Categories
Economics

[2571] Cars, duties, congestion, pollution, revenue and income effect

Several new points were raised with regards to my post on duties and cars yesterday. One was pollution, two was government revenue and three, in one way or another, income effect. It is not exactly income effect but close enough.

Concern number one is easy. But let us state the pollution concern. The concern is that there is already too many cars on the streets and there is a need to reduce pollution, which I take as carbon and other greenhouse gases emissions. I also take that as actually reducing the number of cars. But here is the thing, substitution to foreign cars may actual reduce emissions without having to reduce the number of car on the roads. The reason is that comparable foreign cars-European, Japanese and possibly Korean-have higher emission standard than locally-produced cars. With more competition, consumers have a chance to choose emission-efficient cars over relative gas-guzzlers without too much price variation. End result: less emission given the quantity of cars.

Concern number two deserves a very libertarian answer. Cut government spending instead. The duties on foreign cars were always meant as protectionist measure, not primarily for revenue-generating purpose. The revenue derived from the duties should really be considered as a bonus. Except that the government is so used to it, that it forgets. With the fiscal discipline, they need the bonus. One way to cut spending is to cut fuel subsidy. In fact, tax it. Yes, tax fuel purchase.

Concern number three is harder to address and I actually thought about it but ultimately decided to not touch it. As try to explain it below, you will understand why I decided against touching it.

Income effect (not exactly but close) or specifically, the new competitive environment may push prices down across the board. This may be true and I have alluded to this in an article I wrote for The Malaysian Insider earlier. In turn, this may increase vehicles on the road as more are able to purchase cars. Or it may not. There is a sound theoretical case for an increase, but there is also a sound theoretical case for the opposite.

Initially, I wanted to address this in terms of stickiness and temporally. In English, prices will adjust only slowly to a new reality. More technically, all-in prices of domestic cars are sticky and that of foreign cars are not.

Why do I apply stickiness on domestic cars but not foreign cars? It is because the abolition or the reduction of duties is easy to calculate. It is on top of the car price in the sense that pre-duties prices are associated with the way companies run their business. It is this pre-tax, pre-duties prices that are sticky.

Most of domestic car prices are made up of sticky components. For foreign-manufactured cars, a significant portion of its end prices are made up of non-sticky components, i.e. the tax and the duties. This is why I apparently apply stickiness only on domestic cars. In truth, I am applying stickiness on both domestic and foreign cars while taking into account domestic cars have significantly less portion of non-sticky components than foreign cars, within the context of import duties abolition.

Also, consider this. The net earnings of Proton in 2011 was not even 2% of its revenue. How much room Proton has for a serious price war? Not much in the near future. This, I think, is an indication that there is a price floor: there is not much incentive to push price of sedans down too much beyond whatever Proton is charging. Proton cannot charge less anyway.

So, in the short term, the specific income effect will not be present. And no traffic congestion issue.

The long term issue is hard to say. It depends on non-cooperation (it is quite possible for firms to achieve implicit understanding in price settings without getting into trouble with anti-trust law).

Ultimately, it depends on how efficient those under pressure can be. What is certain is that that takes time.

It also depends on how low prices would get. I have not done the calculation but I have a feeling, both Proton’s small margin and game theory will provide a floor how low prices can get. And foreign manufacturers definitely would not want to price their cars so low as to earn a loss. Furthermore, that would be dumping and they will get into trouble with that.

So, in the long run, it may, or it may not have effect on congestion.

Besides, if there would be worse congestion, it would be very naive to think there is no other accompanying policy to address it. I have one immediately in my mind: congestion fee within the cities.

Categories
Economics

[2570] Abolition of import duties on foreign cars will not increase congestion because there is substitution effect

I advocate the abolition, or at least a significant reduction of import duties (and other excessive taxes) on cars as well as the abolition of the approved permits system that blow up the prices of foreign-manufactured cars to an outrageous level. This should come at no surprise because I am a libertarian. I do generally support freer trade. Make no mistake, the policy on cars is a protectionist policy.

There is a concern that if duties on imported cars are slashed down significantly or abolished entirely, this will exacerbate traffic congestion in Malaysian cities. At first, this sounds like a very big and legitimate concern. It is not.

If one understands that the duties are imposed on foreign marques and that there is such a thing as  substitution effect, one will understand that the concern on worsening traffic congestion is misplaced. I suspect it is almost always raised by those without enough formal education in microeconomics.

Do understand that imposition of high duties are on foreign cars. This is the nuance. Too many talk as if it is applied across the board, including on Proton and Perodua marques. The peril of generalization is that you lose the nuance.

