BWorld 200, IPR in the ASEAN and plain packaging in the West

* This is my column in BusinessWorld on March 27, 2018.

Last week, March 22, a global coalition of 62 market-oriented independent or nongovernment think tanks and institutes sent a letter to the World Health Organization (WHO) on the subject, “Five years of failure: Global coalition letter against plain packaging.” Three institutes from ASEAN countries were among the signatories: the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS) in Jakarta, the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) in Kuala Lumpur, and Minimal Government Thinkers (MGT) in Manila, my think tank.

The statement was circulated well in social media particularly by signatory-institutes. The paper noted,

“After Australia implemented the policy, other industries have been targeted around the world: alcohol, sugary beverages, fatty foods, even toys. These industries employ millions and any regulation that would deny key IP assets would have a devastating global economic impact. The trademark value alone of only twelve companies associated with these sectors is estimated to be more than $1.8 trillion.

The costs of plain packaging are enormous: the loss of the innovation incentive, the mutilation of established international IP law, the market carve-out to illicit actors, including terrorists. We urge the WHO and governments around the world to stop infringing on intellectual property rights with plain packaging policies.”

This coming April 18, IDEAS will hold a public forum on “Intellectual Property Rights in the ASEAN Economic Community: Challenges and Potentials” to be held at Intercontinental Kuala Lumpur. The forum will partly cover an emerging big issue in international trade — the proliferation of illicit products.

The proliferation of illicit trade and smuggling is ironic in a period of overall tariff reduction and trade liberalization in the ASEAN and many other regions in the world.

What explains this irony?

It is non-tariff barriers (NTBs) or non-tariff measures (NTMs). After all, these require additional permits, sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), and technical barriers to trade (TBTs).

And, as mentioned in the letter, the emerging attack on IPR — plain packaging, abolition of trademark and logo, abolition of corporate branding, initially for tobacco products. Then advocates will move to other “unhealthy” goods like alcohol, sugary drinks, confectionery and candies, and so on.

Australia is the first country in the world to legislate and implement plain packaging or standardized packaging in December 2012. The estimated consumption of illicit and smuggled tobacco products was 12.2% of overall tobacco consumption in 2011 and 11.5% in 2012.

When plain packaging was implemented, the estimated illicit consumption went up: 13.5% in 2013, 14.5% in 2014, 14.1% in 2015, 13.9% in 2016 (source: KPMG, March 2017. “Illicit Tobacco in Australia, 2016 Full Year Report”).

Removing the trademark, logo and brand via plain packaging is less of an assault on tobacco companies with long years of corporate existence but more of an assault on a country’s tradition of protecting private property rights.

Below are some numbers showing average wealth and IPR protection in 15 economies, ASEAN + five in Northeast Asia. Data sources are (a) IMF’s World Economic Outlook (WEO) for GDP per capita, (b) Property Rights Alliance (PRA) International Property Rights Index (IPRI) 2017 Report, and (c) World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) 2017-2018.

The GCR is composed of 12 pillars and pillar #1 is about Institutions; among the sub-pillars there is IPR protection (see table).

These numbers show that countries with high per capita GDP whether in current or nominal prices or in purchasing power parity (PPP) values are also those with high scores and global ranking in intellectual property rights (IPR) protection. And countries with low per capita income also have low scores and ranking in IPR protection. The exception to this trend is Brunei in the IPRI Report, and South Korea in the GCR.

High and rising taxes and now plain packaging as measures to discourage smoking is successful only in reducing smoking of legal and branded tobacco products. Not mentioned by advocates is that these measures are highly favorable to producers and distributors of illicit, fake, non-branded, and cheap tobacco products.

Since brand and product differentiation is effectively abolished, producers and manufacturers, old and new players, will only compete in pricing. So more cheap tobacco will be introduced and this will encourage more smoking.

To further reduce smoking incidence, governments and NGOs should continue public education about the dangers of smoking. But almost all smokers already know the dangers of smoking, the same way that cliff and plane jumpers, high wall/rock climbers, motorcycle stunt drivers, extreme bicycle downhill riders, deep sea scuba divers, MMA/UFC fighters, etc. know the dangers of their sports and passion but they keep doing it anyway, repeatedly.

People own their body, not governments or health NGOs. There is a limit to state nannyism and very often, such nannyism results in adverse, unintended consequences.

Governments should instead focus on protecting private property as a way to encourage more economic prosperity. 

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member-institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

-------------

See also:
BWorld 197, Estimating electricity price hikes because of TRAIN, Part 2, March 22, 2018 
BWorld 198, Three levels of global disruption, March 24, 2018 
BWorld 199, Charity and giving should not be legislated, March 27, 2018

BWorld 176, Road trips and PPP projects

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last December 28, 2017.

For the third straight year, I drove my family from Makati City to Iloilo City via roll-on roll-off (RoRo) vessels during the holidays.

The road trip came with its own set of inconveniences that were nevertheless offset by several benefits: It allowed my family to carry more cargo (compared to flying) and also allowed my two daughters to enjoy boat rides.

In December 2015 and 2016, I drove days before Christmas, to avoid the long queues of vehicles at the ports of Batangas and Roxas or Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro. This year, I drove early morning of Dec. 25 and I noticed two improvements.

First, toll fees were no longer collected that day (or at least in early morning) in the three tollways — South Luzon Expressway (SLEx), the SLEx extension, and the Southern Tagalog Arterial Road (STAR) and I wish to thank the tollway operators for that Christmas gift.

As expected, travel was smooth and safe on these tollways, indicating once more the beauty of privately operated infrastructure and user-pay principle.

