation, 2.1 million foreign workers add RM100 billion to the economy. That is about 1/5 of the GDP of Malaysia. Granted, a linear relationship is unlikely and I can begin to criticize myself for the careless use of statistics but it does give us an estimated benefit ceiling.

A slightly more accurate estimate which circumvents the validity of linear assumption is this: 21,000 foreign workers lead to an outflow of about RM180 million (RM720 per capita per month; 12 months; 21,000 workers). In comparison, these workers add roughly RM1,000 million (that is RM1 billion) to the GDP at this particular point of time.

So, what is RM180 million to RM1,000 million? What is RM18 billion compared to RM100 billion?

Assuming that outflow is a loss to the local economy, returns from wealth generation is, at most, 400% larger than the outflow.

As we all can see, support for the continuing usage of foreign workers is grounded on empirical data.

Categories
Economics

[1516] Of stupidité

Hilarity of stupidity (via):

Did you hear the one about Amazon? It offered free shipping in France, got sued for it by the French Booksellers’ Union, and lost. Now it’s choosing to pay €1,000 a day rather than follow the court’s order. Ba-da-bing!

No, it’s not funny, but that’s because it’s not a joke. The Tribunal de Grande Instance (a French appeals court) in Versailles ruled back in December that Amazon was violating the country’s 1981 Lang law with its free shipping offer. That law forbids booksellers from offering discounts of more than 5 percent off the list price, and Amazon was found to be exceeding that discount when the free shipping was factored in. [Amazon’s free shipping costing €1,000 per day in France. Nate Anderson. ars technica. January 15 2008]

Protectionism is funny!