Tag: government spending

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[3004] Expanding the tax base requires rationalization, sequential approach and public buy-in

The ongoing exercise to expand Malaysia’s tax base (the most popular discussion is the expansion of the sales and services tax, but there are other taxes at play too) has got me revisiting several relevant issues. There are multiple factors to think about in making the policy a success: tax regimes, tax types, distributional effects, redistribution policy, subsidies, etc. These factors cannot be looked at in isolation. Yet, it is possible to talk of them individually as long as we do not lose sight of their interconnectedness.

In that spirit, the five items I have been pondering the most in recent days are:

  • the needs for base expansion
  • political constraints
  • rate of expansion (gradualist versus abruptic approach)
  • spending goals
  • policy sequencing and communication

The needs are clear. The expansion of the sales and services tax is a necessary step towards fulfilling the inevitable requirement for greater public expenditure in multiple fields. The areas are especially healthcare, education, infrastructure (for the purpose of energy transition, data, public transport and climate adaptation) and defense. I have a (partial) list of challenges that Malaysia faces that necessitate greater public spending.

Yet, nobody likes to pay taxes regardless of the legitimacy and benefits of the tax-funded spending. The time horizon mismatched between the benefits of greater public spending and the cost of higher taxation does not work well with voters who mostly more attuned to short-term concerns over long-term considerations (instant gratification factor), and private challenges over public objectives (the tragedy of the commons-like tension). Add concerns for corruption and leakage into the mix (reflecting a low-trust society), this makes any tax hike sensitive to the domestic political stability (or perhaps more accurately political longevity) of a government that functions within a working democratic framework.

Given these constraints (the political sensitivity of tax hikes and the need for greater tax-funded public spending), how fast could the government hike taxes?

The current government is choosing the gradualist approach and it is defensible in many ways: sudden large tax hike would be too disruptive to most people in the immediate terms with welfare-diminishing in the short-term. The last large tax hike was in 2014 when the GST was implemented without flawed tax return mechanism, although it came with cash transfers to mitigate the welfare-diminishing nature of the tax. That was absolutely unpopular and poisoned the otherwise tax regime that is better than the current SST. And Malaysia had taken the abruptic approach before during the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi administration (with Najib Razak as the Finance Minister) through the drastic liberalization of petrol subsidy. That too was massively unpopular.

But the drawback of a series of gradual tax hikes is the expectation-building among the voters, even if it makes the welfare-diminishing aspect more manageable. Surrounded by tax hikes, they would associate the party-in-power with continuous tax hikes (and possibly feeding into inflationary expectations). That is a tough association to live with in an electorally competitive democratic environment.

Most government would like to stay in power and in our democracy, such unpopular tax policy requires a buy-in from the population. Any buy-in must be preceded by a policy and messaging that explain the greater need for public spending and the subsequent taxation.

The sequence must be right: one does not put taxation above spending (and far too many politicians tend to confuse policy sequence too many times, which reflects incomprehension of the issues at hand and the need to take short-cuts for quick gains. Many challenges that Malaysia faces are of long-term in nature resembling a complex sequential puzzle: most of the times, the temptation to pick low-hanging fruits is a mistake in a world of quickly shortening attention span.

Those spending goals must be explained clearly to the electorate. The government must outline the goals (W% of GDP for health by certain year, X% of GDP for education, Y% for defense, Z% for social transfers, etc) in a simple and coherent manner. Explain the benefits and requirement the government seeks to fund. Just as important, these goals must be harmonized a single readable document. And then, the goals have to be sold to the public as seriously as trying to win a referendum (or better yet, an election).

Bit-size documents. Social media posts. Roadshows. Carnivals. Posters. Pamphleteers at shopping malls like how candidates gives out pamphlets at wet markets or food bazaars. These efforts must follow. It is a referendum after all: a referendum of a future of Malaysia that we might want.

At the moment, some of these goals exist but they exist disparately, set in silo buried and in thick unread policy documents. And most government documents are readable only by experts despite being public documents. Worse, sometimes these goals are delivered in arrogant, unsystematic and confusing ways, which wins no allies. That is no way to sell a tax hike necessary to address great challenges Malaysia faces in a fast-changing world.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2948] Government money is best used for actual spending and investing, not replenishing EPF savings

National Union of Bank Employees (Nube), the banking union in Malaysia, wants the government to “return monies withdrawn by B40 and M40 members under the Covid-19 relief package.”[1] I take that as demanding the government to directly replenish EPF contributors’ savings that were depleted by government Covid-19 withdrawal programs. The news report does not mention when the union spokesperson wants the replenishing to happen, but I assume as soon as possible.