The duties make domestically-produced cars cheaper than foreign cars and this should be a no-brainer.

It is no coincident that a majority of cars on Malaysian roads are Protons and Peroduas. Malaysians buy Protons and Peroduas because those cars are cheap. There are not too many of those who can buy more expensive cars. If I recall correctly, the number of Protons and Peroduas and other locally-produced cars dwarf the number of foreign-manufactured cars in this country. I do not have the statistics at home but I do have it at the office. I will share it tomorrow and correct my assertion if it is proven to be incorrect.

If foreign cars are suddenly competitively priced after the abolition of various pre-exisiting duties imposed, new buyers will be tempted to purchase those foreign cars, which are many ways of higher quality than Proton at least. Perodua probably can stand up within its market niche.

Now, if the duties persist, these new purchasers would probably buy Protons and Peroduas.

Notice that there will be purchases of car anyway.

To put it in clearer terms, if the status quo remains, people will buy local cars. If it does not much to the benefits of Malaysian consumers, they will buy higher quality foreign cars. For those whom would have bought foreign cars anyway, it does not matter as far as traffic congestion is concerned. They would still buy their cars. It is not about discriminated duties that Malaysia has that I along with others like-minded persons want abolished.

So, the concern for traffic will exist as long as Malaysians purchase cars and it really does not matter whether the duties are abolished. The trend for greater quantity of cars on the road is really a secular one. It has to do with affluence growth and population growth more than anything, and the availability of a reliable public transport system within this context.

Those who argue that the traffic condition will worsen if those duties are removed just do not understand that those cars are substitute goods.

This does not mean the abolition of import duties do not matter. It matters in terms of welfare. It matters in terms of competition. It matters in a lot of other more important ways. But not in terms of congestion.

Categories
Economics

[2568] Will government revenue fall with tax relief associated with private pension fund?

The Prime Minister finally launched a private pension fund. I am supportive of the idea of private and voluntary pension fund, but I am not going to discuss that here.

What I find interesting rather is that contributors to the private fund are entitled to RM3,000 tax relief in a year. This raises one question: will that lower potential tax revenue for the government significantly in the future?

Consider a person that pays income tax of exactly RM3,000 in a year. Rather than pay that tax, it would be rational for him to put in RM3,000 in the private fund. The money remains his and he may even get extra returns from that. For the government, that is RM3,000 worth of potential revenue loss.

Now, the estimated 2011 income tax revenue derived from individuals was RM20.2 billion according to the Monthly Statistical Bulletin for May published by the Bank Negara.[1] According to a report by the New Straits Times, 2.5 million individuals were expected to file their 2011 taxes.[2] That means on average, a taxpayer paid approximately RM3,628 worth of income tax.

Of course, not everybody paid RM3,628 worth of income tax. According to the 10th Malaysia Plan, about 44% of house household earned less than RM2,5o0. Individuals within these household do not pay income tax. About 76% of household earn less than RM5,000. Households earning less than RM5,000 but more than or equal to RM2,500 may or may not pay income tax depending on who among them work. In short, the distribution of payment from taxpayers are skewed.

It is hard to link the household data to the 2.5 million expected tax filers. First, not all filers pay tax. Second, the household data assume each household has four persons in it. I would assume 2 working adults in the household. But that does not have to be the case in reality and this will affect calculation for income tax paid by the 76% household.

But, if we were to take the average blindly, if we all were rational and optimized our finances, if we were still in 2011 and if the private fund tax relief were in place in 2011, that would suggest that the government would have lost RM7.5 billion worth of income tax revenue. In 2011, the federal government suffered a fiscal deficit of RM42.5 billion, or 4.8% of nominal GDP. Without the RM7.5 billion, the deficit-to-GDP ratio would have been 5.7%.

One could take comfort that 5.7% deficit would be the maximum damage and the actual damage would be lower than that. But would still be higher than the actual 2011 deficit of 4.8% and that is the point.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
[1] — KUALA LUMPUR: AROUND 2.5 million Malaysians are expected to submit their taxes through e-Filing system this year. Inland Revenue Board public relations officer Masrun Maslim said this was an increase of 28.87 per cent compared with last year. [More taxpayers opting for e-Filing. New Straits Times. March 17 2012]

[2] — See the May 2012 Monthly Statistical Bulletin at Bank Negara Malaysia. Extracted on July 19 2012.

Categories
Economics

[2200] Of proposed tax cut on savings interest in Australia

Holding all else constant, I do not like tax. I do not think, too many people actually like paying tax.

I only rationalize the need for paying tax by holding on to classical rationale for the need of the state: that there is externality. The state is there to protect individual liberty which, generally, cannot be guaranteed in anarchic environment. I say generally because I am still reading Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia and he has some idea how that maybe false. Yes, I am still reading it. But I am digressing.

