Globalisation has had positive effects on the development of current tax systems and it has encouraged countries to engage in fiscal reforms that reduce taxation. However, it has also created an environment in which tax havens thrive and governments can be induced to adopt harmful preferential tax regimes to attract investment within their territories.
What Is Tax Competition?
This phenomenon, called tax competition – or tax war by some – is realised with the economic integration of the different tax jurisdictions, thanks to the mobility of production factors and income subject to tax flows. Given these conditions, governments compete with each other in order to increase the level of well-being of their residents.
Tax competition is therefore a process in which states, or even cities, use tax breaks and grants to attract investment, multinational corporations or hot money to create more jobs and higher tax revenues. According to economic theory, jurisdictions that reduce taxation on production factors may increase the level of investment within their economy at the expense of jurisdictions with a higher tax burden. In order to react to the outflow of production factors, the other tax jurisdictions are driven to lower their rates, triggering a downward trend in tax rates.
According to some authors, referring to Cournot Equilibrium and Game Theory, the long-term equilibrium produced by tax competition would be inefficient as the tax burden would become too low. This is referred to as harmful tax competition. Other authors, on the contrary, believe there is beneficial tax competition when the equilibrium produces efficient results as it pushes executive power to pursue collective well-being with the least waste of public resources.
In order to limit the possible negative externalities associated with tax competition, regulators should harmonise tax legislation or devolve their tax sovereignty to a higher level of government. This solution is not always possible because states are reluctant to limit (or lose) their fiscal sovereignty and, secondly, because of the presence of states that do not benefit from tax coordination (so-called free riders). Another problem is that countries with a smaller territorial dimension or population have to support lower public spending and thus have a greater capacity to reduce their rates. In the absence of a central coordination, it is extremely difficult to combat the phenomenon of harmful tax competition. Such considerations also explain the presence and nature of the so-called tax havens.
Horizontal and Vertical Competition
In general, the competition between different tax jurisdictions is called horizontal tax competition because it affects independent and sovereign governments. There is, however, a further form of competition, called vertical tax competition, which affects different levels of the same government. Economic theory considers efficient vertical tax competition, basing this judgment on the model of C.M. Tiebout (1954). According to this model, which takes on the perfect mobility of individuals, citizens who are dissatisfied with the policies implemented by their local governments will reside in other places, thereby creating competition between governments through the mechanism of Albert O. Hirschman known as “Foot Voting”. Local governments, therefore, would be able to better detect citizens’ preferences and offer, with greater efficiency, the public services required by the population.
On the other hand, even the different characteristics of various tax structures can cause alternations on the effects of tax competition. For example, countries such as Denmark and the United Kingdom rely relatively less on direct social charges than countries like France. Factors like this can well explain why tax competition can be classified as “harmful” by a state but not so by another.
Amongst the motivations of tax competition supporters is that tax rates, being lower, encourage investment. It also allows firms to generate more profit that can be used for research and development (R&D) and business investment. On the government side, lower taxation encourages legislators to reduce public spending and increase efficiency.
By doing historical analysis, it can be seen that tax reductions became a major issue in the 1960s and 1970s. Margaret Thatcher rescued the UK economy by reducing taxation from 83% to 40%. Ronald Reagan restored the US economy by cutting the tax rate from 70% to 28%. But the most interesting thing in these tax cuts is that it has seen other nations forced to follow the US and UK: taxes in main industrialised countries have fallen overall by over 65% to about 40%. This leads the competition supporters to say that in this way tax policy has improved and that the global economy is much stronger today than in the 70s.
Similarly, in the plans of Donald Trump’s electoral program, there is the will to cut corporate tax rates from 35% to 15%. This is making governments such as Germany, France and China worry about their own tax regimes.
The Disadvantages of Tax Competition
Some instead argue that tax competition is harmful and argue that there is no gain: ultimately, only a few countries have benefits at the expense of others. In addition, investments prove temporary because multinationals shift their capital every time a country reduces taxation. They are thereby attracted fickle investments that have few productive ties with the real economy.
If corporate tax rates are reduced, other taxes, such as income tax or VAT, will have to rise to face the shortage. This could represent an increase in social inequality and this also means that countries lose the power to choose how to distribute the tax burden on their economy. This, therefore, erodes democracy, reduces productivity and economic growth, promotes capital at the expense of labour, and tightens state budgets.
In this way, those who are against tax competition prefer to call it a “tax war” because it is much more like a trade war or a currency war than a competition in the product market.
Europe, like many other realities, has studied and tried to regulate tax competition. The “Anti-Tax Avoidance Package” adopted on 28 January 2016 is part of the ambitious agenda of the European Commission for a taxation more equitable, simpler and more effective. This package contains concrete measures to prevent aggressive tax planning, increase fiscal transparency and create equal conditions for all EU firms.
Tax competition is not always harmful, but when it is, cooperation between the parties is essential to counteract it. Tax competition has limited the tax-increasing trend in relatively high-rate countries and has produced convergence within the EU Member States. Coordination and cooperation are justified when the degree of competition produces a potential failure to reap the benefits that the single market provides in terms of growth and employment.
It has not yet come to the definition of a range where the tax rate may change. For example, in the field of VAT, a minimum rate of 15% was set by the EU in 1992 but no proposal for a maximum limit of 20% was approved. It seems therefore that EU legislators want to leave the maximum rates to competition and market forces. In any case, there is an upper natural limit since any possible increase in rates may lead to a fall in the aggregate revenues due to the imposition of taxation.