For the uninitiated, the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) is a compulsory retirement scheme for private sector workers.

I disagree with the withdrawal EPF schemes, and along with many others, instead have advocated for the government to raise its borrowing and commit to greater spending instead in order to provide greater assistance.[2] But the government was too worried about its fiscal deficit, too fresh to learn all the economic levers it had, and too desperate to find ways to relieve the spending pressures they felt. Among the chaos, they heard Najib Razak’s bad advice and took it.

But it is done now. A mistake has been made. While too many EPF contributors find their account depleted as a result, the overall economic circumstances have changed. During the pandemic, we needed economic programs guaranteeing everybody a certain level of welfare, particularly when a significant part of the economy was shutdown. With the private sector disabled so thoroughly, it was the responsibility of the government to secure everybody’s basic needs. It was a hibernation policy: lockdown and government assistance.

Now that the economy is back operating albeit weakly, priorities have changed. We need to strengthen the economy. Instead of hibernating, we need more spending and investing by the both the public and the private sectors.

This of course assumes we will not make any more mistake on the health front. While there is a real room for optimism going forward, with vaccination rate running high, and that we know more about the virus, after the government’s naïve V-shape recovery blunder, we can never be too careful.

Having the government replenishing EPF savings, especially if immediately or the near future, runs contrary to current priority of economic recovery: pushing for greater spending, investing in capacity building, and simultaneously creating jobs.

Why?

Because putting government revenue (or borrowing or both, since the government unlikely to enjoy any kind of fiscal surplus) into EPF savings would store the money into passive activity for an extended period of time (due to the nature of the scheme, which savings could only be withdrawn at retirement age under normal circumstances; for the macro-inclined, you would remember S=I, but here I would argue S=aI where a<1 since EPF typically invest in equities and debt, and not directly, and if directly definitely in the very minority, into new productive assets like factories and infrastructure). It would go into the financial market, but that is not the most productive of all options available out there. In other words, the act of replenishing will take a lot of steam needed to power the recovery.

And it is worth remembering that economy in 2021 will be smaller than it was in 2019: recovery is not complete. This is an important point because it has long-term repercussion on the economy.

To illustrate the point, it is good to go back to the 1998 during the Asian Financial Crisis. The Malaysian economy only truly recovered from the 1990s crisis by mid-2010s: actual GDP only surpassed the what-if-there-was-no-1990s-crisis GDP around 2015-2016. To put it differently, actual GDP level only surpassed the pre-crisis level around 2014. That is close to 20 years of lost potential.

Actual GDP vs hypothetical pre-AFC growth trend

For 2021, we are still both below pre-crisis level and trend.

For fear of losing more potential, we need to focus on spending and investing. Having the government correcting their EPF mistake by replenishing the accounts will heighten the risk of us losing potential.

The replenishing size, and in turn, potential loss from the replenishing policy, is not small. A report from the Finance Ministry shows the cumulative EPF withdrawal under the 3 programs (i-Lestari, i-Sinar and i-Citra) was RM90.3 billion as of early October 2021. More has been approved but yet to be withdrawn. Replenishing it as soon as possible would take at least RM90.3 billion off the economy in terms of spending and investment, ignoring any multiplier effect.[3] To put the number in perspective, that is nearly 30% of what the government plans to spend in 2022 and in fact, RM15 billion bigger than the government’s development allocation. Even by spreading the replenishment over 2 or 3 years, such policy would take so much money from most parts of the economy, and into the finance industry that will eventually manage those money.

But that does not mean there is no other way of replenishing it. Two ways I can think of are:

  • Tiering the dividend, which those with the least savings getting the highest rate. I have suggested tiering because, but it was primarily made out of realization the wrong people are given the incentive to save, and so, disincentive to spend and invest.
  • Increasing employers’ mandatory contribution. This will increase cost of doing business, but the government, while not doing enough, did a lot for businesses. Perhaps, it is time for businesses to play their role here.

Both however will be a slow replenishing process. Furthermore, increased mandatory contribution, for instance, might reduce take home pay as employers recalibrate their wage structure.

Another way by way of indirect replenishing is to make something like a senior citizen cash transfer bonus, payable by the government upon a person’s retirement, on top of existing cash transfer programs. But done together with dividend tiering, increased contribution and perhaps other ways too, this could reduce the size of the program, while pushing it far enough into the future.

Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 22): The National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) had on Monday (Nov 22) urged the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) to demand that the government return monies withdrawn by bottom 40% (B40) and middle 40% (M40) segment EPF members to protect their retirement savings at a time when EPF members’ retirement savings have depleted due to Covid-19 pandemic-driven economic challenges. [Shazni Ong. EPF asked by NUBE to demand govt to return monies withdrawn by B40, M40 members during Covid-19. The Edge Markets. November 22 2021.]

[2] — Two experts Malaysiakini spoke to had concerns about allowing such a large number of people to dig into their retirement savings. Instead of tapping into EPF, both opined that the government could have spent more to provide assistance to households amidst the Covid-19 pandemic. Economist Hafiz Noor Shams previously analysed that the government was not spending enough in Budget 2021 to support the economy, by virtue of what he regarded as an overly conservative deficit estimate. [Annabelle Lee. Economists: Why let 8m tap EPF when govt can afford cash assistance?. Malaysiakini. November 27 2020.]

[3] — Laporan LAKSANA ke–76. Page 11. Ministry of Finance, Malaysia. November 17 2020.]

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2940] Immediate fiscal agenda for the new (old) government

The next finance minister is unlikely to be thinking too far ahead since election is just less than 2 years away. It is short time to set any long-term agenda. There will not be enough time for learning and there will not be enough to start implementing. For the most parts, the new finance minister will likely be carrying on with established policy until the general election is called. Even if he or she dares introduce new long-term measures, there is a good chance it would be overturned once a new minister takes the Level 12 office in the Treasury Building in Putrajaya after the election.

Nevertheless, given the situation we as a country are in, the 2-year period is important. I think there are two items of concern during this period that could affect the long-term fiscal policy of the country:

  1. The 2023 fiscal cliff
  2. Fiscal consolidation.

The Perikatan Nasional government that Umno was committed to a quick fiscal consolidation exercise that necessitates a 2023 fiscal cliff and I think there is a question whether the same policy would be taken up.

What is the 2023 fiscal cliff?

To handle the Covid-19 crisis, the government changed certain law that allowed it to practically have a current deficit. Without the changes, the government’s current balance must always be in surplus, or in balance. In other words, total revenue must exceed all operating expenditure. Here is a restatement of: the government can only borrow for investment purposes (or in public sector jargon, development expenditure).

More specifically, the government created a Covid-19 fund that officially neither operating or development expenditure (but in fact, mostly operating expenditure). It was a necessary accounting trick that bends the law. Revenue dropped substantially during 2020 and 2021 relative to previous immediate years, while the need for spending rose dramatically. If the laws were not changed, we would have faced a worse version of this already bad recession. Even so, actual spending done was insufficient (the comic I drew below) due to the then policymakers’ naïve belief in V-shape recovery, and failure to adopt precautionary approach. This was the costly mistake of Budget 2021.

This fund is set to expire on December 31 2022. Upon expiry, the normal way of doing things—current balance cannot in deficit—becomes the rule again. This means any borrowing must be repaid (or from what I am seeing, I suspect it would be absorbed into development fund despite a large chunk of it is not developmental in nature. The 2020-2021 RM21 billion drop in Covid-19 is almost as large as the sudden RM19 billion increase in the corresponding development expenditure).

Based on Ministry of Finance publication, the fund had RM17 billion in it as of end-June 2021. It is likely higher given additional spending announcement made during the quarter. Expiry would mean (assuming it is not reclassified lock, stock and barrel as development expenditure) paying off that RM17 billion to meet the current balance requirement. It could also mean a percentage point worth of government spending unmade if it is paid off. That RM17 billion is roughly equivalent to a percentage point of 2021 deficit ratio.

So, if the fund expires in 2022 and the borrowing gets paid off (instead of reclassified as development expenditure), there will be a fiscal cliff: a stark drop in spending, which would take some steam off GDP growth, and more importantly, recovery.

Remember, economic recovery is not merely about growing again after a recession. Neither is it just about returning to pre-crisis level (which by the way, we are a risk of not doing so in 2021). A comprehensive recovery is one where current level would match the level it would be if no crisis had happened. Our insufficient spending had left the gap big, and catching up with that pre-crisis level and trend is hard.

Inappropriate time for fiscal consolidation

This is on top of fiscal deficit-to-NGDP ratio that the government might target. It is unclear now what the deficit ratio target is. Former Finance Minister Zafrul Abdul Aziz had stated that the figure for 2021 after accounting additional unplanned Covid-19 spending could rise to 6.5%-7.0% of NGDP, from the unrealistic Budget 2021 projection of 5.4%. It is unclear if this accounts for lower-than-expected GDP growth. If it does not, it will go higher.