Last but not the least, only a few cars queued at the Batangas and Roxas ports although there were also fewer boats that day.

Roads from Calapan to Roxas in Oriental Mindoro are generally good although motorcycles and tricycles — especially in big municipalities like Calapan, Naujan, and Pinamalayan — delayed travel.

Likewise, the highways in Aklan province were smooth. In Capiz, roads have generally improved but several portions have remained bumpy. Motorcycles and tricycles on these roads have also increased significantly, extending travel time.

These bring up two important subjects.

First, the need to expand and modernize our roads via tollways, constructed and operated by the private sector through the public-private partnership (PPP) scheme.

Existing roads will remain and will be maintained by the DPWH and local governments but there should be an alternative thoroughfares for motorists who are willing to pay for faster and safer travel.

Here is a list of potential new tollways that currently have big vehicle traffic volume. I am not sure if there are already unsolicited proposals for these tollways.

1. Calapan-Roxas, Oriental Mindoro. This covers 126 kilometers with additional entry/exit in larger municipalities such as Naujan and Pinamalayan. Vehicle volume has practically exploded with the 24/7 operations of RoRo boats between Batangas-Calapan and Roxas-Caticlan. Many tourists and visitors from Metro Manila and nearby provinces are travelling to the islands of Mindoro (Oriental and Occidental provinces) and Panay (Aklan, Capiz, Antique, Iloilo provinces).

2. Caticlan or Kalibo, Aklan-Iloilo City. Caticlan hosts the main seaport and airport for hundreds of thousands of yearly visitors who go to Boracay. Panay island has many tourist attractions besides its already substantial population.

3. Escalante-Bacolod-Dumaguete, Negros island. The Escalante-Bacolod route connects the two provincial capitals of Negros Occidental and Cebu while the Bacolod-Dumaguete route connects the two provinces’ capitals. There are four sea connections from Negros to Cebu with rising commerce and investments between the two islands. Escalante-Tabuelan, San Carlos-Toledo, Guihulngan-Tangil, and Dumaguete-Bogo or Oslob.

Second, the Duterte government shouldn’t have reversed the previous policy of integrated PPP (building/construction + operation and maintenance, O&M are under a single entity) and change to hybrid PPP (building/construction and O&M done by two separate entities, the former usually China-owned firms via China ODA).

Many Philippine-based construction companies need more experience and infrastructure portfolio that further strengthen their technical and financial capability to do more PPP nationwide and regionwide. Our emerging economic neighbors Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar have started some large projects in the past and will soon undertake even bigger developments — provincial tollways, city skyways, big airports, and seaports, water, and power projects, school buildings and other civil structures.

ASEAN-based infrastructure and construction firms will have the advantage compared to those outside the region.

And pretty soon, fast-developing countries outside the region like India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan will also embark on large-scale infrastructure development via PPP as the scheme will significantly free their fiscal resources while having big, capital-intensive projects at the same time.

Philippine-based construction firms with large portfolio of finished and on-going projects in the Philippines and ASEAN neighbors will have some advantage because of evolving trade and investment partnerships among Asian countries.

It may have been wrong for the Duterte government to reverse previously planned integrated PPP and change to hybrid PPP just to accommodate China ODA and firms.

After all, there should be less government intervention in sectors and activities where market competition and innovation is present and can be further strengthened. Bigger government is reserved for promoting the rule of law and respecting and enforcing contracts and obligations between and among competing and regulated entities.

-----------------

See also:

BWorld 173, Energy favoritism under TRAIN, December 30, 2017 

BWorld 174, MMDA towed my car even with my kids inside, December 31, 2017 

BWorld 175, Trends in global and Philippine trade, January 05, 2018

BWorld 175, Trends in global and Philippine trade

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last December 27.

Global merchandise trade has slowed down recently despite low oil prices and less political and economic instability. After recovering from the 2009-2010 global financial turmoil, merchandise exports reached $18.3 trillion in 2011, $19 trillion in 2014, declined to $16.5 trillion in 2015, and fell further to $16 trillion in 2016.

The top 5 exporters in merchandise goods in 2015-2016 were China, USA, Germany, Japan, and Netherlands. Germany and Netherlands have the advantage of easier trade because they both are located in one continental land area and hence, can export by land, unlike China, US, and Japan which have to export largely by water.

Eleven (11) Asian economies, five of them from the ASEAN, belong to the top 30 biggest merchandise exporters in the world in 2015-2016. The Philippines remained in ranks 45th-46th.

In commercial services, global exports have slightly increased from $4.76 trillion in 2015 to $4.81 trillion in 2016. The top 5 exporters in were US, UK, Germany, France, and China. Such services include revenues from tourism and remittances of nationals working abroad.

Twelve (12) Asian economies, five of them including the Philippines from the ASEAN, belong to the top 40 biggest services exporters in the world in 2015-2016.

In particular, the Philippines’ merchandise exports have recovered with higher growth this year. Cumulative figures for January-October period are: $49.05 billion in 2015, $47.55 billion in 2016, and $53.11 billion in 2017, or 11.7% growth in 2017 over the previous year.

Top 5 merchandise export markets of the Philippines last year and this year are Japan, Hong Kong, US, China, and Singapore. The EU as a bloc though is the Philippines 2nd biggest market — it imported $5.86 trillion in 2016 and $7.83 trillion in 2017, January-October period.

Almost all export markets have increased their purchase from the Philippines in 2017 except Japan and Singapore, but the export levels to these two countries remain high.

Preliminary figures for 2017 point to a recovery and higher levels in 2017 compared to 2016, Philippine figures provide the clue. And not only in exports but also in imports.

