US Informal Economy estimated to have DOUBLED to $2 Trillion since 2009

All the financial repression via bailouts, rescues, inflationism, new taxes and regulations from the US mortgage-banking crisis of 2008 have driven many of the average Americans to the informal economy.

From the CNBC:

The growing underground economy may be helping to prevent the real economy from sinking further, according to analysts.

The shadow economy is a system composed of those who can't find a full-time or regular job. Workers turn to anything that pays them under the table, with no income reported and no taxes paid — especially with an uneven job picture.

"I think the underground economy is quite big in the U.S.," said Alexandre Padilla, associate professor of economics at Metropolitan State University of Denver. "Whether it's using undocumented workers or those here legally, it's pretty large."

"You normally see underground economies in places like Brazil or in southern Europe," said Laura Gonzalez, professor of personal finance at Fordham University. "But with the job situation and the uncertainty in the economy, it's not all that surprising to have it growing here in the United States."

Estimates are that underground activity last year totaled as much as $2 trillion, according to a study by Edgar Feige, an economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

That's double the amount in 2009, according to a study by Friedrich Schneider, a professor at Johannes Kepler University in Linz, Austria. The study said the shadow economy amounts to nearly 8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product.

Whether in politics (Boston’s martial law) or in economics (informal economy) the US appears to be sliding down the path towards a banana republic.

Why?

The informal, underground or shadow economy have always been a product or outcome of the politicization of the marketplace.

Proof?

Regulations have been skyrocketing in the US. A big segment of growth comes from the post-crisis years. The number of pages of regulations from the Federal Register has ballooned almost sevenfold since 1940s. Chart from Political Calculations Blog.

Additional regulations means more taxes too.

Number of pages of Federal Tax Rules has swelled by about eight times since the 1940s, where the bulk of the recent expansion of tax rules also occurred during the years of post-US mortgage banking crisis . (Chart from Cato’s Chris Edwards)

Regulations signify as hidden taxes too. 

Estimated compliance costs is at $236 billion in 2012. This would account for 1.5% of the US GDP. By the way, $2 trillion informal economy is about 12.7% of the $15.7 trillion US GDP in 2012. 

Yet there are indirect regulatory costs too.

Overall, the total estimated regulatory costs have been at $1.752 trillion in 2011 according to Competitive Enterprise Institute.  That’s more than 10% of the US economy. Such costs must be a lot more today.

Statistics would not really capture the lost business opportunities from the burdens of additional taxes, regulations and other politics based programs because they are largely invisible or unseen by the public. For instance, I recently pointed out how state authorities shut down a child’s lemonade stand for the lack of license. So one has to be leery of any supposed analytical insights entirely focused on the shouting of statistics or on the dependence on empirical methodology.

We will have to add the burdens of tax and regulatory costs  from Obamacare and Dodd Frank.

That’s not all. There is also the enormous onus from entitlement spending. (chart from Heritage Foundation)…

…and the diminishing purchasing power of the US dollar from the printing presses of the US Federal Reserve since 1913 (chart from visual.ly), whose boom bust cycles have led to the justification of more interventions or “never let a crisis go to waste” dogma. 

So such vicious cycles of government expansion leads to a debt trap.

To cap it, increasing politicization of the marketplace means higher costs of doing business which entails more limitations or restrictions on economic opportunities and diminishing productivity and capital accumulation, which extrapolates to stagnation or a decline in living standards.

Thus when people’s survival is at stake, and where costs of doing formal business is high and increasingly a hindrance, they resort to the informal, underground or the shadow economy.

The digital age via the web has also substantially contributed to the expansion of the informal economy, where the former provides the platform to conduct businesses outside the prying eyes of the government. The emergence of the Bitcoin is a wonderful example.

The growth in the informal economy will also likely be manifested in the evolution of politics. This should translate to a growing divide or the deepening polarization between the productive class and political parasites (political class, cronies, welfare-warfare beneficiaries and the bureaucracy).

Although while informal economies represent as good sign of people’s attempt to generate productivity outside the political realm, they represent as an implied or passive revolt against politics. Alternatively, this also could mean social unrest ahead.

Updated to add: Informal economies will be smeared by the mainstream as illegal and immoral operations (such as drugs, money laundering and etc...). While there could be some, most of them aren't. This would represent as propaganda to cover up the failure of governments or to shift the burden of blame on the public rather than they owning up to their failures.