If the new government (if it could be called new given the composition is… the same) insists on fiscal consolidation still, there will be pressure to let the Covid-19 fund expire while cutting services to keep spending under control.

Two immediate agenda for the next finance minister

Malaysia is clearly behind the curve by a big margin in terms of economic recovery. Getting recovery on track is the immediate concern. Unfortunately, as much as I hate to say it, the government is likely the main driver of growth in these times.

The government can start playing that role properly by first, extending the expiring date for Covid-19 fund and second, postponing any fiscal consolidation exercise. The second can be done by maintaining deficit ratio high, possibly in the range of 6%-8% in the next several years.

Ideally, this should followed by a long-term agenda of tax reform to increase government revenue, which the Pakatan Harapan government, and the previous Perikatan Nasional government, as I understand it, was willing to go ahead with parts of it.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Economics

[2936] Latest government Covid-19 spending plan is ‘dasar cukup makan’

Severely underwhelming.

Those are the words I would use to describe the financial assistance the government launched in conjunction of the latest round of lockdown. The government values the program at RM40 billion, with approximately RM5 billion involving actual government spending. The rest are exemption or postponement-based initiatives, with loan repayment moratorium being the biggest and borne by somebody else.

What we need is not a band-aid program with actual spending being slightly greater than the RM3 billion auditor KMPG has trouble tracing in brewing Serba Dinamik financial scandal. Malaysia needs a new comprehensive program cognizant of the trouble we are facing collectively. I have earlier suggested the government will need to ramp up its spending significantly by raising its deficit ratio from approximately 6% of 2021 GDP currently to 9%-10% or even higher, while making all the consequential legal changes. We need to do whatever it takes to resolve the crisis as soon as possible.

But this government has failed to do that. The latest program proves this government is reactive to events, and always one-step behind. Muhyiddin and his incapable ministers just cannot look beyond the molehill. They keep holding on to plans which foundation has been dismantled by the worsening crisis. Those earlier plans, encapsulated by Budget 2021, were based on rosy assumptions that did not come true. Even with flawed assumptions, they keep going at it. Worse, a huge chunk of spending under the previous plans has yet to be executed.

That mistake of inadequate actual and approved spending in favor of unthinking fiscal consolidation has hobbled Malaysia’s response to the Covid-19 crisis. The government is unnecessarily self-limiting public spending that is needed to raise the health system capacity immediately and hasten the pace of vaccination in the population.

This is a disappointing policy that the Prime Minister should be embarrassed of announcing.

What the latest program really is, is that it is a “at least we tried” policy. Dasar cukup makan.

This spending is not about resolving the crisis. It is the government providing talking points to unthinking political operatives on the ground. It is to show the government is at least is responding to public demand. Moratorium? Yes, half-hearted but at least it is included. Wage subsidy? Yea, it is minimal by at least it is provided. “At least we the government are doing something.”

To come on top of this crisis, at least we did something is not good enough. The leadership of this government is not capable of doing more than “at least we tried.”

“You’re dying, but at least we’re giving you a glass of warm water.”

How comforting.

Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

Awani interviewed me on June 2 2021 about my views. Here it is (when I said US and UK with respect to sovereign debt crisis, I meant Europe. I misspoke):

Categories
Conflict & disaster Economics

[2934] Hindsight is 2020, myopia is 2021

We did not know many things about Covid-19 back in 2020. Early on, the authorities and health professionals were urging the public not to panic by highlighting the probabilities of dying from other causes were higher than Covid-19. The intention of avoiding panic was probably good: by end-January 2020, I was looking for face masks to buy but most stores ran out of it. We know better now that the logic was wrong. Covid-19 is serious business.

We made missteps. The Pakatan Harapan government was worried about border closure and its effects on the economy. Nevertheless, travel restrictions were imposed eventually, though not comprehensive.

Then as we were learning about the virus further, party politics got in the way. The unexpected political maneuvering stole from Malaysia several weeks’ worth of lead time to fight the pandemic. At this time, members of Perikatan Nasional and their collaborators appeared unconcerned with the virus and took time to buttress their political position. The new government was lucky because Pakatan Harapan’s last act before their fall was to launch an additional government spending to fight off Covid-19. That bought Muhyiddin Yassin, the Prime Minister nobody elected, a little time as the health crisis worsened quickly.

