BWorld 183, Why low or zero income tax can mean more development

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last January 29, 2018.

“The people are hungry: It is because those in authority eat up too much in taxes.

When the government is too intrusive, people lose their spirit.”

— Lao Tzu, or Laozi

(6th-5th century BC)

The good news about the new tax law called TRAIN (Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion) is that overall personal income tax (PIT) rates have declined. The bad news is that the high rates of 30% and 32% were retained, and an even higher rate of 35% was introduced for incomes P8 million a year or higher.

In a period of growing global tax competition, growing decentralization if not disintegration by big governments and countries, economies should introduce low taxes.

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

Currently too, there are 10 countries and/or jurisdictions around the world that have zero income tax policy.

Eight of them are in the table below, the two others, Bermuda and Cayman islands, have no available data in the IMF and WEF reports. Hence, they are not included in the table. The global rank and score in the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), pillar #1 — Institutions, would represent or proxy for the rule of law of countries included in the report (see table).

These numbers show the following:

1. Citizens of zero income tax countries on average are actually richer (except Bahamas) than people of countries that impose and collect income taxes.

2. Zero income tax countries on average have high scores and rank in the WEF’s GCI (except Kuwait), in institutional strength. The same pattern is also observed for developed Asia except South Korea.

3. Developing and emerging Asia like the ASEAN 5 in the above table have lower scores and global ranking, except Malaysia.

One lesson here is that it is the rule of law, the stability and predictability of institutions, public and private, that largely determine an economy’s wealth and prosperity. Not higher taxes and welfarism, not more regulations and endless subsidies.

These countries like Qatar, Brunei, and United Arab Emirates, even Singapore and Hong Kong, are not known for their big mountains and waterfalls, many white sand beaches and sprawling golf courses. They are known for their liberal and secure investment policies that properly respect and protect private property rights, especially big investments and projects, and non-intrusive tax policies.

Currently, the Department of Finance (DoF) is preparing TRAIN 2, focus on lowering the corporate income tax (CIT) rate from 30% to 25% but with fewer fiscal holidays and exemptions. The goal of DoF is to have a “revenue neutral” law, reduce revenues on one side to be compensated by additional revenues on the other side.

Since the Duterte administration is gung-ho on federalism, this will be a good opportunity for them to drastically cut CIT — only 10%, or 15%, little or no exemptions — then allow the regional or state governments to have their own CIT.

The advantage of this setup is that it instills tax and investment competition among the regions and states.

Thus, the future state of southern Luzon for instance will have a CIT of 15%, the state of western Visayas will have a CIT of 10%, the state of northern Mindanao will have a CIT of only 6%, another state will have zero CIT, and so on.

The DoF should align its fiscal priorities with the political priorities of Malacañang and Congress.

TRAIN 1 was lousy because it raised many national taxes or created new ones even if the DoF is aware that soon there will be less national government departments, bureaus, and welfarism to be compensated by more state government departments and welfarism.

Let TRAIN 2 compensate for the short-sightedness of TRAIN 1. Let the national and soon federal government step back as the regional and state governments step forward.

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

See also:

BWorld 171, Global vs national tax reforms, December 29, 2017

BWorld 180, Has East Asia liberalized its trade enough? January 19, 2018 

BWorld 181, Effects of Supreme Court TRO on RCOA, January 22, 2018
BWorld 182, Asia Liberty Forum 2018 in Jakarta, January 31, 2018

Higher taxes next year?

(Note: this is my article for thelobyist.biz today)

Taxes are indirect way of government saying to the people, “Give me your money, I can spend it better for you than you yourself.” So the higher the tax rates and the plentier the number of taxes, the higher is the level of distrust of government to the personal discretion of the people to do what they think is good for themselves.

The painting on the wall is becoming louder and louder with each passing day. The Philippine government needs more money to finance the following: (1) More money to chieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), especially on MDG 2, basic education for all. (b) More money for the conditional cash transfer (CCT), especially paying the new loans from the WB and ADB for this program alone. (c) More money for universal healthcare (UHC). (d) More money for housing for the poor. (e) More money for AFP and PNP modernization. (f) More money to fight man-made warming and climate change. (g) More money to control high population growth via the proposed RH bill.

All sorts of justifications and alibi are flying left and right with one central message: the government wants more money to be confiscated from the citizens, so that the government can spend more for the citizens. Say that again?

Sometime last February this year, former NEDA Director General and former UPSE Dean Philip Medalla, presented a paper at the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) on fiscal policy and mentioned that we may have to accept the reality of more taxes in the near future. I questioned him on that during the open forum, see Cut income tax movement, part 1.

And sometime in January or February this year, the government economic think tank, Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) also produced a paper that in order to attain the MDGs, there is a need to hike taxes. I criticized that PIDS paper in MDGs, taxes and PIDS.

Today, there is a news in BWorld, Government working on new tax measures. The report was referring to the DOF plan to work on the proposal by former DBM Secretary and UPSE faculty member, Benjamin Diokno, to raise taxes on 3 areas: (a) raise the excise tax on cigarettes and liquor; (b) raise VAT from 12% to 15% in exchange for a cut in income tax; and (c) raise the real property tax (RPT).

Personally, I favor the first two proposals of Dr. Diokno who was my former professor two times (undergrad and graduate) at the UPSE. Raising taxes on tobacco and alcohol products I think, is long overdue. Since the government thinks – which I disagree – that healthcare is not much personal responsibility but government responsibility, then people can over-drink, over-smoke, over-eat, over-fight, etc. and when their lungs, liver, heart and other internal organs are dilapidated, they can run to the government to demand that “health is a right.” So government should raise lots of money from tobacco and alcohol products to finance its massive healthcare spending.

On raising VAT and cutting income tax, my favorite formula is a rise in VAT from 12 to 15 percent, in exchange for an income tax rate, both corporate and personal, between zero to 10 percent flat. This need not be attained within the next five years or so. A transition period of declining income tax rate from an initial flat 18 percent (again, both corporate and personal income tax) down to flat 15 percent after say five years, down to flat 10 percent after another five to ten years, ultimately to zero, or the abolition of income tax.

I have discussed the merits and advantages of raising consumption-based taxes like VAT, excise tax and entertainment tax, in exchange for drastic cut and ultimate abolition of income tax, in the above article on Cut income tax movement, part 1.

The increase in RPT is something that I think is not wise. Government should not tax, or slap only low tax, on productive land and areas. It should instead tax idle and unproductive land. An area that is full of buildings, malls, offices and houses means thousands of jobs are created there. When people have jobs, they are not likely to run to government to ask for welfare and subsidy. Developed areas also tend to be self-reliant. Malls, commercial business districts (CBDs) and residential villages usually have their own street lighting, garbage collection, road construction and maintenance, private security, so that their demand from local government for those services is minimal if not zero.

Taxing idle lands and areas is a clear message to the owners of those lands that “Your area is not creating jobs, better pay up taxes or sell your land to other people who can make it productive and create more jobs.”

Government is coercion and is financed only by coercion, taxes and other mandatory fees and contributions. Let the coercion be kept to the minimum.