French Property Sector Takes a Hit from Hollande’s Taxes

Talk about unintended consequences. The highly repressive tax regime of French President Francois Hollande has not only spurred wealthy residents to flee or scamper out of the country (e.g. actor Gerard Depardieu, and also former President Nicolas Sarkozy was recently exposed as planning to move to UK) which even prompted for the downfall of the ousted Budget Minister for avoiding taxes by moving personal money abroad, but such policies has also prompted for stagnation in the property sector

 

From Bloomberg

At least one in four Paris apartments listed by realtor Agence Etoile can’t be sold, even with mortgage rates at record lows, as buyers and sellers fail to agree on price, the company’s director said.

“I have some inventory that’s too expensive and sellers don’t want to lower prices,” Christine Perrissel said in an interview. “Buyers are just much more selective.”

Across France, an economy that’s stalled for two years, joblessness at a 15-year high, property prices near record highs and new taxes have made households reluctant to borrow to buy homes. While Europe’s debt crisis prompted banks to tighten credit, since the start of this year they’ve offered more attractive terms to lure customers and meet lending targets, after borrowing plunged in 2012.

The average home-loan rate fell 0.8 percentage point from a year ago to a record low 3.34 percent in the first two months of the year. Still, new mortgages granted in the 12 months through February slid 27 percent from a year earlier to 98.4 billion euros ($129 billion), according to the Bank of France.

New home sales plunged 18 percent in 2012 to 77,900. Existing home sales declined 12 percent to 709,000, with the drop worsening to 22 percent in the year to February. The average housing investment funded with loans represented 3.73 years of the buyer’s income in March, the lowest since January 2010, a study by lender Credit Logement SA and polling firm CSA shows

The data reveal that as rates fall, the market still hasn’t fully shaken off the gloom of 2012 when real estate purchases plunged as banks tightened mortgage lending and after former President Nicolas Sarkozy and his successor Francois Hollande, elected in May, added property taxes to trim the country’s deficit.

Hollande, the first Socialist president in France since 1995, has called on those “with the most to show patriotism” in tough times. He’s raised income taxes, those on capital gains from property, as well as wealth and inheritance levies. That prompted Gerard Depardieu, who played Obelix in films about one of France’s most beloved fictional characters, to move to Belgium.

“We’ve had a catastrophic start of the year in January and February with the tax squeeze,” said Marc Julien, founder and chief executive officer of Pierre Invest, a broker specializing in new properties for the Paris region, referring to the property taxes.

French tax policies signifies as another ticking time bomb to a full blown debt crisis brought about by the nation's unsustainable welfare state.

Murray Rothbard on Tax Day

Murray N. Rothbard at the lewrockwell.com on Tax Day

April 15, that dread Income Tax day, is around again, and gives us a chance to ruminate on the nature of taxes and of the government itself.

The first great lesson to learn about taxation is that taxation is simply robbery. No more and no less. For what is "robbery"? Robbery is the taking of a man’s property by the use of violence or the threat thereof, and therefore without the victim’s consent. And yet what else is taxation?

Those who claim that taxation is, in some mystical sense, really "voluntary" should then have no qualms about getting rid of that vital feature of the law which says that failure to pay one’s taxes is criminal and subject to appropriate penalty. But does anyone seriously believe that if the payment of taxation were really made voluntary, say in the sense of contributing to the American Cancer Society, that any appreciable revenue would find itself into the coffers of government? Then why don’t we try it as an experiment for a few years, or a few decades, and find out?

But if taxation is robbery, then it follows as the night the day that those people who engage in, and live off, robbery are a gang of thieves. Hence the government is a group of thieves, and deserves, morally, aesthetically, and philosophically, to be treated exactly as a group of less socially respectable ruffians would be treated.

This issue of The Libertarian is dedicated to that growing legion of Americans who are engaging in various forms of that one weapon, that one act of the public which our rulers fear the most: tax rebellion, the cutting off the funds by which the host public is sapped to maintain the parasitic ruling classes. Here is a burning issue which could appeal to everyone, young and old, poor and wealthy, "working class" and middle class, regardless of race, color, or creed. Here is an issue which everyone understands, only too well. Taxation.

Quote of the Day: Income Tax: Its unpopularity will grow with its life

POPULARITY OF THE INCOME TAX.

