USA & France: both wrong on tax

2012521234034

Hollande & Obama.  Happy.  Smiling.  Ignorant on tax.

Forgive me for returning to a favourite hobby-horse, but it’s hugely frustrating — and sad — that two of the world’s great economies, the USA and France, don’t seem to understand the most basic issues on taxation.

In Washington we’ve been treated to the fiscal cliff-hanger — resolved for the moment, until they get down to the details.  Obama has been demanding tax hikes for higher income groups.  His colleague Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, has insisted that “The rich must pay their fair share”.

Here in the UK, the top 1% of tax-payers contribute 27% of income tax, so you could argue that they’re already paying rather more than their fair share.  I guess that the US figures are in the same ball-park.

In France, socialist President François Hollande is trying to deliver his election pledge of a new 75% tax rate on citizens earning over €1 million.  He says this plan represents “Justice”.  Quite how a disregard for property rights, coupled with confiscatory rates of tax, can represent “Justice” remains an open question.  I can’t see it myself.  And as it happens, neither can France’s Constitutional Council, which has ruled the plan as presented unconstitutional.  But nothing daunted, the good President of the Republic plans to change the small print and try again.

Of course we all agree that “the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest load”.  That’s achieved by a flat tax, where the man who earns ten times as much pays ten times as much in tax.  That sounds more like justice than an arbitrary 75% tax rate.

The left, of course, is shamelessly exploiting public misunderstanding of the issue.  It seems obvious that by raising tax rates, you can increase revenue.  That would help us pay for all the services we want government to provide.  And it would help us pay down debt.  Wouldn’t it?  Well no, it wouldn’t, in fact.  All the evidence from dozens of countries over several decades is that beyond a certain level, higher rates fail to increase revenue, and may actually reduce it.  That’s because the better-off divert time and effort from wealth and job creation, and concentrate on tax avoidance instead.  They may hire a cleverer accountant, or move abroad, or decide a new investment plan is simply not worth bothering with.  It may be counter-intuitive that higher rates deliver lower revenues, but it’s what actually happens.  Not some high-flown theory, but demonstrable fact.

Funnily enough, David Cameron and Boris Johnson, who agree on so little these days, seem to have recognised this point at least.  Cameron infuriated the French by promising to roll out le tapis rouge in London for French entrepreneurs, while Boris delivered his invitation in the vernacular: “Bienvenue à Londres, mes amis”.  And many are coming — and more are moving to Belgium, or to other lower-tax régimes.   There can be no doubt that Hollande’s move will reduce French tax revenues.  No doubt at all.

Of course Cameron failed to force the top UK income tax rate back to 40%.  The current 45% is an unhappy compromise.  I am satisfied that he and George Osborne understand the problem, and know what they ought to do, but were intimidated by Ed Miliband, and allowed a tactical political judgement to stand in the way of doing the right thing.

So are Obama and Hollande really ignorant of the basic facts of tax?  Of course it’s possible that they do in fact understand the Laffer Curve. It could be that their leftist mind-set just doesn’t let them admit reality.  But I’d bet that they’re just ignorant.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Tax. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to USA & France: both wrong on tax

  1. maureen gannon says:

    It’s not ignorance Roger but an idealogical mindset in otherwords, a straightjacket for an open mind and any freedom of thought..

  2. Julian says:

    “Here in the UK, the top 1% of tax-payers contribute 27% of income tax, so you could argue that they’re already paying rather more than their fair share.”

    Roger, I know from years of reading your blog that you are a thoughtful and intelligent man. It is therefore disappointing to see you promoting the idea behind that statement. You know full well that there is not enough information in it to say whether the top 1% are paying their fair share or not. If for example, the top 1% earned 28% of all income, they plainly would not be paying their fair share.

    Warren Buffett famously said that he pays tax at a lower rate than his secretary. What would we find out if a British multi-millionaire was similarly open about his or her affairs?

    • Fair point, Julian. Half the problem is that complicated tax structures and allowances may allow some high earners to pay below average percentage tax. But the blame for that surely lies with the Treasury, which made the rules, not the tax-payer. I should like to see a flat-tax system with few or no allowances (apart from a personal allowance at, say, half the average wage).

      • Julian says:

        I couldn’t agree more. The problem with a flat tax is that it is easy to characterise as a way for the wealthy to pay even less tax. Introduced properly, they would pay more, but probably save in accountants’ fees. Politicians like to focus on the headline rate (e.g. Gordon Brown’s 50% and Francois Hollande’s 75%). A cynic might suspect they don’t care how much tax is actually paid, so long as they can show their supporters how tough they’re being.

  3. Paul Cadier says:

    Double Whammie:

    Tax job-creation;
    siphon off capital from productive use by financing inert gov’t debt;
    Create an explosion of youth unemployment;
    bring forward retirement age to 60;
    FAIL to address the demographic time-bomb (by employing unfettered & creative youth;)
    Discouraging foreign investment by actively encouraging Brussels over-regulation ;
    Discouraging domestic investment due to all of the above;
    Supporting the German domination of the Euro zone to the detriment of France
    Abandoning monetary policy to Frankfurt
    Abolishing the Bank of France’s ability to apply “quantitive easing”
    Abolishing the right to devalue or revalue the national currency.

    Sorry, did I say “DOUBLE whammy”?

    PS. thank god I am only in France for a holiday!

  4. Michael JR Jose says:

    very good Roger – the Laffer Curve is very relevant, but socialists all quote the Gini coefficient curve – and never know what to say if you point out that this is merely circular logic and proves what they are assuming – that equality is right, that it exists, or that it can exist, or it at least should exist – when you ask ‘equality of what – height, weight, shoe size, IQ, work capacity, business sense…?’ they are dumbfounded, mainly because their philosophy is just dumb.

  5. Emil says:

    It’s not ignorance: higher income tax is protection for the companies that get government contracts and hidden subsidies (such as guaranteed loans or infrastructure built just for their use ) against competition from companies that do not receive government contracts and hidden subsidies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s