The statement “If America (or Europe) turns protectionist, Asia loses” is wrong. Whoever starts serious protectionism is the loser. Free trade creates good will with other countries while expanding the choices and options for local consumers and manufacturers, which expand their productive capacity.

Asia will remain as a very important player in global trade of goods and services, also in investments, for two important reasons. One, growth momentum remains high, many economies growing 5% or more (GDP growth) a year. Two, huge and generally young population especially in India, Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam, comprising nearly 1.8 billion people with an average age of only 24-25 years old which is one-half of the average age of Japan and many developed countries in Europe.

Freer trade philosophy and policy will resurface in the coming years. Trade is the biggest instrument to prevent wars among countries. As the famous French economist and writer Frederic Bastiat once wrote, “If goods cannot cross borders, soldiers will.”

-----------------

See also:

BWorld 172, Mining and natural disasters, December 30, 2017 

BWorld 173, Energy favoritism under TRAIN, December 30, 2017 

BWorld 174, MMDA towed my car even with my kids inside, December 31, 2017

BWorld 171, Global vs national tax reforms

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last December 13.

“The problem is not that the people are taxed too little. The problem is that government spends too much.”

— former US President Ronald Reagan

Until 1980, much of the world’s countries and governments were socialistic in their taxation and spending policies. For instance, the top marginal income tax rates that year were 60% in Malaysia and Thailand, 70% in the Philippines, 75% in Japan, 89% in South Korea, 70-75% in the US, and 83% in UK.

Then the Reagan-Thatcher era in the ’80s changed this, they cut their respective tax rates by half. Both were advocates of limited government and free market as indicated by Reagan’s statement above. He also once described role of many governments as “if it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it.” Ms. Thatcher on the other hand once said that “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

In the Philippines, former President Cory Aquino and other world leaders in the ’80s also joined to institute drastic income tax cut.

Fast forward today. The Duterte administration initiated drastic personal income tax cut, which is a good thing. The problem is that it also increased taxes elsewhere as it expanded public spending big time. The average increase in the national government budget of the previous administration was around P250-300 billion/year. Dutertenomics easily doubled this level: P670B increase in the first year (from 2016’s P2.68 trillion to 2017’s P3.35 trillion), another P420B increase next year with 2018 budget of P3.77 trillion.

Among the global NGOs that fight high and multiple taxes, big and wasteful public spending, is the World Taxpayers Association (WTA).

Formed in 1998 as Taxpayers Associations International, it was renamed as WTA IN 2000. It has many members from over 60 countries promoting lower tax rates, limited government, and more individual freedom.

The WTA held its regional forum and meeting last week, Dec. 9-10 at Rembrandt Hotel Bangkok, Thailand. I went there and I was the only participant with an institute from ASEAN countries. Other participants were from China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, India, Nepal, Australia, UK, Sweden, US and Canada. Former WTA Sec. Gen. Bjorn Tarras-Wahlberg, current WTA Chairman Troy Lanigan who is also the president of Canadian Taxpayers Foundation (CTF), and current WTA Sec. Gen. Cristina Berechet were there.

Among the biggest members of WTA and represented in the Bangkok meeting are the Korea Taxpayers Association (KTA) with 1.2M dues-paying members, CTF with 117,000+ members, Taxpayers Alliance (UK) with 75,000+ members, others.

The Philippine government seems to be the most tax-hungry among the 10 members of the ASEAN as reflected in the total tax rate (TTR) as % of commercial profit. This is reported by the Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) in its “Paying Taxes” annual reports. TTR is the sum of corporate taxes + labor taxes (mandatory contributions for employees’ SSS, health, housing insurance, etc) + other taxes and fees (by other national and local government agencies).

On the country list, I chose members of the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), composed of ASEAN 10 countries + 6 regular dialogue partners China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand; then the two tiger economies in the region, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Also included are the biggest economies in North America (US and Canada) and Europe (Germany and UK). Of the 22 countries covered, only four (indicated by *) have experienced increase or deterioration in TTR (see table). 

The good news is that over the past five years, many countries and governments have learned to cut their various taxes and fees collected from corporate job creators. The bad news is that after such decrease, the level of TTR remains high.

Take the Philippines.

Its TTR has declined from 46.4% of firms’ commercial profit in 2012 to 42.9% in 2017, that’s the good news. The bad news is that this 42.9% is the highest in the ASEAN, even higher than socialist Vietnam.

So can the Duterte TRAIN help remove this dubious image of the Philippines having the most tax-hungry policies in the ASEAN and other neighboring countries?

With new tax hikes affecting the prices of cars, oil, electricity, and sweetened beverages; high VAT affecting many goods and services, the answer seems to be an ugly NO.

Dutertenomics could have improved this situation by cutting the VAT from 12% to 8% or lower with zero exemption except raw agri and fishery products. But Dutertenomics is focused on spend-spend-spend with little regard for the inflationary pressure of its tax-tax-tax policies.

---------------

See also:

BWorld 168, Uncertainty in mining policy and the Manicani debate, December 12, 2017 

BWorld 169, On tobacco tax and plain packaging, December 12, 2017 

BWorld 170, The Habito carbon tax distortion, December 28, 2017

BWorld 167, Multilateral, bilateral, or unilateral liberalization

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last November 21, 2017.

During the ASEAN Summit + Related Summits in Manila, trade and the further deepening of economic integration was among the major topics. There were new initiatives as well as updates to existing negotiations at multilateral and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs).

