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
Liberty

[1708] Of o’er land of the free

I am in a rush but I cannot let this hour past without posting anything.

Happy Fourth of July.

Categories
Liberty

[1281] Of o’er land of the free

O say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;

O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

— The Star-Spangled Banner.

Categories
Economics Environment Humor Politics & government

[1228] Of too witty to be serious

Panda Kong:

Copyrights by The Economist. Fair use.

Roar!

IF THE guest list determined a meeting’s value, the Strategic Economic Dialogue between China and America on May 22nd would be a roaring success. Almost half the Chinese cabinet is trooping to Washington, DC, for the second of the twice-yearly discussions, conceived by Hank Paulson, America’s treasury secretary, between the world’s largest economy and its fastest-growing one. The process was designed, in large part, as an antidote to the latest case of Asiaphobia among America’s politicians. [America’s fear of China. The Economist. May 17 2007]

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

p/s — also at The Economist:

Conservationists—and polar bears—should heed the lessons of economics.

[]

One reason for this taxonomic inflation is that the idea of a species becoming extinct is easy to grasp, and thus easy to make laws about. Subspecies just do not carry as much political clout. The other is that upgrading subspecies into species simultaneously increases the number of rare species (by fragmenting populations) and augments the biodiversity of a piece of habitat and thus its claim for protection.

In the short term, this strategy helps conservationists by intensifying the perceived threat of extinction. In the long term, as every economist knows, inflation brings devaluation. Rarity is not merely determined by the number of individuals in a species, it is also about how unusual that species is. If there are only two species of elephant, African and Indian, losing one matters a lot. Subdivide the African population, as some taxonomists propose, and perceptions of scarcity may shift. [Hail Linnaeus. The Economist. May 17 2007]

Categories
Economics

[1203] Of ASEAN-EU FTA

After a stalled and disappointing Malaysia-US FTA negotiation, a better deal is coming our way. Today in Brunei, ASEAN and EU representatives met and agreed to start talking about a regional-wide FTA:

BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, May 4 (Bernama) — The European Union (EU) today agreed to enter into free trade area (FTA) talks with the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean) despite its strong feeling on the absence of Myanmar’s democratic reforms.

Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, told Bernama the 27-country EU’s stance on the junta-led Myanmar’s rights record has not changed although both blocs agreed that an FTA would provide for a comprehensive trade and investment liberalisation. [EU Puts Myanmar Aside, Proceeds FTA Talks With Asean. Bernama. May 4 2007]

While I am supportive of a bilateral FTA between Malaysia and the United States, multilateral FTAs such as the proposed ASEAN-EU are many times better than bilateral ones. A successful Doha Round would be best but pragmatism unfortunately forces us to choose less preferable paths toward greater prosperity and freedom.

I suspect that the EU would try to insert climate related issues into the proposed FTA. It would be interesting to see that.