US Equity Markets Welcomes Obama Re-election with a Thud!

What a celebration for the re-elected President.

From Bloomberg,

Stocks tumbled as Obama’s re-election set up a showdown with the Republican-controlled House over the budget, with the so-called fiscal cliff of more than $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts slated to start in January unless Congress acts before then.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) lost the most since June, tumbling 2.4 percent to close at 1,394.53. The retreat wiped out roughly $370 billion in market value from U.S. equities, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Don’t worry, for the Obama apologists the US Federal Reserve will ride to the rescue.

A day ago, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President John Williams said that he expected the revitalized asset purchasing program or QE 30 (forever) to reach $600 billion into next year.

After yesterday’s elections, the ante seems to have been upped, where many expects the Fed’s program to exceed $1 trillion (I have been saying that both the FED and the ECB will be buying over $2 trillion)

From the same Bloomberg article,

A fiscal boost to the economy is probably off the table as President Barack Obama negotiates tax increases and spending cuts with leaders of a Democratic-controlled Senate and a House of Representatives led by Republicans, Edelstein said. That may leave only the Fed in the position of trying to boost the economy, and its third round of quantitative easing may extend through next year and climb past $1 trillion, said economists at JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Pierpont Securities LLC.

Supposedly political gridlock is there to blame, but this is simply a smokescreen for what in reality has been President Obama’s anti-business policies, which have only increased the risk profile and the cost of doing business and which will be reflected on higher hurdle rate for investors and entrepreneurs.

Economic freedom in the US has been on a marked decline.

From Fraser Institute: US ranking fell to 18th in 2010

From Heritage Foundation: US fell to 10^th place in the 2012 index

The distinguished Professor and author Thomas Sowell elaborates,

The media misconception today is that what we need to speed up economic recovery is to end gridlock in Washington and have bipartisan intervention in the economy. However plausible that may sound, it is contradicted repeatedly by history.

Unemployment was never in double digits in any of the twelve months following the stock-market crash of 1929. Only after politicians started intervening did unemployment reach double digits — and it stayed there throughout the rest of the 1930s.

There is nothing mysterious about an economy’s recovering on its own. Employers usually have incentives to employ and workers have incentives to look for jobs. Lenders have incentives to lend and borrowers have incentives to borrow — if politicians do not create needless complications and uncertainties.

The Obama administration is in its glory creating complications and uncertainties for business, ranging from runaway regulations to the unknowable future costs of Obamacare and taxes. Record amounts of idle cash held by businesses and financial institutions are a monument to the counterproductive effects of Barack Obama’s anti-business policies and rhetoric. That idle money could create lots of jobs — net jobs — if politics did not make it risky to invest.

So President Obama’s increasing reliance on the FED (most likely on Bernanke) will only lead to more volatile markets.

And volatile days have been a common feature since 2007.

The Bespoke Invest notes of the increasing “All or Nothing days” or advance decline breadth index “where the net daily A/D reading in the S&P 500 exceeds plus or minus 400”.

In other words, since the FED began intervening in the markets, stock market movements either floated or sank in tides. Such tidal motion is a symptom of the monetary policy influenced inflation (boom)-deflation (bust) volatilities.

Finally, Sovereign Man’s Simon Black succinctly illuminates on what to expect from the extension of Obama’s presidency

One point that I absolutely must make is this– after December 31st,

- Income tax rates are going up

- Capital gains rates are going up

- Rates on dividends are going up

- Estate and gift tax exclusions are going down. Dramatically.

Eventually the US government will run out of savings or wealth generators to tax and a crisis will emerge. And the US will default on its obligations.

Perhaps the markets has signaled what the great libertarian H. L Mencken wrote [A Little Book in C major (1916); later published in A Mencken Crestomathy (1949)].

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

A Looming Tax Revolt? Protesting French Entrepreneurs Goes Viral

Because government holds the badges and guns, they haughtily presume of the complete subjugation of their subjects. They fail to realize that as humans, their constituents will respond to policies based on the latter’s self-interests—which could mean either life or death.

In France, the class warfare policies of President Francois Hollande has compelled entrepreneurs to bond together to demonstrate or protest on the highly repressive tax regime being rammed down their throats. 

The French entrepreneur’s grievances has gone viral (above logo is from their Facebook page) 

From Bloomberg,

French entrepreneurs have a new mascot -- the pigeon.

Using the bird’s role in French slang as the “sucker,” owners of startups have formed a group dubbed “Les Pigeons” to show that President Francois Hollande’s new taxes make them the fall guys for France’s economic woes. They are protesting the almost doubling of the tax rate on capital gains generated from selling a business in Hollande’s budget for 2013.

The group has gathered more than 34,000 supporters in less than six days on Facebook Inc.’s social network and spurred more than 3,600 posts under the “#geonpi” tag on Twitter, with the founders of Iliad SA (ILD), Vente-Privee and Meetic SA (MEET) throwing in their voices of support.

“The government thinks France’s entrepreneurs are pigeons,” the movement’s initiators wrote on a dedicated Facebook page. “Anti-economic policies are crushing the entrepreneurial spirit and exposing France to a big risk.”

Entrepreneurs have for months called on France’s government to avoid slapping them with more taxes, saying it will dry up interest in creating new companies or drive startups away.

Socialist President Hollande, seeking to appease his base in his first annual budget last week, raised taxes on the rich and big companies and included a minimum of spending cuts to reduce the deficit. The government introduced a 75 percent tax for income above 1 million euros ($1.29 million).