Like I have mentioned earlier, I do not like tax. And some taxes are worse than others. One of the worst that can exist is tax on savings in one form or another. In Australia, much to my dismay, savings is taxed. More precisely, they tax interest gained on savings.

Tax on savings has its purposes. For one, it encourages spending to promote economic activities. Or allegedly. Islamic economics for one has this goal imbued in it due to its objection to the concept of time value of money, a concept which necessarily brings in the concept of interest. Without interest, there are less reasons to save for tomorrow and more reasons to spend it all today. Tax on interest earned on savings does that albeit to a lesser degree.

Whether that purpose is good or bad is a normative question that cannot be answered with the end set. And I know my end and I frown at the end of taxation savings. In promoting the economy, it penalizes prudent spenders and it penalizes effort to smooth out consumption by savers.

I say allegedly because savings can be turned into loans and that encourage economic activities. There are ways to promote economic activities without penalizing savers. Indeed, that is how the banking sector helps grease the economy. Fractional banking is a magnificent social technology that takes care of that.

In Australia now, there is a big discussion regarding tax reform. Called the Henry tax review, the report was released just days ago. It aims to reform the Australian tax system. One way it seeks to support those reforms is by proposing a large tax on miners. That is dominating the headlines. There appears to be a war between the big miners and the Rudd government right now.

Meanwhile, many other details slip away from public attention. One of the details is the proposed cut on interest earned on savings.[1]

I like that particular proposed tax cut. Hell, I always like tax cut. I hate giving away money that I earned just like that.

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

[1] — The review proposes a 40 per cent discount on all income from savings, as well as on all residential rental income and losses, and capital gains.

These recommendations were widely flagged prior to yesterday’s announcement, with critics saying the current system doesn’t give enough incentives for workers to put money in savings accounts. [The Henry tax review – what it means for you. Chelsea Mes. News. April 15 2010]

Categories
Economics

[2176] Of Lim Guan Eng probably does not know that everybody pays SST

Opponents of the introduction of goods and services tax (GST) in Malaysia have raised a number of points.

Some of the points are valid even if they are disagreeable. Sometimes, the disagreement is ideological and difference is due to premises originating from separate irreconcilable positions. Those points are fine because at least they are logical and honest.

Some, like opposition to GST based on regressiveness, are plainly illogical and wrong however. Some are pure bullshit of gargantuan magnitude, i.e. if the tax rate is 4% and there are four points within a value chain, the total tax rate paid by the end consumer is 16%. One made by Lim Guan Eng at an anti-GST forum some weeks ago is disingenuously irrelevant.

Mr. Lim stated that under GST, everybody will be taxed.[0] It is true that everybody, in a sense that any anybody who consumes a particular taxed good regardless of income levels, will be taxed. But this line of argument presumes that everybody has not already been taxed.

Unfortunately for Mr. Lim, consumers in Malaysia have already been taxed through a consumption tax that is theoretically as flat and as regressive as GST. That tax is the sales and services tax (SST).

Because of the untrue presumption, his argument is irrelevant.

Why is the argument irrelevant?

To evaluate the worth of his argument, a comparison between GST and status quo scenarios has to be made.

Why?

Remember, the proposal is to replace SST with GST. The desirability of one option has to be defined in terms of the desirability of the other and vice versa. In other words, ask the question, “why one option is better than the other?” Absolute statement does not help in decision-making. Relative statement does.

Further, for Mr. Lim’s — and increasingly what is becoming one of Pakatan Rakyat’s as well as others parrot the argument without thinking — argument to be relevant, the status quo must consist of a scenario where not everybody is being taxed. There is no such status quo: the status quo has SST in place.

What is the point of arguing as Mr. Lim has done so when everybody has already been taxed — in fact, taxed at a higher rate? Remember, the current GST  is planned to be introduced at 4% while the current SST rate ranges from 5% to 10% and there are goods taxed at even 20%.[1]

Both SST which is currently in place, and GST, will affect everybody. If one opposes GST on the basis of how GST affects everybody, then the person has to oppose SST too. Therefore, that person should be indifferent between having GST and SST. One simply cannot make sense if one bases one’s opposition on how GST will affect everybody.

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

[0] — Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said with the old sales and services tax system, only some 1.5 million of the total of 12 million workers are taxed but its replacement with the GST will mean everyone, including poor workers, will be affected. [Pakatan bets on GST to muscle BN out. The Malaysian Insider. February 29 2010]

[1] — See Sales Tax. Accessed December 3 2009.