The Chamber of Commerce has directed an inquiry into the administrative feature of the income tax after a debate in which it was said that the tax would not affect 99 per cent. of the citizenship. It was suggested that this deprived the bill of general interest, and that it was sure to be unpopular on account of the narrowness of its application.

[...]

The case is worse than this. It will tax the honest and allow the dishonest to escape. The administrative features which the Chamber is to investigate are so complicated that those who understand them will make their taxes light at the cost of those less well informed about the law. The income tax law may be considered good nevertheless by some, but even those who approve the tax despite its faults cannot contend that the same sums could not have been raised more certainly, more equitably, and with less trouble to both payers and collectors by a stamp tax.

The experience with the tariff shows how hard it is to reduce or remove a tax once laid. It always seems better and easier to devise ways to spend the money than to repeal the tax. This fact will be better appreciated as the years pass, and particularly when the time shall come when this extraordinary tax–as it ought to be–shall be needed for an emergency. Then it will appear that this resource has been utilized and that the tax must be doubled instead of imposed initially. The tax was most popular before it was laid. Its unpopularity will grow with its life.

This is from the New York Times published in April 12, 1913 when the income tax had been made a permanent fixture in the US tax system via the Sixteenth amendment to the US constitution (hat tip Mises Blog)

Chart of the Day: How Americans Feel About Paying Income Taxes

From a study by Pew Research:

As April 15 approaches, a majority of Americans (56%) have a negative reaction to doing their income taxes, with 26% saying they hate doing them. However, about a third (34%) say they either like (29%) or love (5%) doing their taxes.

I wonder how many of those who say they like doing taxes are being honest on themselves, and how many may have been simply social signaling.

I wonder too how these "like-love" camps will feel with a slew of new or higher taxes, especially from Obamacare.

 

Here is a noteworthy quote from former Commissioner of Internal Revenue T. Coleman Andrews.

I don't like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of 'from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs'. That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him.

Here is the link on 10 planks of the communist manifesto

Cyprus: The Mouse that Roared

Unfolding events in Cyprus may or may not be a factor for the Phisix or for the region over the coming days. 

This will actually depend on how the bailout package will take shape, and importantly, if these will get accepted by the “troika” (IMF, EU and the ECB), whose initial bid to force upon a bank deposit tax indiscriminately on bank depositors had been aborted due to the widespread public opposition.

So far, the Cyprus parliament has reportedly voted on several key measures[1] as nationalization of pensions, capital controls, bad bank and good bank. Reports say that the Cyprus government has repackaged the bank deposit levy to cover accounts with over 100,000 euros with a one-time charge of 20%[2]!

The troika demands that the Cyprus government raise some € 5.8 billion to secure a € 10 billion or US $12.9 billion lifeline.

If there may be no deal reached by the deadline on Monday, then Cyprus may be forced out of the Eurozone. Then here we may see uncertainty unravel across the global financial markets as a Cyprus exit, which will likely be exacerbated by bank runs and or social turmoil, may ripple through the banking system of other nations.

However, if Cyprus gets to be rescued at the nick of time, then problems in the EU will be pushed for another day.

Nonetheless unfolding events in a 1 million populated Cyprus, but whose banking system has been eight times her economy[3] has so far had far reaching effects.

The Cyprus “bail in” has already ruffled geopolitical feathers.

Germans are said to been reluctant to provide backstop to Cyprus due to nation’s heavy exposure to the Russians, where the latter comprises about a third of deposits of the Cyprus banking system. Much of illegal money from Russia has allegedly sought safehaven in Cyprus.

The Cyprus-Russia link goes more than deposits. They are linked via cross-investments too.

Some say that the Germans had intended to “stick it to the Russians”[4].

On the other hand, Russians have felt provoked by what they perceive as discrimination.

Meanwhile events in Cyprus have also opened up fresh wounds between Greeks and the Turkish over territorial claims[5].

The other more important fresh development is of the bank deposit taxes.

Where a tax is defined[6] as “a fee levied by a government on income, a product or an activity”, deposit taxes are really not taxes, but confiscation.

Some argue that this should herald a positive development where private sector involvement takes over the taxpayers. Others say that filing for bankruptcy would also translate to the same loss of depositor’s money.

Confiscation is confiscation no matter how it is dressed. It is immoral. Private sector involvement is forced participation.

Bankruptcy proceedings will determine how losses will partitioned across secured and unsecured creditors and equity holders. Not all banks will need to undergo the same bankruptcy process. Yet confiscation will be applied unilaterally to all. For whose benefit? The banksters and the politicians.