Here are some of those old and new FTAs as reported in BusinessWorld from Nov. 13-16:

1. “ASEAN, HK sign free trade, investment deals” — the ASEAN-Hong Kong FTA (AHKFTA) and ASEAN-Hong Kong Investment Agreement (AHKIA).

2. “Do you know your TPPs from your RCEPs, NAFTAs and OBORs?” — about the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Regional Economic Comprehensive Partnership (RCEP), One Belt One Road initiative (OBOR), North America FTA (NAFTA).

3. “ASEAN claims ‘significant progress’ on RCEP” — mentioned the ASEAN Seamless Trade Facilitation Indicators (ASTFI), ASEAN Inclusive Business Framework (AIBF), others.

4. “US agrees to explore FTA with Philippines” — to be called the US-Philippines Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).

Free trade is good, regardless of what those against it would say because it always results in “net gains.”

There are always gains/winners and pains/losers the same way that there are gains and pains under protectionism. When people withdraw their savings for several months in exchange for a new car or dream vacation, they derive net gains from trade of savings vs. vacation.

ASEAN is known for its fast pace of tariff liberalization towards zero compared to many other economic blocs in the world. That’s the good news.

The bad news is the big increase in non-tariff barriers (NTBs) or non-tariff measures (NTMs). These are restrictions and barriers other than tariffs and taxes that make imports or exports of products more difficult, more complicated and hence, more costly (see table).

The authors also noted that “As the average tariff rates of ASEAN countries decreased from 8.9% in 2000 to 4.5% in 2015, the number of NTMs had increased from 1,634 measures to 5,975 measures over the same period. The increase of NTMs was notable not only in ASEAN but also around the world, particularly, between 2008 and 2011.”

Among ASEAN member-states, Thailand has the highest number of NTMs at 1,630, 2nd was the Philippines with 854, 3rd was Malaysia with 713, 4th was Indonesia with 638, 5th was Singapore with 529, 6th Brunei with 516, 7th Vietnam with 379, 8th Laos with 301, 9th Cambodia with 243, and 10th was Myanmar with only 172.

The most common NTMs in Thailand and Myanmar was sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures while for the other eight ASEAN countries, technical barriers to trade (TBT) was most common.

So which way to achieve regional if not global free trade: (a) Multilateral via World Trade Organization (WTO), APEC, TPP, RCEP, AEC, others ; or (b) bilateral like US-Philippines TIFA, Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA)?

The advantage of multilateral liberalization is that all economies in the world or at least in the region are committed to bring down their tariffs and NTMs. The disadvantage is that under WTO, real liberalization remains far off even after 22 years (1995 to present) of numerous negotiations.

The setback of regional FTAs is that while member-countries can have near-zero tariff and reduced NTMs, other countries outside the FTA are slapped with high tariffs and/or multiple NTMs.

The advantage of bilateral liberalization is that differences and disputes can be ironed out easier and faster so that FTA can materialize soon. The disadvantage is that a country will need to dispatch plenty of trade negotiation teams to deal with many countries and hence, it can be costly and messy.

A third way is via unilateral liberalization.

Just bring down the tariffs and NTMs, open up the borders with little or no conditions. The main advantage of this move is that it can be done quickly with very little trade negotiation teams and hence, non-costly to taxpayers. However, the disadvantage is that it is “too scary, too radical” for many people as it might result in massive labor displacements.

There are a few countries that boldly took unilateral liberalization and so far, almost all of them have attained economic prosperity in just a few decades such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai/UAE, Chile.

Unilateral liberalization in goods has been done by the ASEAN as a bloc. The challenge is unilateral liberalization in services.

With continued modernization in the information and communications technology worldwide, it is much easier, not harder, to liberalize trade in services.

Asian economies, the Philippines in particular, should consider a unilateral liberalization policy. This would involve fewer trade bureaucracies, taxes and subsidies, and more competition from more suppliers and manufacturers from countries around the world. Local consumers will benefit from more choices and more options while shelling out less taxes and fees.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member-institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

---------------

See also: 
BWorld  91, Free trade means faster growth in manufacturing, November 14, 2016 
BWorld 137, ASEAN trade expansion and RCEP, June 20, 2017
BWorld 164, PES conference amidst reduced risk and uncertainty, November 21, 2017 

BWorld 165, Airport transfers and tourism, November 25, 2017
BWorld 166, US energy trading and implications for Asia and Philippines, November 26, 2017

BWorld 137, ASEAN trade expansion and RCEP

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last June 09, 2017.

Despite various protectionist rhetoric by many world leaders against free trade, deep inside they know that there are “net gains” from trade and there are “net losses” under protectionism and restricted trade. Thus, while the multilateral trading agreement under the World Trade Organization (WTO) is not moving significantly, bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs) are everywhere.

Trade within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is among the most dynamic in the world because of their consensus on faster unilateral trade liberalization policy and near zero tariff for all 10 member-countries since 2016. The region of some 630 million consumers would naturally attract the attention of its neighbors that want to source many of their needs and imports and want to export many of their products and services.

Thus, the ASEAN + 6 (Japan, China, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand) evolved and later these 16 countries moved towards creating the world’s biggest FTA covering half of the planet’s total population + the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

Plenty of negotiations still ongoing but member-countries are hoping that RCEP will be formalized within the next two years. The main thorn in the agreement is not on tariffs but on non-tariff barriers (NTBs) or non-tariff measures (NTMs).

Last May 8, Stratbase-Albert del Rosario Institute (ADRi) organized a small group economists’ roundtable discussion on the “Global Geopolitical Situation: its Impact on Australian and Philippine Economies” at the Manila Peninsula Hotel. The main speaker was Mark Thirlwell, chief economist of Australia Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade).