Class warfare policies foster social divisions. This means that if the French government will remain recalcitrant in the pursuit of harsh socialist redistributionist policies, untoward consequences or the risks of capital flight,  tax revolt and or civil unrest rises. 

Moreover, by assailing the productive tax paying class, French fiscal position will likely worsen thus the likelihood of bringing down the entire euro project with it.

So instead of attaining “social justice”, class warfare policies will only lead to greater risks of intensifying the current crisis, a violent outcome and social instability.

Again politicians and their sycophants never learn.

Validating Bastiat: France’s Hollande Scales Back on Wealthy Taxes

Perhaps in the realization that many of the wealthy French, whom have been targeted by the President François Hollande’s “soak the rich” policies, have been exploring overseas refuge, the French government appears to have signaled the softening, if not a subtle backtracking of the proposed repressive taxes on the wealthy.

These mostly through the insertions of many loopholes that essentially enervates the proposed populist statute.

From the CNBC,

News reports in France today say the tax has been tweaked so that it will only effect 1,000 households. And that’s if it passes – which remains a big question.

The French newspapers Les Echos and Le Figaro both say today that the tax being considered would only be levied on income of more than 2 million euros. That’s double the original cut-off.

There may also be other changes. Rather than applying to all income, the tax may only apply to ordinary income from salaries. If investment income or capital gains is excluded, the wealthy French who make their money from investments need not worry.

The tax also makes special provisions for athletes and artists, carves out social security taxes and ... you get the idea. Pretty soon, it’s not anything like a 75 percent tax on million-plus earners.

Considering the precarious state of the French fiscal conditions, it would amount to absurdity for politicians and their imbecilic followers to think that tax increases by in itself would solve the looming risks of a debt crisis. The idea that people will behave like automatons, and fawningly submit to edict, is sheer fantasy.

chart from tradingeconomics.com

Taxes are always political.

They are instruments to what the great French classical liberal Frederic Bastiat called as “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else”

Yet people’s subjective take on taxes will mean a change on incentives to save, produce and consume or economic activities, as well as changes, in the approach towards treatment of taxation.

At certain levels, people may find taxes to become an unbearable burden and thus would work to preserve on their savings through circumventing actions, such as the employment of accountants and tax lawyers to exploit on loopholes, seek refuge elsewhere, bribe authorities, influence policies or even incite or join revolutions.

The inherent structural self-contradiction through promises of undeliverable benefits from the limitations of resources the state can generate from taxation, as wonderfully explained by the great Frederic Bastiat [Government, 1848] (bold added)

There is the public on one side, Government on the other, considered as two distinct beings; the latter bound to bestow upon the former, and the former having the right to claim from the latter, all imaginable human benefits. What will be the consequence?

In fact, Government is not maimed, and cannot be so. It has two hands - one to receive and the other to give; in other words, it has a rough hand and a smooth one. The activity of the second necessarily subordinate to the activity of the first. Strictly, Government may take and not restore. This is evident, and may be explained by the porous and absorbing nature of its hands, which always retain a part, and sometimes the whole, of what they touch. But the thing that never was seen, and never will be seen or conceived, is, that Government can restore to the public more than it has taken from it. It is therefore ridiculous for us to appear before it in the humble attitude of beggars. It is radically impossible for it to confer a particular benefit upon any one of the individualities which constitute the community, without inflicting a greater injury upon the community as a whole.

Our requisitions, therefore, place it in a dilemma. If it refuses to grant the requests made to it, it is accused of weakness, ill-will, and incapacity. If it endeavors to grant them, it is obliged to load the people with fresh taxes - to do more harm than good, and to bring upon itself from another quarter the general displeasure.

Thus, the public has two hopes, and Government makes two promises - many benefits and no taxes. Hopes and promises, which, being contradictory, can never be realized.

Mr. Bastiat also shows that unrealizable political promises leads towards unsustainable debt and bankruptcy…

These two promises are for ever clashing with each other; it cannot be otherwise. To live upon credit, which is the same as exhausting the future, is certainly a present means of reconciling them: an attempt is made to do a little good now, at the expense of a great deal of harm in future. But such proceedings call forth the spectre of bankruptcy, which puts an end to credit.

…as well as, the perpetual search for the elusive “something from nothing” elixir by the gullible public on promises made by politicians.

What is to be done then? Why, then, the new Government takes a bold step; it unites all its forces in order to maintain itself; it smothers opinion, has recourse to arbitrary measures, ridicules its former maxims, declares that it is impossible to conduct the administration except at the risk of being unpopular; in short, it proclaims itself governmental. And it is here that other candidates for popularity are waiting for it. They exhibit the same illusion, pass by the same way, obtain the same success, and are soon swallowed up in the same gulf.

Events in France and the Eurozone have simply been upholding Bastiat’s predictions, and mostly importantly, his classical liberal principles.

The IRS Awaits US Olympic Winners

Poor US Olympic athletes.

Triumph from years of hard work will only mean that much of their earnings (seized) taxed away by the IRS.

From America’s Tax Reform, (bold original)

While 529 hardworking athletes proudly represent the United States in the 2012 Olympics, any medals and money they earn wearing red, white and blue will be taxed by the IRS. According to research done by the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation, U.S. Olympic athletes are liable to pay income tax on medals earned and prizes received at the London games.