And one reason bondholders have been eluded from such discussion has been because Cyprus banks have already been pledged them as collateral for target2 programs at the ECB[7].

The more important part is that events in Cyprus have essentially paved way for politicians of other nations, such as Spain and New Zealand[8], to consider or reckon deposits as optional funding sources for future bailouts.

With declining deposits in the Eurozone[9], the assault on savers and depositors can only exacerbate their financial conditions and incite systemic bankruns.

So confidence and security of keeping one’s money in the banking system will likely ebb once the Cyprus’ deposits grab policies will become a precedent.

This is why panic over bank deposits have led to resurgent interest on gold and strikingly even on the virtual currency the bitcoin[10]. The growing public interest in bitcoin comes despite the US treasury’s recently issued regulations in the name of money laundering[11].

Such confiscatory policies will also redefine or put to question the governments’ deposit insurance guarantees. Not that guarantees are dependable, they are not; as they tend increase the moral hazard in the banking system as even alleged by the IMF[12]. 

Deposit guarantees are merely symbolical, as they cannot guarantee all the depositors. Given the fractional reserve nature of the contemporary banking system, if the public awakens to simultaneously demand cash, there won’t be enough to handle them. And obliging them would mean hyperinflation. That’s the reason the dean of the Austrian economics, Murray Rothbard calls deposit insurance a “swindle”[13].

The banks would be instantly insolvent, since they could only muster 10 percent of the cash they owe their befuddled customers. Neither would the enormous tax increase needed to bail everyone out be at all palatable. No: the only thing the Fed could do — and this would be in their power — would be to print enough money to pay off all the bank depositors. Unfortunately, in the present state of the banking system, the result would be an immediate plunge into the horrors of hyperinflation.

So governments will not only resort to taxing people’s savings implicitly (by inflation), they seem now eager to consider a more direct route: confiscation of one’s savings or private property. Note there is a difference between the two: direct confiscation means outright loss. Inflation means you can buy less.

Finally, losses from deposit confiscation, and its sibling, capital controls will lead to deflation.

Confiscatory deflation, as defined by Austrian economist Joseph Salerno, is inflicted on the economy by the political authorities as a means of obstructing an ongoing bank credit deflation that threatens to liquidate an unsound financial system built on fractional reserve banking.  Its essence is an abrogation of bank depositors' property titles to their cash stored in immediately redeemable checking and savings deposits[14]. 

The result should be a contraction of money supply and bank credit deflation and its subsequent symptoms. This will be vented on the markets if other bigger nations deploy the same policies as Cyprus.

That’s why events in Cyprus bear watching.

---

[1] See Cyprus President Warned Friends of Crisis March 23, 2013

[2] New York Times Cyprus Makes Plan to Seize Portion of High-Level Deposits, March 23, 2013

[3] Constantinos Stephanou The Banking System in Cyprus: Time to Rethink the Business Model? 2011 World Bank

[4] Investopedia.com The Cyprus Crisis 101 March 19, 2013

[5] See Will Events in Cyprus Trigger a War? March 22, 2013

[6] Investorwords.com Tax

[7] Mark J Grant Why Cyprus Matters (And The ECB Knows It) Zero Hedge March 23, 2013

[8] John Aziz Guest Post: Whose Insured Deposits Will Be Plundered Next? Zero Hedge March 21, 2013

[9] The Economist Infographics March 23, 2013

[10] See Bitcoins: Safehaven from Cyprus Debacle and Officially Recognized by the US Treasury March 21, 2013

[11] International Business Times, US Treasury Department: Virtual Currencies (Read: Bitcoins) Need Real Rules To Curb Money Laundering March 22, 2013

[12] Buttonwood What does a guarantee mean? The Economist March 19, 2013

[13] Murray N. Rothbard Taking Money Back January 14, 2008 Mises.org

[14] Joseph Salerno Confiscatory Deflation: The Case of Argentina, February 12, 2002 Mises.org

War on Savers: Cyprus’ $13 Billion Bailout to be Funded by Taxing Depositors

In Cyprus, abetted by the IMF, increasingly desperate politicians will now tax depositors in order to bailout banksters.  This is financial repression at its finest.

From Bloomberg,

Euro-area finance ministers agreed to an unprecedented tax on Cypriot bank deposits as officials unveiled a 10 billion-euro ($13 billion) rescue plan for the country, the fifth since Europe’s debt crisis broke out in 2009.