It was a good forum with lots of useful data and insights. Among Mark’s points were the following: (a) Global tariffs are still low but have stopped falling, (b) Free Trade Agreement (FTA) coverage has grown but may have plateaued, (c) Non-tariff barriers are rising, including temporary barriers like anti-dumping, countervailing duties and safeguards, (d) trade liberalizing measures are surpassed or outnumbered by discriminatory/protectionist measures, and (e) ASEAN countries fit this global pattern as shown in these two very clear charts.

During the ASEAN Summit in Manila, Malaysian PM Najib Razak reemphasized the need to reduce the NTBs or non-tariff measures (NTMs) in the region, which have surged from 1,634 in 2000 to 5,975 in 2015.

Mark also said that e-commerce is also enabling trade citing the role of eBay, Amazon, and he asked if the world has already attained “peak trade” as global trade/GDP ratio has somehow plateaued at around 63% over the past few years. I argued during the open forum that like “peak food” (formulated by Thomas Malthus and later by Paul Ehrlich, others) and “peak oil” (formulated in the ’70s, reformulated in the ’90s), “peak trade” will not happen.

The average merchandise exports/GDP ratio from 2010-2015 of these Asian economies are as follows: Hong Kong 352.2%, Singapore 260.7%; Vietnam 152.7%; Malaysia 134.7%; Taiwan 114.6%; Thailand 113.6%. Yearly data I got from the ADB’s Key Indicators, November 2016 report. These are exports of goods alone. If exports of services are included, the ratio will grow much higher.

ASEAN countries should proceed with further trade liberalization and reduce the number of NTBs/NTMs at least among themselves. There is economic prosperity in trade expansion and misery in protectionism.

---------------

See also: 

BWorld 134, PPP vs ODA, June 08, 2017 
BWorld 135, On reducing the distribution system loss, June 9, 2017 
BWorld 136, Income tax and the politics of envy, June 12, 2017

BWorld 136, Income tax and the politics of envy

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last Thursday.

“The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.”

-- Barry Goldwater (US businessman and five-term senator)

“The difference between death and taxes is death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets.”

-- Will Rogers (US actor, humorist, columnist)

The tax reform plan of Dutertenomics known as Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) is composed of (a) overall personal income tax (PIT) cut, (b) hike in excise tax for cars and oil products, (c) hike tax for sugar-sweetened beverages, and (d) hike in number of sectors covered by the value-added tax (VAT).

This paper will focus on the income tax reform: Minimum-wage earners and those earning P250,000/year and below will pay zero income tax. The 13th month pay and other bonuses not exceeding P100,000 are also exempted from income tax. The number of tax brackets has been reduced from seven to six. And the top PIT rate of 32% for taxable income of P500,000/year or higher has been increased to 35% for taxable income of P5 million/year or higher.

To better appreciate the current PIT and proposed changes in the policy in the Philippines, let us compare the rates with our neighbors in the ASEAN.

The proposed PHL-TRAIN indeed deserves compliment because current PIT policy is highly confiscatory and makes Barry Goldwater’s statement so accurate. Imagine earning an annual income (net of some deductions) of only $10,000 and the Philippine government automatically confiscates one-third of that.

But what the Department of Finance (DoF) and Congress did is to adopt the “increase tax rates elsewhere to compensate for lower PIT rate” philosophy. This is wrong and there are four reasons why.

First, it is possible to abolish income tax, zero, and yet government will still survive and prosper via other revenue sources. Currently there are 10 countries in the world which have zero income tax policy: Bahamas, Bahrain, Bermuda, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. Their governments rely and thrive on selling petroleum, natural gas, lands, and/or earning from consumption-based taxes and financial transaction taxes.

Second, lower PIT rate can expand the tax base and can potentially increase overall tax revenues. More entrepreneurs and professionals from abroad as well as Filipinos working abroad will be encouraged to do business here to take advantage of lower income tax rate and hence, bigger take home pay.

Stated in a simple equation: Tax revenue (T) is a product of tax rate (t) multiplied by the number of taxpayers (N). Or (T = t x N). A decline in t can encourage the increase in N so that overall T can potentially increase, not decrease.

The DoF and Congress leaders have taken the linear and simplistic argument that lower tax rate means automatic lower revenues. They did not consider potential increase in N and T when income tax rate is significantly reduced.

Currently, Asian economies with low, flat income tax rates are Mongolia with only 10%, Macau with 12%, and Hong Kong with 15%.

Third, lower PIT even for high-income people means more take home pay, more domestic consumption which are captured by other consumption-based taxes like VAT, excise tax, property tax, motor vehicle tax, entertainment tax, travel tax and so on.

And fourth, the politics of envy is wrong. The philosophy of “demonize and overtax the rich, subsidize the poor forever” creates moral hazards problem. The implicit message is: Be careful when you become rich because the government will silently demonize you and explicitly overtax you. Aspire to remain poor, poor forever if possible because (a) your minimum wage income plus bonuses will be tax-free, (b) you get lots of freebies and subsidies, and (c) these are no timetable, forever subsidies and transfers.

When there are plenty of poor people, the government is silently saying two things: “Congratulations” and “Thank you.” Here’s how:

a. “Congratulations -- you are entitled to many subsidies and freebies: free cash transfer, free health care, free education until university, free or highly subsidized housing, free or highly subsidized e-tricycle, tractor, etc. No timetable, for life, can extend to your children and grandchildren, so long as they continue to be poor.”

b. “Thank you -- we have more justifications and alibi to harass and confiscate more from the income, wealth, properties and inheritance of the rich and super-rich (especially if they are not friends of the administration).”