In any case, the balance between competition and cooperation is crucial. Although it is possible to initiate community action to eliminate obviously harmful tax competition, it is preferable to start a cooperative action. Greater cooperation and exchange of information between tax authorities of the origin and residence countries are considered the correct preservation of national sovereignty and of market forces.
Bulletproof Clothing: How US Fashion Is Going Ballistic
As the US continues to allow civilians to carry weapons and gun violence becomes more of a concern, an increasing number of bulletproof apparel retailers are emerging across the country. Their target clients? The average Joe. Or at least those who can afford the hefty price tags associated with the “exotic” new fashion segment.
Miguel Caballero, a Colombian designer, sells his bulletproof blazers for 4,343.50 euros, and his tank tops for 2,023 euros. At a lower price, but still too high for most people, Joe Curran, who owns BulletBlocker, sells his bulletproof leather jacket for $875 and bulletproof classic two-piece suit for $1,200.
Caballero said that his clients include world leaders from South America and the Middle East, and international businessmen. Damien Ross, another manufacturer of bulletproof clothing, said that his clients are mostly college-educated, professional men, between the ages of 34 and 75.
“They [clients] see what’s happening on the news, and, any time they’re in a crowd or an area that can be prone to attack, they are concerned.”
Body armour manufacturing is a $465 million-a-year industry in the US, according to a report in August from Market Research. The retailers, who mostly entered the industry because of the surge in gun violence taking place around them, are presenting upscale bulletproof clothing, from blazers to tank tops.
Owning body armour is completely legal, and does not require a special permit or background check. However, guidelines vary from state-to-state, and felons are not able to purchase it.
Trump Promises Tax Cut “for Christmas”
US President Donald Trump has said the country is “just days away” from the biggest tax reform since the Reagan administration. Speaking at the White House, Trump said he was close to fulfilling his campaign promise “to cut taxes for the everyday working American” and that he wanted “to give [the American people] a giant tax cut for Christmas”.
As a candidate, I promised we would pass a massive tax cut for the everyday, working Americans. If you make your voices heard, this moment will be forever remembered as a great new beginning – the dawn of a brilliant American future shining with PATRIOTISM, PROSPERITY AND PRIDE! pic.twitter.com/exsBzrlCdw
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 14, 2017
This week, Republicans and Democrats have reached an agreement on the two different tax bills that were rapidly pushed through Congress last month. If passed, it will be the first significant piece of legislation passed by the Trump administration. The compromise reached by both parties will see a corporate tax cut from 35% to 21% and cap the top tax rate for individuals at 37%.
Following a Democrat victory in Alabama’s senatorial election on Tuesday, the GOP was left with a majority of just 51 out of 100 in the upper house. As such, the Republicans are pushing for a vote on the tax bill for early next week, before the newly-elected Doug Jones can take his seat in Congress.
Tax reform was a keystone in Trump’s electoral campaign and success here would allow other tax deductions at a state and local level to work. It would also give Trump a chance to reverse his low approval ratings which have averaged at 39%, which makes him one of the most unpopular Presidents in the history of political polling.
Venezuelan Digital Currency Backed by Oil
Venezuela has announced plans to launch a digital currency, “the petro”, backed by the country’s oil and mineral reserves. The petro aims to help ease the country’s monetary crisis but sceptics claim the proposal has no credibility and will not help those in extreme need.
Why It’s Important
Hyperinflation has eroded the Venezuelan bolivia’s value by 97% this year, making imports incredibly expensive and causing many to abandon trust in the currency. The country’s oil reserves made up 95% of its exports in 2016, while oil and gas extraction accounted for 25% of GDP. Rich supplies of resources provide some initial credibility to the proposal, but President Maduro’s questionable track record when it comes to monetary policy is making many sceptical about the proposal. His currency controls and money printing have only added to the monetary crisis. Maduro has not announced when the digital currency would come into use or any details regarding how the country would create such a system.
Opposition leaders argue the country’s shortages of food and medication are far more pressing and that the digital currency will not address this. The digital currency may provide a more trusted medium of exchange, but it is unlikely to help those in excessive poverty.
More on Tax
Taxation and Morality: What Underpins the US Tax System?
Governments need money to fix the roads; to keep airports running; to keep bridges safe; to pay the armed forces;...
The Paradise Papers: The Impact of Large-Scale Tax Avoidance
The Paradise Papers are the next instalment of the Panama Papers. The Panama Papers were a leak from Mossack Fonseca,...
Sell Your Tax Losses Here!
In 2015, in the wake of the financial crisis, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration published a report, detailing...
Cryptocurrencies17 hours ago
NEO Reaches a New High at $51
Cryptocurrencies2 days ago
When Will the Bitcoin Bubble Burst?
Americas2 days ago
Shopping for Legal Cannabis Around the World
Brexit2 days ago
Progress and Economic Realism in UK-EU Relations
Global Affairs21 hours ago
Will Passive Investment Dominate the Future?
Blog2 days ago
What We Do at The Market Mogul
Global Affairs55 mins ago
Breakfast Briefing: SpaceX’s Used Rocket, Aliens and Bitcoin
Charts2 hours ago
How Much Do World Leaders Make?