American medalists face a top income tax rate of 35 percent. Under U.S. tax law, they must add the value of their Olympic medals and prizes to their taxable income. It is therefore easy to calculate the tax bite on Olympic glory.

At today’s commodity prices, the value of a gold medal is about $675. A silver medal is worth about $385 while a bronze medal is worth under $5.

There are also prizes that accompany each medal: $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver, and $10,000 for bronze.

So how much will U.S. Olympic medal winners have to pay in taxes to the IRS?

	Medal Tax	Prize Tax	Total Tax Burden
Gold	$236	$8,750	$8,986
Silver	$135	$5,250	$5,385
Bronze	$2	$3,500	$3,502

American gold medal winners will pay the IRS up to $8,986. Silver medal winners will pay up to $5,385. Bronze medal winners will pay up to $3,502.

Of course add to the miseries of the world Olympians are the vastly reduced value of their medallions which I showed earlier.

Below is from the Economist,

Calculations by The Economist find that this is much more than the "podium value" of any previous gold medal (based on estimates of the composition of medals and bullion prices at the time, adjusted for inflation). This is partly because gold and silver prices are now historically high and partly because this year's medal is so much heavier, even though the extra weight is silver rather than gold. For the first time, the silver in this year's "gold" medal is actually worth more than its gold content. Moreover, if the metal content of earlier medals is valued at today's bullion prices, the London gold is worth only just over half of those handed out in 1912.

Yet the above signifies as evidences that governments barely reward the efforts and merits by their citizenry.

US Social Mobility Hamstrung by Taxes and the Welfare State

One principal reason to expect future default and high interest rate environment can be seen from the micro level.

In the US, the repressive tax regime and the welfare state has deepened the public’s incentive to become unproductive and dependent on the government which comes at the expense social mobility.

Writes the Business Insider, (hat tip Sovereign Man) [bold added]

Upward mobility has been a foundation of America’s self-image since the 18^th century.

If you work hard enough, nothing can stop you from getting ahead. That, at least in the minds of many Americans, is what distinguishes us from much of the rest of the world.

Yet, according to my always-provocative Tax Policy Center colleague Gene Steuerle, our tax and spending priorities not only fail to promote mobility for those who are starting at the bottom, but they often actively discourage the hard work and savings that help us climb the socio-economic ladder.

Oh, the federal budget is loaded with subsidies that encourage work and savings. But they are almost always aimed at improving the lot of middle- and upper-income households, not those who most need a leg up.

In testimony last week to the Senate Finance Committee, Gene estimated that of the nearly $750 billion in mobility-enhancing tax and spending programs in 2006, $540 billion–or nearly three-quarters– went to higher income households. Those with low-incomes received only about 2 percent of the benefit of subsidies for home ownership and almost none of the benefit of employer-related work subsidies or incentives for savings and investment.

Some of these programs not only fail to help poor and lower middle-class households, they actively hurt them. For instance, if home ownership is a key to upward mobility (an arguable proposition, but one many believe), we need to acknowledge that subsidies such as the mortgage interest deduction inflate home prices and make it harder, not easier, for poor families to buy.

Worse than that, Gene argues, once low-income households reach poverty level, government policy discourages work. True, social welfare programs provide a valuable safety net for the very poor. For instance, the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit are important income supports for low-income families.

But because these safety net programs phase out as incomes rise, some people face marginal tax rates as high as 80 percent for getting a better job or even a raise. A new Urban Institute calculator shows how this works.

With a budget that encourages consumption rather than work and savings, the gap between the American Dream of unfettered mobility and the reality will only widen, Gene fears. His solution: Rethink those tax subsidies and spending programs that too often hinder mobility, paradoxically in the name of enhancing it.

A deepening of the socio-political parasitical relationship will come with great costs. Such will be vented not only in the political economy but likewise on the financial markets.

Tax Avoidance: U.S. Banks Spawn 10,000 Subsidiaries Worldwide

Below is a great example of what is called as tax avoidance which Wikipedia.org defines as

legal utilization of the tax regime to one's own advantage, to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law.

For the politically endowed US banks, tax avoidance means establishing numerous subsidiaries around the world.

From Bloomberg,

The biggest U.S. banks created more than 10,000 subsidiaries in the past 22 years as they expanded, using legal structures to pay lower taxes and escape tighter regulation, according to a Federal Reserve study.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), the largest U.S. lender, has the most units at 3,391, followed by Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and Bank of America Corp. (BAC) with more than 2,000 each, the study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows. Citigroup Inc. (C), the third-largest lender, has 1,645.

Critics including Thomas Hoenig, a Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. board member, say the biggest firms are too complicated to manage. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act asked the FDIC and Fed to make sure the largest banks, if they get into trouble, can be wound down without collapsing the rest of the financial system. U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown has proposed legislation to force their breakup.

“When regulators are left to curtail the risk of trillion- dollar megabanks with hundreds of affiliates, we know that too big to fail is also too big to manage” said Brown, an Ohio Democrat and member of the Senate Banking Committee.

Well this is just the banking system, I would conjecture that many significantly sized companies, as well as, the wealthy, do the same. The rich according to CNBC has an estimated $21 to $32 trillion stashed overseas. Of course this claim has been made by political parasites eyeing to seize their property.

The lesson here is that people will respond to changes in tax regimes. So any puritanical statist idea of imposing taxes to generate revenue without considering people's responses are likely to fail.