Therefore, instead of raising the top PIT rate to 35%, Congress should bring it down to 25% to be more comparable with Malaysia; better if it is only 20% to be more comparable with Singapore rate.

Society should reward people who become rich and wealthy via entrepreneurship and efficient professional work, not demonize and overtax them. We should have more millionaires and billionaires, not less; we should have more super rich people, not less.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET and Stratbase-ADRi.

---------------

See also: 

BWorld 133, Dissecting Dutertenomics' overspending plan, June 01, 2017 

BWorld 134, PPP vs ODA, June 08, 2017 
BWorld 135, On reducing the distribution system loss, June 9, 2017

BWorld 133, Dissecting Dutertenomics' overspending plan

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last Tuesday.

During the BusinessWorld Economic Forum held last May 19, Budget Secretary Benjamin E. Diokno showed two interesting charts: (1) sustained overspending and borrowings, budget deficit/GDP ratio from -0.9% in 2015 to -2.7% in 2016 then -3.0% from 2017-2022. And yet (2) debt/GDP ratio was expected to decline from 44.8% in 2015 to 40.2% in 2017 and further down to 36.7% in 2022.

Is this possible? That one overspends and over-borrows and yet the debt/GDP ratio will keep falling?

DBM, NEDA, and Malacañang say yes because the projected taxes/GDP ratio will increase via the proposed Tax Reform bill of 2017. Sec. Diokno said in the same forum that “We will continue to guard against underspending, the Waterloo of the previous administration.”

“Underspending” for me should mean that expenditures are lesser than revenues, resulting in a fiscal surplus. When expenditures are larger than revenues but the deficit is only at -1% or below -3% of GDP, that is still overspending, not underspending. So the previous administration did not really underspend, just that it did not go into an uncontrolled spending spree.

Here are relevant numbers about the Philippines’ fiscal position and levels of outstanding public debt, and comparative debt/GDP ratio of seven ASEAN countries (see table). 

The numbers above show three important facts:

One, the average deficit in the previous administration, 2010-2015 was only P185 B/year or -1.8% of GDP, benign and considered as “underspending” by many fiscal hawks, especially when compared with deficit in 2009 (last year of the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration) and 2016 (first year of Duterte administration).

Two, low annual budget deficit and borrowings in the same period means the country’s outstanding debt stock has risen only mildly, with the average of P260 B/year.

Three, partly a result of this, the Philippines’ debt/GDP ratio over the same period showed significant decline, similar to the experience of Myanmar while other neighbors posted deficits, owing to increased borrowing.

Fewer borrowing means less debt service payments for both principal and interest. It was during the same six-year period that Philippines’ GDP growth was 6.2% per year, much higher than Thailand’s 3.7%, Indonesia and Malaysia’s 5.7%, Vietnam’s 6.0%.

In the same BW Economic Forum, the DoTr showed that these projects will be ODA (government loans) funded, not PPP.

1. PNR North Railway (Manila-Clark), construction Q4 2017 -- Q4 2021, P255 B.

2. PNR South Railway (Manila-Bicol), construction Q3 2018 -- 2021, P270 B (originally a PPP).

3. Mega-Manila subway (Phase 1, QC-Taguig), construction Q4 2019 -- 2024, P225 B.

4. Edsa-Central Corridor Bus Rapid Transit BRT (Edsa, Ayala, Ortigas, BGC, NAIA), construction Q1 2019 -- Q1 2021, P38 B.

Other big projects were identified but it wasn’t specified whether these would be funded by official development assistance (ODA) or via Public-Private Partnership (PPP). In December 2016, DoF Secretary Sonny Dominguez already indicated that infrastructure projects under the Duterte administration will avoid PPP whenever possible. And the massive China and Japan ODAs came into the picture.

Then there are tweaks in some major projects, from PPP to ODA. Like the PNR South Railway and the Kaliwa Dam project in Quezon province of Maynilad Water. What would pre-qualified players like San Miguel do with this policy reversal?

The Dutertenomics’ spending plan is detrimental to taxpayers in general and the investment environment in particular, for the following reasons.

1. Bigger annual budget deficit would mean more government loans, higher public debt stock, and will lead to higher taxes now and the future to service those huge loans to be contracted. Soon the P6/liter increase in oil excise tax will not be enough, it will further rise.

2. Massive shift from PPP (private investment) to ODA of major infrastructure projects will result in more loans which mean more public debt, more taxes, and fees in the future.

--------------

See also: 

BWorld 130, Mobility of goods, capital, and people in Asia, May 13, 2017 

BWorld 131, Why the FiT-All is a burden to consumers, May 18, 2017

BWorld 132, Global commodity prices, trade and growth, May 27, 2017

BWorld 132, Global commodity prices, trade and growth

* This is my article in BusinessWorld yesterday.

One of the beauties of free trade and global economic integration is that countries can benefit from low commodity prices as improvement in technology and processes in other countries result in bigger output for the same land area and other inputs. The downside of course is that when commodity prices go up, economies that are more dependent on imported products would tend to wobble.

The period from 2008 to 2014 was characterized by generally high food and commodity prices.

For instance, price of corn was only $98/ton in 2005 but it shot up to $223 in 2008. I think it was the momentum of the biofuels law in the US in 2005, spurring huge demand in the US, Brazil, other countries. The price mellowed in 2009-2010 during the global financial turmoil that started in the US, but shot up again to nearly $300 in 2011-2012.