Cyprus will impose a levy of 6.75 percent on deposits of less than 100,000 euros -- the ceiling for European Union account insurance -- and 9.9 percent above that. The measures will raise 5.8 billion euros, in addition to the emergency loans, Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who leads the group of euro-area ministers, told reporters early today after 10 hours of talks in Brussels. The International Monetary Fund may contribute to the package and junior bondholders may also be tapped in a so-called bail-in, the ministers' statement said.

Officials have struggled to find an agreement that would rescue Cyprus, which accounts for just half of a percent of the euro region’s economy, without unsettling investors in larger countries and sparking a new round of market contagion. Finance Minister Michael Sarris said the plan was the “least onerous” of the options Cyprus faced to stay afloat.

The Cyprus government is supposed to vote on this today. However, such plan has already incited incidences of panic.

From Reuters,

The decision prompted a run on cashpoints, most of which were depleted by mid afternoon, and co-operative credit societies closed to prevent angry savers withdrawing deposits.

Almost half Cyprus's bank depositors are believed to be non-resident Russians, but most queuing on Saturday at automatic teller machines appeared to be Cypriots.

This is monumental. Governments today have become more brazen. They are not content with imposing implicit taxation channeled through inflation, but now take on the recourse of outright confiscation of private property. With inflation, lost purchasing power means lesser quantity of goods or services to acquire. With taxation, people simply lose money and the attendant services derived from it.

True, Cyprus maybe small, but this serves a trial balloon on what governments will resort to, as today’s crisis deepens or remains unresolved.

Yet politicians forget that when you tax something you get less of it. Incipient signs of consternation may translate to potential bank runs, not limited to Cyprus but to crisis stricken Euro nations. Depositors from the PIIGs could express fear of the same policies that could be implemented on them.

And since the deal was forged while the financial markets has been closed for the weekend, I expect some volatility in the marketplace at the week's opening.

Moreover, ravaging depositors will increase political risks that may escalate into social unrest. This also amplifies the sundering or progression the demise of the EU project.

Of course when people become distrustful of the institutions that are supposed to underwrite the safety of their savings, gold and precious metals will function as the main beneficiaries. 

Tina Turner Renounces US Citizenship: A Tax and Privacy Issue?

Well, it would seem that the curse of the Laffer Curve and the welfare state has not only affected the French, American celebrity Tina Turner has reportedly renounced her US citizenship to become a Swiss.

From the International Man,

Pop legend Tina Turner has announced that she will give up her US citizenship and become a citizen of Switzerland.

The most interesting part of this story is that she is renouncing her US citizenship even though she was not required to. Both Switzerland and the US allow dual citizenship.

It was her choice to renounce, and that choice has serious costs.

Turner, whose net worth likely meets the criteria to be stuck with the so-called US Exit Tax (for those with a net worth of more than $2 million.) This means that upon expatriation, all of her worldwide assets will be taxed as if they were sold at fair market value – a steep price indeed.

Other factors must have played a role in her decision to renounce and incur such costs when she was not otherwise forced to.

Turner has not explicitly explained why she is renouncing her US citizenship – nor would she be wise to, which would only attract even more scrutiny. She probably weighed the pros and cons of keeping her US passport, which offered her limited benefits and immense liabilities.

It probably was not tax related, Switzerland itself is a high tax environment for its citizens.

Perhaps an important feature of Switzerland for her is its respect for privacy.

Contrast that to the US government's blatant disdain for privacy. Under the pretexts of the various never-ending "wars" (drugs, terrorism, organized crime, tax evasion, etc.) the US government has essentially destroyed privacy and often treats its citizens as if they were prison inmates.

Tina Turner’s apparent quiescence on the reasons for her actions has obviously meant to suppress controversies from the politically correct crowd.

She perhaps learned from the recent experience of golf superstar, Phil Mickelson, who publicly hinted of leaving California for another state, due to tax reasons, that has drawn unnecessary ruckus from the sanctimonious left.

Obviously these would seem as symptoms of the developing social strains from partly from tax hikes brought about by Obamacare, the Fiscal Cliff deal and others, where media only sees the actions of the ‘celebrities’.