The Fantasy of Forcing the Rich to Bail Out Europe

In the world of statism, everything operates in very simple terms. Just come up with the numbers (supplied by supposed experts), and expect every edict to deliver the targeted results.

Such insight can be gleaned from the blaring drumbeat of class warfare politics in the Eurozone where political authorities have been eyeing to tax the rich to solve the current crisis.

Writes the CNBC,

To many in Europe, the Continent has two big economic problems: Huge debt, and high inequality between the rich and the rest.

Now some politicians are advocating a plan to solve both.

The idea, first floated by a German economic policy group, calls for imposing a 10 percent tax on the wealth of the richest Europeans and forcing them to lend money to their governments.

The plan calls for placing a one-time 10 percent levy on the total assets for those with more than $309,000 in assets (or couples with more than $611,000). In addition, it calls for a “forced loan” program, in which the wealthy lend money to their governments that could be paid back over time.

Stefan Bach of the prestigious the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) in Berlin, which floated the plan, said that: "In many countries the sovereign debt levels have increased considerably, and at the same time we also have very high amounts of private assets that, taken together, considerably exceed the total national debts of all [euro-zone] countries."

In other words, the wealth of the wealthy is more than enough to plug government budget holes.

The idea gaining popularity among European politicians. An Austrian member of the European Parliament, Jörg Leichtfried, favors the plan for forced loans, saying the rich could lend to the states at low interest rates. The loans, he said, would not be an “expropriation,” since they would be paid back. The head of Austria’s Social Democratic Group also backs the plan, saying states need to fix their budget troubles.

For statists: legalize the plunder of the wealthy, collect and the problem gets easily solved.

But there are two more problems to reckon with;

one, statists and politicians are dealing with human beings who will act to protect their own interests from political predations, and

second, if taxing has been that easy then what stops government from spending more? Having to confiscate everything else from the rich, these politicians would end up with no one else to tax. So we end up with a crisis again.

A good example of the first scenario is the recent incidents of “runaway luxury yachts”, as blogged by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute, where wealthy yacht owners flee Italian taxing authorities by sailing to and docking at foreign “friendlier ports”. These yacht owners would instead access their boats through “low-cost budget flights from Italy for a fraction of the tax bill they might otherwise face”.

In addition, the unexpected consequence from taxing yacht owners has been to penalize the industry which affects mostly the middle income people, who suffer from lost business opportunities.

So tax authorities essentially does an Aesop, kill two birds with one stone.

The moral of the tax story says Dan Mitchell is that

The politicians need to understand that taxpayers don’t meekly acquiesce, like lambs in a slaughterhouse.

• When tax rates increase, sometimes people engage in tax avoidance, lowering their tax liabilities legally.
• When tax rates change, sometimes people choose to alter their levels of work, saving, and investment.
• And when tax rates go up, sometimes people resort to illegal steps to protect themselves from the tax authority.

Heck, even the folks at the International Monetary Fund (a crowd not known for rabid free-market sympathies) have acknowledged that excessive taxation is the leading cause of the shadow economy.

Thus, the idea that forcing the rich to bailout Europe is just that…a statist fantasy.

Quote of the Day: Care about the Future? Reduce Capital Taxes

There are only three things you and I can do to make the future world a better place.

First, we can consume less, leaving more resources behind. Second, we can work harder, planting trees, building factories and writing poems that will live on after we’re gone. Third, we can innovate, advancing science and technology so that our children’s children’s children can make better use of the resources they inherit.

As it happens, there’s one key policy variable that drives all three of these things, and that’s the tax rate on capital income (which includes interest, dividends, corporate income and capital gains). Capital taxes are a disincentive to save, and when people don’t save they consume instead. Capital taxes are a disincentive to work and a disincentive to innovate.

This is not a plea for lowering taxes in general, and it’s not a plea for making the tax system either more or less progressive. (If you want to soak the rich, there are plenty of things to tax besides capital.) As a matter of fact, this isn’t even a plea for lowering taxes on capital. It’s simply an observation that if your goal is to leave a better world for our descendants, then your best bet is to support lower capital taxes.

This is from author and professor Steven Landsburg at the business.time.com.

Professor Landsburg is being coy or attempting to be apolitical at this. Let me improvise: ABOLISHI capital taxes, if your goal is to leave a better world for our descendants.

One more thing to make a better place, spread the truth or educate the public about the political economic inequality between the repressive state and the oppressed individuals.

Celebrity Denise Rich Abandons US Citizenship

There has been a growing trend of wealthy Americans giving up on their citizenship.

I earlier noted that this controversial trend may have been accentuated by Eduardo Saverin, one of Facebook founder.

Another celebrity, Denise Rich, has opted to vote with their feet in response to the intensifying class warfare politics which is being passed off through repressive tax policies.

From the Wall Street Journal,

Denise Rich, the songwriter and socialite who was once married to pardoned financier Marc Rich, has given up her U.S. citizenship, a move that could also help shield her from future U.S. taxes.

“In order to be closer to her longtime life partner, as well as her family and loved ones, she made the decision to become an Austrian citizen. That was in November 2011,” said Judy Smith, a spokeswoman for Ms. Rich.

Ms. Rich’s name showed up in an April 30 list of those who had given up their U.S. citizenship. She was listed under her maiden name of Denise Eisenberg. The move was first reported by Reuters.

Ms. Rich and many others adds to the statistics of nearly 1,800 Americans whom have renounced their citizenship.