The global spike in rice prices (aka as “rice crisis of 2008”) from $288/MT in 2005 to $700 in 2008 was caused by several factors, among which are (a) price hikes in major energy sources oil, natural gas, and coal in 2008, and (b) rice export restrictions by India, Vietnam, Brazil, other countries.

Maize (corn) -- US No.2 Yellow, FOB Gulf of Mexico, US price

Rice -- 5% broken milled white rice, Thailand nominal price quote

Swine (pork) -- 51%-52% lean Hogs, US price

Poultry (chicken) -- Whole bird spot price, Georgia docks

Sugar -- Free Market, Coffee Sugar and Cocoa Exchange (CSCE) contract no. 11 nearest future position

Coffee -- Other Mild Arabicas, International Coffee Org. New York cash price, ex-dock New York

Crude Oil (petroleum) -- West Texas Intermediate 40 API, Midland Texas

Natural Gas -- Indonesian Liquefied Natural Gas in Japan, $/million metric British thermal units of liquid

Coal -- Australian thermal coal, 1200 btu/pound, less than 1% sulfur, 14% ash, FOB Newcastle/Port Kembla

Among the reasons why world oil prices rose to record levels in 2008 was the high energy demand in the two biggest countries in the world in population, China and India. Prior to 2008, from 2003-2007, China’s GDP growth was always double-digit, averaging 11.7% per year. India’s growth during that period was also high, averaging 8.8% per year.

Implications for the Philippines

Among the things that the Philippines should optimize given these price fluctuations in world commodity prices are the following:

1. Rice trade liberalization should have been started in 2010 when the Aquino administration took power. After short price spikes in 2011-2012, rice prices went downhill. The Duterte administration should proceed with full rice liberalization this year because of high medium term outlook for rice output and exports by our neighbors, Thailand and Vietnam especially.

2. Sugar liberalization should be pursued too as world sugar prices have declined from their peak prices in 2010-2012 average of around 22 US cents per pound.

3. Trade of corn and swine, even poultry should also be liberalized. Prices of rice, corn, swine, poultry and other food products are among the major contributors of the overall consumer price index (CPI) which are used to compute the inflation rate.

4. Energy-intensive industries like manufacturing, hotels, construction, and transportation (on air, land, water) can expand their production and fleet to take advantage of lower prices of oil, natural gas, and coal.

5. Two hindrances here: (a) the planned hike in excise tax for oil products by P6/liter across the board, and (b) continued onslaught by feed-in-tariff (FiT) and soon, renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that will result in expensive electricity. The purpose of trade and energy revolution is to make global energy prices become cheaper. The purpose of government in this case to make cheaper energy more expensive. These two measures should be abandoned and reversed someday.

6. Among the ASEAN-6 big economies (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam and Philippines), the Philippines registered the highest average GDP growth per year from 2010-2015: Thailand 3.7%, Indonesia and Malaysia 5.7%, Singapore and Vietnam 6.0%, and Philippines 6.2%. There was something good that the previous Aquino administration was doing that the new Duterte administration should somehow continue.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET. Both institutes are members of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.
-----------

See also: 

BWorld 129, Open pit mines and the DENR Secretary, May 12, 2017 

BWorld 130, Mobility of goods, capital, and people in Asia, May 13, 2017 
BWorld 131, Why the FiT-All is a burden to consumers, May 18, 2017

BWorld 130, Mobility of goods, capital, and people in Asia

* This is my article in BusinessWorld on May 09, 2017.

One big issue that failed to land on front pages during the ASEAN Prosperity Summit last week is the creeping protectionism, not through rising tariffs but rising non-tariff barriers (NTBs).

  

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak pointed out during the Summit that NTBs and non-tariff measures (NTMs) from 2000 to 2015 have surged by nearly four times to 5,975 from 1,634. This despite the zero tariff regime for intra-regional trade and the creation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) or the regional single market.

While ASEAN was created initially for defense cooperation against regional communist revolutions in the ’60s and ’70s, it has evolved into a platform for freer movement of goods, people and services, and capital or investment. It was a good development and it should be pursued.

This coming November, the Philippines will host the ASEAN partners’ meeting composed of ASEAN + 6 (China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand) + Russia and US. Mr. Putin, Mr. Xi, and Mr. Trump and other leaders will be coming to Manila.

The US exit from the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and China-Japan leadership in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) are important developments.

By how much have Asian economies improved based on freer mobility of goods, services, investments, and tourism? Here are some basic data (see table).

Those that have expanded by more than seven times in just 15 years are the following:

1. Vietnam: 11.2x in exports, 10.6x in imports, 9.1x in investments, and 10.6x in tourism receipts.

2. Myanmar: 7.2x in imports, 12.1x in investments, 12.9x in tourist arrivals; also high expansion in tourism receipts.

3. Cambodia: 14.2x in investments, 10.3x in tourist arrivals, and 24x in tourism receipts.

4. Laos: 9.3x in imports, 10.4x in tourist arrivals and 36x in tourism receipts.

5. China: 9x in exports, 7.5x in imports, almost 6x in investments, and 7 to 7.5x in tourist arrivals and receipts.

6. Japan: 7.4x expansion in international tourist arrivals.

7. India: 7.5x in exports, 12.3% in imports, and 7.8x in exports.

The Philippines also experienced modest growth in all the above indicators but not fast enough to create more jobs and businesses to its 104 million people. We should take hard lessons from our two small neighbors with huge economic achievements, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Singapore with only 5+ million people and just 3 1/2 hours by plane south of Manila, has 6x more exports, 11x more FDIs, attracts more than 3x foreign tourists and more than 4x in tourism receipts than the Philippines.