Eventually, his unelected government got it right: lockdown with financial assistance provided. Lockdown implemention was chaotic, and the accompanied assistance should have been bigger. But the mistakes were forgivable however angering. Year 2020 was a new reality altogether and the hesitance in bringing in the big bazooka was understandable although less than ideal.

Moreover, it was a new government facing a steep learning curve: new ministers on the job had little understanding of fiscal levers, while facing an unprecedented crisis. Like I said, less than ideal but we had to make do.

After several months of mucking around, it seemed Malaysia was succeeding, in large part due to the civil service. The public sector had handled outbreaks before albeit on a smaller scale. That institutional memory served the country well at a time when the executive was scurrying in the dark. Additionally, there were economic response templates from other countries to follow by April-June 2020. Malaysia copied it.

There was damage to many aspects of Malaysian life. Democracy and basic rights were sacrificed. It was a dangerous sacrifice with adverse long term repercussions, but we could argue we skipped the worst. Whether we would pay for our sins is yet to be seen.

In the meantime, we bragged about our success while multiple countries, particularly the US and UK, were bungling their responses.

We bragged so much that overconfidence overcame us. That led us to repeat the same mistake we made in February-March 2020 in the second half of the year. Just like when party politics interfered with crisis management at the start of the pandemic, unreasonable political ambition to take over Sabah state government in the middle of the pandemic brought in the second wave.

This time, the trouble was so not new. There was less excuse to be made. Double-standard regarding quarantine during and after campaigning, and other questionable decisions by the government, made things worse. It was during this period health measures suffered from serious credibility erosion.

But we all need reminding from time to time. Sometimes, we make mistakes because we forget our lessons.

The point is, in retrospect, throughout 2020 we probably would have done things differently. But things should be judged not by how we would have done it differently knowing now things we did not know then. Instead, it is only fair to judge previous decisions based on how they were decided based on the best available information at that time. And we did not have the best information for most of 2020. It was all too new.

We can be angry about 2020. I still am. But that was how the cookie crumbled. Things happened and decisions were made based on the best, or second-best available information.

That excuse can no longer be used for 2021.

If hindsight is 2020, then myopia is 2021. By this year, we know more and we know almost enough information to fight the pandemic effectively. Yet somehow, we refused to use the information.

The disastrous handling of 2021, I think, could be traced back to November 2020, when Budget 2021 was debated in the now suspended Parliament. The budget could have been used to fight the health and economic crises comprehensively.

But we did not use that opportunity.

The government of the day preferred to declare victory prematurely, and engaged in fancy public relations exercise. A sharp V-shape recovery was taken as the base case scenario: base effect was taken in as victory. “This is the biggest budget in history!” declared the government, somehow forgetting the budget of the current year almost always the biggest in history. Rarely does government spending fall. Such was the nature of the government’s meaningless sloganeering to invoke awe in the unenlightened minds.

The budget was big, but it was just not big enough. Budget 2021 rested on rosy assumptions. So rosy that the government intended to resume fiscal consolidation immediately while the economy was still in recession.

So intent the government was on fiscal consolidation that the RM5 billion meant to vaccine-related purchases were not actually included in the Budget. How outrageous could it be?

Constructive criticism came in quickly. The government was told the budget was not big enough. The government was told it should take a more precautionary projection. The government was told to widen the deficit significantly to fight the pandemic off.

Critics were proven right. Budget 2021’s rosy assumptions were dismantled just 4-5 months after it was passed. In November 2020, the government aimed to cut the 2021 deficit ratio to 5.4%. By March 2021, the figure was raised up to 6.0%. It is likely higher now given how things are going. Not only was fiscal consolidation was the wrong policy to pursue at that time, but now since it could not be achieved, the government’s credibility has taken a hit.

The budget should have been rejected: the failure of Budget 2021 is both the fault of the Perikatan Nasional government—including Umno for those still in denial—and Pakatan Harapan. The non-rejection in the House was mind-boggling: we live in a tragic comedy.

Now, as Covid-19 is making its ugliest spread yet, with death toll mounting, health workers exhausted, the Ministry of Finance approved another RM200 million for the public health sector.

What is RM200 million when a vaccine dashboard alone worth RM70 million? What is RM200 million when the total Health Ministry Budget is RM32,000 million a year, and that the public health sector is running out of capacity?

To solve this crisis, we require a much bigger deficit spending: boost the deficit to 9%-10% or even more. Do whatever is necessary to finance the fight. Do it properly instead of through half-baked measures. There is no time for dry powder.

The cost of failing to address this crisis is greater than the cost of higher deficit ratio.