The absolute number may indeed be small (yes that’s because they are the detestable 1%), but they are the source of productive capital.

Daily Reckoning’s Erics Fry rightly concludes

Surrendering US citizen was absolutely unthinkable. But not anymore. Now it is “thinkable,” albeit still relatively rare. The absolute numbers are still tiny, but the trend conveys a very large message: Discontent is on the rise.

Intervention begets intervention, taxes begets taxes, repressive actions by the desperate political class will only exacerbate. Ultimately these would affect everyone and vented through a crisis. Hence discontent will snowball.

Interesting signs of times and the reversal of what used to be seen as entrenched trends.

Will France’s Fairness Doctrine Save the EU?

From Zero Hedge

With the Great June Socialist Revolution spilling over into July, here are some details as they become available from France:

• FRANCE TO HAVE NEW TAX RATE OF 45% FOR WEALTHY
• FRANCE TO TAX INCOME OF MORE THAN EU1 MLN AT 75%, AYRAULT SAYS
• FRANCE TO TAX CAPITAL INCOME AT SAME LEVEL AS WAGES
• FRANCE TO RAISE TAXES FOR LARGE COMPANIES, BANKS, OIL FIRMS

But... FRANCE TO ANNUL PLANNED VAT INCREASE PLANNED BY SARKOZY

After all, it's only fair. In other news, we are rotating our secular long thesis away from Belgian caterers and into tax offshoring advisors, now that nobody in the 1% will pay any taxes ever again.

Politicians believe the path to prosperity is only through confiscation and redistribution. They also believe that growth comes with subtraction and division and not from addition and multiplication

They further think that the wealthy are dingbats whose actions are limited by the dictates of politicians.

Professor Ludwig von Mises was right…

Nothing is more calculated to make a demagogue popular than a constantly reiterated demand for heavy taxes on the rich…

Confiscations of capital through the legal form of taxation are neither socialistic nor a means to Socialism. They lead, not to socialization of the means of production, but to consumption of capital. Only when they are set within a socialist system, which retains the name and form of private property, are they a part of Socialism.

So the French government will spend MORE and get LESSER revenues as productive segments of society either reduces productive activities and or flee to other havens. Capital will be consumed at a more faster rate.

After all, money goes where it is best treated.

Yet under the sustainment of such political conditions, the Euro’s death warrant has been sealed.

Asia should welcome with open arms the prospective diaspora of French capital by implementing policies opposite to those embraced by the French politicians. Yes, such policy is known as economic freedom.

Video: Will Taxing the Rich Fix the Deficit?

Thanks to Tim D. Hedberg from LearnLiberty.org.

Italy’s Pro-Growth Tax Increases Backfires

Economic reality flies in the face of the “pro-growth” policies prescribed by politicians and which has been endorsed by mainstream experts.

Italians join Greeks in dodging tax increases, which demonstrates their refusal to feed big government through the strangulation of the private sector.

From Bloomberg,

Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti is facing signs that tax increases are beginning to backfire as his new levy on real estate goes into effect.

Value-added tax receipts have declined since Monti’s predecessor, Silvio Berlusconi, raised the rate by 1 percentage point in September as the economy was slipping into recession,government data released June 5 showed. The amount collected fell in the 12 months ended April 30 to the lowest since 2006.

Finding the right deficit-reduction mix as Monti fights to meet budget targets is critical for Italy to avoid becoming the biggest victim yet of Europe’s financial crisis. A slump that is driving up welfare spending is adding urgency to Monti’s effort to make the economy more competitive amid a growing backlash across Europe against austerity.

“This government has raised taxes too much,” said Alberto Alesina, a professor of political economy at Harvard University. “It would be much, much better to lower spending.”…

The decline in VAT revenue figures may bolster the government’s efforts to postpone a further increase in the rate after October by 2 percentage points to 23 percent. That would put Italy on par with Greece.

The emperor has no clothes. Pretentious knowledge has been exposed via the law of unintended consequences

Again from the same Bloomberg article, (bold emphasis added)

Monti planned to tap more than 4 billion euros of projected savings from a government spending review to put off the VAT increase, which his deputies acknowledge may deepen the recession.

“The economy shows signs of strong deterioration,” Finance Undersecretary Gianfranco Polillo told the Senate in Rome on June 6. “In light of the fall in domestic demand, betting on a further VAT increase would be incomprehensible and even wrong.”…

Under Monti, Italy’s tax burden, the ratio of tax revenue to economic output, will rise to 45.1 percent this year from 42.5 percent in 2011, and won’t start falling until 2015.

Monti, a former university president and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) adviser, was brought to power in November to rein in bond yields and bring down debt. His 20 billion-euro austerity package raised retirement ages and was followed by measures to ease firing rules and promote competition. Increased rates on gasoline were enacted in December and on luxury goods earlier this year, while the first property tax payments are due next week.

“I don’t want to deny that we could have done more and better,” Monti said in a June 7 speech. Still, his reforms have produced results, he said.

Dodging Tax

The government had 99.8 billion euros in VAT receipts in the 12 months ended April 30 tied to internal trade, or transactions among domestic counterparties. That compares with 100 billion euro in the 12 months ended March 31 and 101.3 billion euros in the period ended April 30, 2011.

“VAT revenue does depend on growth in domestic consumption,” said Ian Roxan, director of the Tax Programme at London School of Economics and Political Science. “It is also not immune to evasion. It is certainly possible that in a time of austerity people become less willing to pay VAT.”