Hong Kong with only 7+ million people and less than 2 hours by plane north of Manila, has 8x more exports, 32x more FDIs, attracts nearly 7x foreign tourists, and nearly 8x in tourism revenues.

What small economies Singapore and Hong Kong have that the Philippines lacks are two important policies: free trade (zero tariff, minimal NTBs) and stricter rule of law (the law applies equally to both rulers and ruled, applies equally to unequal people).

So while we have improved our GDP size and material wealth via freer trade, freer movement of people and capital, we need to free up more.

We should allow more islands and provinces to have their own industrial zones to attract more investments and foreign trade. To have their own international airports and seaports to attract more investments and more tourism.

More modern infrastructure, simpler rules, and freer trade will help the Philippines attain what our developed neighbors have already achieved. Drastic reduction in NTBs and the removal of rice quantitative restriction (QR) and protectionism for instance. And less politics, taxes and bureaucracies, more respect for the law by politicians and bureaucrats.

Bienvenido Oplas, Jr. heads Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET. Both institutes are members of the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

---------------

See also: 

BWorld 121, The PH tax reform bill and tax policies in East Asia, April 10, 2017

BWorld 127, Economic freedom in Asia means faster growth, lower prices, May 07, 2017 

BWorld 128, The quest for more stable and cheaper electricity in the ASEAN, May 08, 2017 

BWorld 129, Open pit mines and the DENR Secretary, May 12, 2017

BWorld 128, The quest for more stable and cheaper electricity in the ASEAN

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last April 28, 2017.

High economic growth means high energy demand coming from stable supply and competitively priced energy, not unstable, intermittent, and expensive energy. This is what the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) economies need as their high GDP growth of 4.7% in 2016 is projected to improve to 4.8% this year and 5% in 2018 (ADB data), much faster than the projected growth of other regions and economic blocs.

One week before the ASEAN 50th Summit Meeting, the 7th Annual Meeting of the Nuclear Energy Cooperation Sub-Sector Network (NEC-SSN) hosted by the Department of Energy (DoE) was held. A pre-feasibility study showed that many ASEAN countries are in favor of using nuclear energy for commercial use. The ASEAN Center for Energy (ACE) also sees nuclear energy as a long-term power source for the member-countries.

The intensive infrastructure projects of the Duterte administration require huge amount of energy. The proposed 25-km. subway in Metro Manila by the Japan government alone would require high energy supply for the dozens of trains running simultaneously below the ground plus dozens of train stations below and above ground.

Lots of base-load power plants, those that can run 24-7 all year round except when they are on scheduled shut down for maintenance, will be needed. These baseload plants include coal, natural gas, geothermal, and nuclear. Hydro plants too but only during the rainy season.

How reliable and how costly are the different power generation plants that the Philippines and other ASEAN countries will need? This table will help provide the answer as I have not seen data for the ASEAN yet.

Power reliability is represented by plant capacity factor or actual power output relative to its installed capacity. So unstable, intermittent sources like wind and solar have low capacity factor, not good for manufacturing plants, hotels, hospitals, malls, shops, and houses that require steady electricity supply.

Power cost is represented by the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), composed of capital expenditures (capex), fixed and regular operation and maintenance (O&M), variable O&M, and transmission investment. CCS means carbon capture and sequestration.

The cost of ancillary services for intermittent sources, the standby power plants if the wind does not blow or if it rains make solar plants temporarily inutile, does not seem to be reflected in the transmission cost though.

ASEAN countries like the Philippines will need those power plants that have (a) high reliability, high capacity factor, (b) low LCOE, and (c) low or zero need for ancillary services.

However, more ASEAN countries are entertaining more solar PV and wind onshore since they were convinced to believe that they need unstable yet expensive electricity to “save the planet.”

During the Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP) lecture last April 20 at the UP School of Economics (UPSE), Ms. Melinda L. Ocampo, president of the Philippine Electricity Market Corp. (PEMC) talked about “Electricity Trading and Pricing in the Philippine WESM.” Ms. Ocampo discussed among others, the new management system where the interval for electricity dispatch has been improved from one hour to only five minutes.

I pointed during the open forum that the imposition of the lousy scheme feed-in-tariff (FiT) or more expensive electricity for favored renewables was unleashed even to consumers in Mindanao, which is not part of WESM, and is not connected to the Luzon-Visayas grids. The FiT-Allowance that is reflected in our monthly electricity bill has risen from 4 centavos/kWh in 2015 to 12.40 centavos in 2016 and this year, we should brace for at least 26 centavos/kWh soon because the 23 centavos petition by Transco starting January 2017 has not been acted by the Energy Regulatory Commission yet.

The issue of stable and affordable energy will be tackled in the forthcoming BusinessWorld Economic Forum this May 19, 2017 at Shangri-La BGC. Session 4 “Fuelling Future Growth”of the conference will have the following speakers: John Eric T. Francia, president & CEO of Ayala Corp. (AC) Energy Holdings, Inc.; Antonio R. Moraza, president & COO of Aboitiz Power Corporation; Josephine Gotianun Yap, president of Filinvest Development Corp., and DoE Secretary Alfonso G. Cusi. Yap and Cusi are still to confirm the invite.

Local energy players will have a big role in ensuring that the Philippines should have stable and competitively priced energy supply today and tomorrow.

-------------

See also: 

BWorld 120, Five myths of solar-wind energy, April 08, 2017

BWorld 125, On the retail competition and open access (RCOA) and EPIRA, May 05, 2017 

BWorld 126, Why mining is appropriate for certain areas and provinces, May 06, 2017 

BWorld 127, Economic freedom in Asia means faster growth, lower prices, May 07, 2017