Yet all these politicization; expanded intrusions and expropriation of private property, increases the risks of political instability, artificially booming financial assets from inflationism, notwithstanding

Tax Exodus: Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy Mulls Move to London

The curse of the welfare state and the Laffer Curve continues to haunt French politics. Aside from the controversial self-imposed exile by French actor Gérard Depardieu, the former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been revealed as having plans of emigrating to London to dodge French “soak the rich” policies

From the Daily Mail,

Suddenly a handshake from David Cameron probably seems an awful lot more inviting.

Former president Nicolas Sarkozy could become the next wealthy Frenchman to flee to Britain over his country’s looming tax hikes on the rich.

Mr Sarkozy – who famously snubbed the Prime Minister’s attempt to shake his hand after Mr Cameron vetoed changes to the EU treaty in 2011 – is reportedly planning to move to London to set up a £800million investment fund.

The 57-year-old, who was ousted from office last June, has amassed a fortune from £150,000-an-hour public speaking engagements and is now said to be trying to raise capital from investors.

If the move goes ahead, the controversial Frenchman will become the latest to escape a potential top tax rate of 75 per cent in his home country.

He and his former supermodel third wife Carla Bruni-Sarkozy would be likely to settle in an affluent district like South Kensington – so becoming the most high profile Gallic celebrity couple in the city.

But the former president is under investigation for corruption in France, and if he does cross the Channel there will be outrage.

The bizarre thing is that politicians and public officials themselves are looking to shelter their assets elsewhere. The case of the top French taxman who is under investigation for stashing money overseas is another.

If Japan has a declining population due to fertility rates, France may soon join Japan as more people move away from repressive tax policies. Otherwise, France may soon experience a tax revolt

And as pointed out events today has been validating the warnings of the great French economist Frederic Bastiat

Quote of the Day: The Taxman is My Shepherd

The IRS is my shepherd; I shall live in want. It maketh me to lie down with expensive accountants; it leadeth me to consort with disreputable lawyers. It crusheth my soul; it leadeth me in the paths of avoidance and evasion to preserve my wealth. Yea, as I walk through the valley of the shadow of penalties and interest charges, I will fear its evil; for it is with me; its code and its staff they torment me. It preparest a table before me in the presence of U.S. attorneys: it bruiseth my head with its reporting requirements; my cup of patience runneth out. Surely goodness and mercy shall be strangers to me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house that a plundering state has made forever.

This is from Austrian economist Robert Higgs at the Independent Institute.

Quote of the Day: Taxation Is Not Revenue Raising

Taxation isn’t revenue raising.  It is confiscation of people’s resources.  Revenue is what merchants or employees earn in voluntary trade.  To classify taxes as revenues is an obvious distortion.  It is akin to characterizing the loot from a bank robbery as earnings, profits or income…

Imposing taxes on people is no more asking them for funds than is a tax a form of revenue.  Both of these distortions have to be conscious since they both clearly serve to help to pretend that something voluntary is going on when that is the farthest thing from the truth.

This excerpt is from Philosophy Professor, Cato adjunct scholar and research fellow at the Hoover Institute of Stanford University Tibor R. Machan.

Symptoms of Welfare Crisis: French Actor Gérard Depardieu Joins Ballooning Lists of Tax Exiles

French actor Gérard Depardieu joins the growing list of wealthy French residents fleeing “soak the rich” politics.

The increasing number of so-called "tax exiles" is one of the major symptoms of the chronic disease called the welfare state crisis.

From the Telegraph.co.uk 

French actor Gérard Depardieu has set up legal residence in a Belgian village just over the French border to escape his country's punitive taxes, the local mayor has confirmed.

The 63-year-old star has bought an unglamorous-looking former customs official's house in the village of Nechin, a stone's throw from the nearest French town of Roubaix.

The corpulent screen icon is the latest rich Frenchman to flee the country ahead of a new tax of 75 per cent on all earnings over one million euros - around 850,000 pounds. Belgium's top rate is 50 per cent.

Around a third of the 2,800-strong population of Nechin was already French, the village mayor Daniel Senesael said.

The Depardieu case once again exhibits of how people’s incentives are shaped by social policies.

Apparently new repressive tax policies have breached Mr. Depardieu’s tax paying tolerance threshold level for him to consider voting with his feet and become a "tax exile". 

This could be seen as the curse of the Laffer curve.

Obviously the current tax policies have been meant to preserve the nation’s unsustainable welfare state. As this Op ED from Forbes.com notes,

In 2009, 11.2 million French persons received welfare payments, out a total population of 65.3 million. This amounted to $78 billion in payments. Moreover, these 11 million beneficiaries have families (parents, spouses, children); thus, more than 35 million people are actually benefiting directly or indirectly from welfare payments, which is more than 50 percent of the French population.