Italy loses more than 120 billion euros in unpaid taxes every year, according to the Equitalia tax-collection agency. The country retrieved 12.7 billion euros from the fight against evasion in 2011, up 15.5 percent from 2010.

This also exposes the propaganda that the public has been “anti-austerity” which is nothing more than media's manipulation of people’s minds. Because if Italians have indeed been anti-austerity, they would have rushed to the tax collection agencies to pay their share. Duh. Or maybe Italians came to realize they are NO free lunches.

The harsh lesson from reality is “If you tax something, you get less of it.”

Does your Philhealth Contribution Help the Poor?

There has been this politically correct idea which attempts to rationalize private sector contribution to the Philippine national health universal coverage as having a charity effect of helping the underprivileged or the needy.

Let us examine if this claim is valid.

First what is PhilHealth?

From Wikipedia.org, (bold original)

The Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) was created in 1995 with the aim of placing a renewed emphasis on achieving universal coverage. It is categorized as a tax-exempt, government-owned and government-controlled corporation (GOCC) of the Philippines, and is attached to the Department of Health. It states its goal as insuring a sustainable national health insurance program for all.

So the essence of Philhealth’s function is supposedly a “national health insurance program”

But does Philhealth’s concept of insurance match with the real definition of insurance?

Here is the defintion of Insurance from Wikipedia.org (bold original)

Insurance is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for payment. An insurer is a company selling the insurance; the insured, or policyholder, is the person or entity buying the insurance policy. The amount to be charged for a certain amount of insurance coverage is called the premium. Risk management, the practice of appraising and controlling risk, has evolved as a discrete field of study and practice.

So the concept of insurance is the EQUAL transfer of risk from contributors in exchange for payments called as Premium.

If I do not make a claim today on my insurance coverage funded by my accrued premium payments, then my share of my claim to the company’s resources gets transferred to OTHER premium payers who are in demand of the use of resources for one reason or another. Insurance thus is a transfer of risk from ONE premium payer to OTHER premium payer/s where the insurer tries to profit from matching the distribution of assets and liabilities over time.

Let us find out if there is an EQUAL transfer of risk based on how Philhealth is funded?

Again Wikipedia.org, (bold original, italics mine)

Funding for the scheme varies based on the population covered, although the majority of funds flow from general taxation. Premiums for the formal sector are set by law to be up to 3% of monthly income. Premiums for both the poor and the informal sector are 1,200 pesos annually (about 25 USD). However, the cost of insurance for the poor is fully subsidized by the central and local governments. National government allocate more than 9 billion pesos annually to meet its three-year target.

Funding by population is as follows:

-Formal sector: Employer and the employee split the required premium 50/50%.

-Indigents: Central and local governments fully subsidize, with local governments contributing (on average) 25% of the premium and national government contributing (on average) 75% of the premium.

-Retirees: Lifetime free membership for those who are 60 years old and older and have paid 10 years worth of premiums during employment in the formal sector.

-Non-poor, Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), and others not eligible for other three categories: Premiums paid by individuals, referred to as the individual paying program (IPP).

Apparently there is NO equal transfer of risk as “premium” payments are mostly paid for or subsidized by taxes.

Who are covered by Philhealth’s programs? (italics mine)

PhilHealth coverage is theoretically available to the entire population. The enrollment process differs based on the population group. For example, all formal sector workers must enroll at the start of employment. The poor are identified and enrolled by the local government.

The population is tagged to one of the four major population categorizations:

-Formal sector

-Indigents that are financed by central and local governments

-Retirees (non-paying members) who have already paid 120 months of membership

-The individual paying program (IPP) for those not eligible for the other three categories

The benefits package is essentially the same for each population group. The exception is for indigents and the Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) who have additional outpatient primary care benefits (with the providers paid by capitation) however these benefits are available only through public providers.

However, the enrollment process for each population category differs. For the formal sector, employees are enrolled upon the start of employment. It is mandatory that all employees enroll in health insurance. No exceptions are allowed for the size of the company. For the poor, the local government determines “poorness” and enrolls those who are determined poor. For the rest of the population there is open enrollment—one can walk into a local enrollment office anytime to enroll.

Is Philhealth an insurance company?

No it isn’t. There is NO equal sharing of risk and thus is NOT qualified as an insurance company in the conventional terms.

Instead, Philhealth is a health coverage WELFARE program (verbally embellished by the term "insurance") funded mainly by taxpayers and complimented by an employment MANDATE (or as a form of tax on BOTH the employer and the employee).

So taxpayers get an additional whammy from a barrage of existing taxes: VAT, income, capital gains, estate tax, inflation tax among the many others. Of course, this is aside from Philhealth contributions which has been put in place in the name of universal health coverage.

The impression that taxes help the poor is deceptive. Taxes help the politicians and the bureaucracy which uses the poor as justification for coercive extraction of resources from the private sector. Taxes also serve as redistribution from productive use of resources towards consumption which diminishes investment and employment opportunities.

Aside, the welfare state promotes the culture of dependency and entitlement, as well as, reckless behavior which do not alleviate the position of the poor.

In reality, taxes help keep the “poor” poor

Does your contribution to Philheath fund the needy?

If we based this claim on coverage, then the rich, middle-class and most importantly the OFWs, whom has special treatment through “additional outpatient primary care benefits” have likewise been beneficiaries of everyone’s contribution.

So the claim that Philhealth benefits the poor is a BLATANT MISREPRESENTATION as the health welfare program’s coverage has been asymmetrically distributed, with a bias towards OFWs.

In fact, benefits are skewed AGAINST the poor based on access to Philhealth, let me repeat the last paragraph,

However, the enrollment process for each population category differs. For the formal sector, employees are enrolled upon the start of employment. It is mandatory that all employees enroll in health insurance. No exceptions are allowed for the size of the company. For the poor, the local government determines “poorness” and enrolls those who are determined poor. For the rest of the population there is open enrollment—one can walk into a local enrollment office anytime to enroll.

Because of the employment mandate, the formal sector has automatic enrollment-access while the “poor” will have to be screened by local politicians.

In short, access to Philhealth has been politicized and largely depends on the interests of local officials who may use Philhealth as means to secure votes or for other personal agenda.

The “poor” is, thus, not privileged under this TRANSFER or REDISTRIBUTION program.

Bottom line: Based on the above, the claim that private sector’s contributions to Philhealth have the “charitable” consequences to the poor is unfounded and baseless or propaganda from mouthpieces of the government.

Postscript: Accounts of corruption or malversation of funds or dipping on the coffers of the welfare institution aggravates the plight of the poor which underscores the waste and inefficiencies from such programs.

Will French Politics Swing from Socialism to Fascism?

Far right Marine Le Pen’s strong showing at the recent Presidential runoff in France may have opened the door for politics of the extreme right.

Writes historian Eric Margolis at the Lewrockwell.com

Talk about déjà vu. Such a sweeping change would return France to its pre-war political landscape, when hard Left and hard Right were locked in bitter confrontation. Marine Le Pen could well emerge as the angry voice of many Europeans – a prospect that causes shudders across conservative-ruled Europe.

She could also prove the nemesis of the European Union. Le Pen has vowed to oppose austerity pacts, quit the Euro, restore the franc, and follow economic mercantilism. Her anti-EU, anti-free trade policies are attracting many people across Europe and even in Russia.

Fortunately, Francois Holland could prove a counter-balance to the ascendant Right. He is a moderate, cautious centrist politician given to pragmatism rather than ideology. His popularity and image of geniality and caring about people will help him withstand the forces of both Left and Right trying to pull him in different directions.

Even so, Marine Le Pen and her aggressive rightists are likely to become an ever-increasing threat to the French Republic as economic conditions worsen. It seems only a matter of time before fascism rears its head again in Spain, Italy, and Portugal. Greece is already on the way. Failure to implement austerity plans will bring economic convulsions and with them the bully boys in black

Mr. Francois Holland's victory has been negative enough for domestic entrepreneurs. Many of whom have reportedly been looking for refuge overseas from the prospects of punitive tax increases, if not from asset forfeitures, by the incoming socialist government, whom has openly declared war against the wealthy.

Yet if the prognosis of Mr. Margolis becomes a reality, then the rise of fascism (based on economic nationalism or mercantilism) elevates the risk of regional war.

As the great Ludwig von Mises once admonished,

What generates war is the economic philosophy almost universally espoused today by governments and political parties. As this philosophy sees it, there prevail within the unhampered market economy irreconcilable conflicts between the interests of various nations. Free trade harms a nation; it brings about impoverishment. It is the duty of government to prevent the evils of free trade by trade barriers. We may, for the sake of argument, disregard the fact that protectionism also hurts the interests of the nations which resort to it. But there can be no doubt that protectionism aims at damaging the interests of foreign peoples and really does damage them. It is an illusion to assume that those injured will tolerate other nations' protectionism if they believe that they are strong enough to brush it away by the use of arms. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war. The wars of our age are not at variance with popular economic doctrines; they are, on the contrary, the inescapable result of a consistent application of these doctrines.

The current trend of French politics seems locked into a wretched choice between the proverbial devil and the deep blue sea. Beautiful France may not be as beautiful as she is today in the future.

Democracy, as the great libertarian H.L. Mencken said, is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

High Taxes Equals Lower Revenues: UK Edition

The Wall Street Journal Wealth Blog writes,

To dig itself out of recession, Britain hiked its income-tax rate to 50% for those making £150,000 or more. Proponents said the tax was needed to bring fairness to an economy, in which the rich were getting richer and not contributing enough to the cause. Critics said the tax would chase out the job creators.

As it turned out, the real impact was in tax avoidance. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s budget announced today, the income-tax hike caused “massive distortions” that cost the government.

A study found that £16 billion of income was deliberately shifted into the previous tax year. As a result, the tax raised only £1 billion – a third of the amount forecast.

This is another concrete example of a blowback of simplistic knee jerk policies embraced by the left.

In desperate attempts to raise revenues, the stereotyped recommendation by left leaning experts, which has often been adapted by politicians, has been to raise taxes.

They assume that people are like robots who will blindly comply with the regulations. They fail to understand that policies create incentives for people to act, particularly to circumvent on regulations whom they view as either undeserving or excessive.

And higher taxes, observes Cato’s Dan Mitchell, lower incentives to earn and report income, and lower tax rates increase incentives to earn and report income.

That’s exactly what transpired in UK. The response of the rich from higher taxes had been to use tax avoidance measures to withhold from paying more taxes. Common sense.