France’s welfare state may have seemed to work before, when there had been enough resources from productive citizens for the government to forcibly redistribute. But such era's curtains have been coming down.

Demographical forces particularly declining fertility rate amidst higher life expectancy, diminishing economic freedom and increasing politicization of the marketplace has led to a marked decline in relative global competitiveness according to the World Economic Forum. 

All these have combined to reduce the nation’s capability to finance the bulging welfare state.

And repressive tax policies have been the recourse of increasingly desperate French politicians wishing to maintain a highly fragile welfare based system based on debt and taxes. 

Yet myopically imposing stratospheric taxes on the rich seems to be backfiring as manifested by the expanding number of tax exiles. 

This seems similar to the recent experience in the United Kingdom, where 2/3 of the rich has recently disappeared.

Worst, aside from a growing anti-business environment from politics, the welfare state has been promoting a deepening culture of dependency. 

France has fallen to a poverty trap, says the same Op Ed from the Forbes.com, 

Since work cannot significantly bring a real improvement in daily life, it is better to stay “poor” and do nothing, which is not rewarding. Assistantship becomes more important than entrepreneurship.

A looming French debt crisis will likely represent as the proverbial final nail in the coffin for the centralization fantasies of the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels which should lead to more political instability in the region.

I worry that the risks of war is greater in the Eurozone (than in Asia) which may be triggered by the EU’s abrupt disintegration. 

And another thing. Here is another symptom of French entropy; there have been proposals for scheduled lighting outrages or a lighting ban in Paris, which has been popularly known as the "City of Lights", in order to "save energy". Beautiful Paris now a victim of politics.

Why Warren Buffett Loves to Tax the Rich

In a recent article, Billionaire Warren Buffett proposes, once again, to tax his contemporaries, but this time by imposing a “minimum tax on the wealthy”.

Does Mr. Warren Buffett truly practice what he preaches? Or is he merely a sly and sleek talking famous personality promoting a hidden political agenda?

Well it would seem that despite his progressive “soak-the-rich” class warfare rhetoric, in reality, Mr. Buffett has been averse to taxes.

Mr. Buffett’s flagship, Berkshire Hathaway, still has tax issues with Internal Revenue Services. The company hasn’t even been paying due taxes since 2002.

As the New York Post notes in August of 2011

As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.

“We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years ... within the next 12 months,” the firm’s annual report says.

It also cites outstanding tax issues for 2005 through 2009.

In November 2011, Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary NetJets also sued the IRS for “mistakenly assessing ticket tax” to recoup $643 million in taxes

So Mr. Buffett hasn’t been pro-tax at all: That’s when taxes applies to his business interests.

And this extends to the way Mr. Buffett and or his company uses tax avoidance maneuvers. Harvard Professor Greg Mankiw exposes them

But on closer examination, one realizes that Mr Buffett never mentions doing anything to eliminate the tax-avoidance strategies that he uses most aggressively.  In particular:

1. His company Berkshire Hathaway never pays a dividend but instead retains all earnings.  So the return on this investment is entirely in the form of capital gains.  By not paying dividends, he saves his investors (including himself) from having to immediately pay income tax on this income.

2. Mr Buffett is a long-term investor, so he rarely sells and realizes a capital gain.  His unrealized capital gains are untaxed.

3. He is giving away much of his wealth to charity.  He gets a deduction at the full market value of the stock he donates, most of which is unrealized (and therefore untaxed) capital gains.

4. When he dies, his heirs will get a stepped-up basis.  The income tax will never collect any revenue from the substantial unrealized capital gains he has been accumulating.

In short, Mr. Buffett proposes taxing everyone else but himself.

Lastly, Mr. Buffett seems to be promoting President Obama’s agenda because he benefits substantially from them.

Mr. Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway had been a major beneficiary of the Wall Street Bailout

Writes Eric Fry at the Daily Reckoning,

During the depths of the 2008 Credit Crisis and stock market selloff, “Wall Street was of fire,” recalls Peter Schweizer in his expose, Throw Them All Out. “[But] Buffett was running toward the flames…with the expectation that the fire department (that is, the federal government) was right behind him with buckets of bailout money…Indeed, Buffett needed the bailout…Beyond Goldman Sachs, Buffett was heavily invested in several other banks that were at risk and in need of federal cash. He began immediately to campaign for the $700 billion TARP rescue plan that was being hammered together in Washington.”

“As the political debates surrounding the proposed $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout bill heated up,” recalls blogger, Pat Dollard, “Buffett maintained an appearance of naiveté, an ‘aw shucks’ shtick that deferred to the judgment of politicians. ‘I’m not brave enough to try to influence the Congress,’ Buffett told the New York Times.

“Behind closed doors, however, Buffett had become a shrewd political entrepreneur,” Dollard continues. “The billionaire exerted his considerable political influence in a private conference call with then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats. During the meeting, Buffett strongly urged Democratic members to pass the $700 billion TARP bill to avert what he warned would otherwise be ‘the biggest financial meltdown in American history.’”

“If the bailout went through,” Schweizer correctly observes, “it would be a windfall for Goldman. If it failed, it would be disastrous for Berkshire Hathaway.”

Buffett’s “hard work” paid off.

“In all, Berkshire Hathaway firms received $95 billion in bailout cash from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Berkshire held stock in the Wells Fargo, Bank of America, American Express, and Goldman Sachs, which received not only TARP money but also $130 billion in FDIC backing for their debt. All told, TARP-assisted companies constituted a whopping 30% of its entire company disclosed stock portfolio.”

But these billions of dollars represented only the most visible portions of the bailout funds that flowed to Berkshire’s companies. Wells Fargo, for example, received “only” $25 billion of TARP funding, but it also received another $45 billion at the same time from the Federal Reserve’s Term Auction Facility (TAF).

Incredibly, Wells Fargo’s borrowings paled alongside those of Goldman Sachs. Throughout the crisis, Goldman gorged itself at every available government trough. The morally challenged investment bank borrowed only $10 billion from the TARP. But at the same time Goldman was griping about “being forced” to take the $10 billion TARP loan, the company was borrowing tens of billions of dollars more from obscure government lending programs with acronyms like: CPFF, PDCF and TSLF.

And that’s not all!

Amidst much fanfare and self-congratulatory press releases, Goldman repaid its TARP loan in June 2009, but only after securing $25 billion of government capital at a different trough. As we observed in a December 15, 2010 edition of The Daily Reckoning:

On June 17, 2009…thanks to some timely, undisclosed assistance from the Federal Reserve, Goldman repaid its $10 billion TARP loan. But just six days before this announcement, Goldman sold $11 billion of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) to the Fed. In other words, Goldman “repaid” the Treasury by secretly selling illiquid assets to the Fed.

One month later, Goldman’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein beamed, “We are grateful for the government efforts and are pleased that [the monies we repaid] can be used by the government to revitalize the economy, a priority in which we all have a common stake.”

As it turns out, the government continued to “revitalize” that small sliver of the economy known as Goldman Sachs. During the three months following Goldman’s re-payment of its $10 billion TARP loan, the Fed purchased $27 billion of MBS from Goldman. In all, the Fed would purchase more than $100 billion of MBS from Goldman during the 12 months that followed Goldman’s TARP re-payment.

Is it any wonder that Buffett’s $5 billion “investment” in Goldman Sachs succeeded so nicely?

“Later, astonishingly,” recalls Peter Schweizer, “Buffett would publicly complain about the bailouts in his annual letter to Berkshire investors, claiming that government subsidies put Berkshire at a disadvantage…”

And as previously pointed out, Berkshire Hathaway’s Burlington North Santa Fe has also profited from Obama’s energy (oil pipeline) policies.

In essence, Warren Buffett not only has altered or overhauled his winning investing formula from "value investment" to the political entrepreneurship of rent seeking by becoming Obama’s premier crony, he has been using Obama’s policies to quash competitors. It looks as if Mr. Buffett's tax increases have been implicitly designed to attain this.

[As a side note, maybe the Occupy Wall Street movement should consider occupying Berkshire Hathaway too]

It’s sad to see how Mr. Buffett seems to have condescended or has sold his soul to the political demons by veering away from the laudable libertarian principles embraced by his dad, Howard Buffett. Or perhaps Mr. Buffett’s string of investing success may have gotten into his head. 

Howard Buffett’s portrait in Warren Buffett’s office (courtesy of Business Insider’s Tour of Warren Buffett’s office)

Given son Warren’s patent hypocrisy, dad Howard must be rolling in his grave.