Unfortunately common sense is uncommon to people blinded by political self-righteousness

Asian Capital Markets Likely a Beneficiary of Europe’s High Taxes and Regulatory Maze

“If you tax something, you get less of it”, that’s Professor Mark Perry’s Economics 101

The following should be a great example, from Bloomberg, (bold highlights mine)

Banks in Europe are exploring ways to cut costs by routing more of their trades and other business through overseas subsidiaries, a plan that may shift tax revenue away from London and loosen European regulators’ influence over the lenders.

Nomura Holdings Inc., HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA) and UBS AG (UBSN) are among lenders preparing plans to book as much business as possible through legal entities in jurisdictions where tax rates are lower and rules on capital and liquidity are less onerous, the banks and lawyers and accountants working with them say.

“Every bank is trying to work out the best way to be structured under the new rules,” Chris Matten, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in Singapore, said in a telephone interview. “It’s not just a question of what activities banks are in. It’s about which entities they put that business through and in which jurisdictions.”

Banks could record as much as 30 percent of the value of their trades through Hong Kong, Singapore and other jurisdictions instead of hubs such as London and New York without running into trouble with regulators, Matten said. Such a move would hurt traditional hubs such as London because assets are treated for tax and regulatory purposes in the country where they are booked. It would also allow banks to sidestep the U.K. bank levy, introduced last year to raise 2.5 billion pounds ($4.1 billion) from lenders operating in Britain, as well as any financial transaction tax imposed by the European Union.

This is one major lesson politicians and their followers can’t seem to digest, absorb or learn.

Nevertheless, this is also one major factor that could drive funds and the banking business to Asia.

Their loss could be our gain, that’s if we heed of the fundamental truism shown above.

The Coming Global Debt Default Binge: Moody’s Downgrades Japan

The global debt default binge is in process with credit rating downgrades signifying as the initial symptoms.

US credit rating agency Moody’s today downgraded Japan.

From Bloomberg, (bold emphasis mine)

Japan’s debt rating was lowered by Moody’s Investors Service, which cited “weak” prospects for economic growth that will make it difficult for the government to rein in the world’s largest public debt burden.

Moody’s cut the grade one step to Aa3, with a stable outlook, it said in a statement today. Rebuilding costs from the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, along with continuing efforts to contain the Fukushima nuclear crisis, may make it hard for officials to meet their borrowing target this year, it said.

The first Japan downgrade by Moody’s since 2002 reflects deteriorating credit quality across developed nations from Italy to the U.S., which lost its AAA status at Standard & Poor’s this month. While the move adds to the challenges of the next Japanese prime minister, scheduled to be picked next week, the impact on bond yields may be limited by what Moody’s described as domestic investors’ preference for government debt.

The rerating has also been felt in the CDS markets…

The cost of insuring corporate and sovereign bonds in Japan against default increased, according to traders of credit- default swaps. The Markit iTraxx Japan index rose 7 basis points to 153 basis points as of 12:09 p.m. in Tokyo, on course for its highest level since June 10, 2010, according to CMA, which is owned by CME Group Inc. and compiles prices quoted by dealers in the privately negotiated market…

Today’s rating move brings Japan to the same level as China, showing the diverging paths of Asia’s two biggest economies. China replaced Japan as the world’s No. 2 last year and Moody’s has a positive outlook on its ranking

But debt acquisition won’t be curtailed despite the downgrade…

Moody’s said today’s decision was “prompted by large budget deficits and the build-up in Japanese government debt since the 2009 global recession.”

Japan’s public debt is projected to reach 219 percent of gross domestic product next year even before accounting for borrowing to fund reconstruction after the March 11 earthquake, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The government has amassed a debt of 943.8 trillion yen, according to the Finance Ministry, after two decades of fiscal spending to energize an economy hobbled by the collapse of an asset bubble in 1990 and lingering deflation that’s sapped private demand. The yen’s advance to a post World War II high this year also threatens exports, a main driver of the nation’s economic growth…

The government has pledged to raise the sales tax to 10 percent by the middle of the decade, a rate that would still be below the IMF’s recommendations. The additional revenue is intended to pay for social welfare for the aging population.

Japan’s government plans total spending of 19 trillion yen over five years to rebuild after the magnitude-9 temblor and tsunami that devastated the northeast coast of Japan and triggered the worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl.

Politicians won’t learn until forced upon by economic realities.

So the initial preemptive response to the anticipated downgrade has been to inflate the system using the recent triple whammy calamity as pretext.

Finally, it certainly is not true that current developments recognized as “fiscal austerity” have been about getting off the welfare state-big government-deficit spending path.

What has been happening instead is the political process where massive amount of resources are being transferred from the welfare state to the banking sector.

Global political leaders are hopeful that by rescuing the politically privileged interconnected banks, they can bring 'normalcy' back to the 20th century designed politically entwined institutions of the welfare state-banking system-central banking system.

Proof?

Just look how the Japanese government (and other developed governments) addresses their dilemma—mostly by raising taxes!

As the illustrious Milton Friedman once said,

In the long run government will spend whatever the tax system will raise, plus as much more as it can get away with. That’s what history tells us. So my view has always been: cut taxes on any occasion, for any reason, in any way, that’s politically feasible. That’s the only way to keep down the size of government.

So tax increases equates to the preservation of the welfare state or big government.

Unfortunately, the system has already been foundering from under its own weight. And importantly, politicians apparently blase to these risks, continue to impose measures that would only increase the system's fragility. What is unsustainable won't last.