I could only use 428 words, but I highlighted the main arguments for tax havens and tax competition in a “Room for Debate” piece for the New York Times.
I hope that my contribution is a good addition to the powerful analysis of experts such as Allister Heath and Pierre Bessard.
I started with the economic argument.
…tax havens are very valuable because they discourage anti-growth tax policy. Simply stated, it is very difficult for governments to impose and enforce confiscatory tax rates when investors and entrepreneurs can shift their economic activity to jurisdictions with better tax policy. Particularly if those nations have strong policies on financial privacy, thus making it difficult for uncompetitive high-tax nations to track and tax flight capital. Thanks to this process of tax competition, with havens playing a key role, top personal income tax rates have dropped from an average of more than 67 percent in 1980 to about 42 percent today. Corporate tax rates also have plummeted, falling from an average of 48 percent to 24 percent. …Lawmakers also were pressured to lower or eliminate death taxes and wealth taxes, as well as to reduce the double taxation of interest, dividends and capital gains. Once again, tax havens deserve much of the credit because politicians presumably would not have implemented these pro-growth reforms if they didn’t have to worry that the geese with the golden eggs might fly away to a confidential account in a well-run nation like Luxembourg or Singapore.
Since I didn’t have much space, here’s a video that elaborates on the economic benefits of tax havens, including an explanation of why fiscal sovereignty is a big part of the debate.
My favorite part of the video is when I quote OECD economists admitting the beneficial impact of tax havens.
I also explain for readers of the New York Times that there’s a critical ethical reason to defend low-tax jurisdictions.
Tax havens also play a very valuable moral role by providing high-quality rule of law in an uncertain world, offering a financial refuge for people who live in nations where governments are incompetent and corrupt. …There are also billions of people living in nations with venal and oppressive governments. To cite just a few examples, tax havens offer secure financial services to political dissidents in Russia, ethnic Chinese in Indonesia and the Philippines, Jews in North Africa, gays in Iran and farmers in Zimbabwe.
To elaborate, here’s my video making the moral case for tax havens.
By the way, many of the issues in this video may not resonate for those of us in “first world” nations, but please remember that the majority of people in the world live in countries where basic human rights are at risk or simply don’t exist.
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry about the stability of our nations. I close my contribution to the New York Times by warning that the welfare state may collapse.
With more and more nations careening toward fiscal collapse, raising the risk of social chaos and economic calamity, it is more important than ever that there are places where people can protect themselves from bad government. Tax havens should be celebrated, not persecuted.
I didn’t have space to cite the BIS and OECD data showing that most of the world’s big nations – including Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom – face fiscal problems more significant that Greece is dealing with today. Assuming these nations don’t implement desperately needed entitlement reform, the you-know-what is going to hit the fan at some point. Folks with funds in a tax haven will be in much better shape if, or when, that happens.
For more background information on tax competition, here’s a video explaining the ABCs of the issue.
It’s galling, by the way, that the bureaucrats at the OECD pushing for a global tax cartel get tax-free salaries.
And here’s my video debunking some of the common myths about tax havens.
My favorite part of this video is the revelation that a former John Kerry staffer fabricated a number that is still being used by anti-tax haven demagogues.
And speaking of demagogues misusing numbers, you’ll notice the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has a starring role in this video.
I’ve probably exhausted your interest in videos, but if you’re game for one more, click here to learn more about the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a statist international bureaucracy that is active in trying to undermine tax havens as part of it’s efforts to create a global tax cartel to prop up Europe’s welfare states.
[…] tax havens not only had strong human rights laws regarding privacy, but they also had various types of tax […]
[…] This column has four videos on the issue of tax competition, and this column has five videos on the issue of tax […]
[…] blacklist is very similar to the OECD’s attack against so-called tax havens, which started about 20 years […]
[…] and impose high tax rates on income that is saved and invested. In effect, the battle over “tax havens” and “tax competition” were a proxy for whether there should be more double […]
[…] consider myself to be the world’s bigger cheerleader and advocate of tax competition. I’ve even risked getting thrown in jail to promote fiscal rivalry between […]
[…] consider myself to be the world’s bigger cheerleader and advocate of tax competition. I’ve even risked getting thrown in jail to promote fiscal rivalry between […]
[…] This is why I’m a big fan of so-called tax havens. […]
[…] is a message I will continue to deliver, whether to skeptics in the media or up on Capitol […]
[…] now that tax havens and tax competition have been weakened, politicians are pushing tax rates higher. And the OECD is cheering this […]
[…] is correct. Luxembourg is only a very successful tax haven because it has the right to have tax laws inside its borders that are attractive relative to the […]
[…] I argue for fiscal sovereignty, good tax policy, and financial privacy to the denizens of Capitol Hill, both in writing and in person. […]
[…] I sometimes wonder if I was put on this planet to defend tax competition and tax havens. I argue for fiscal sovereignty, good tax policy, and financial privacy to the denizens of Capitol Hill, both in writing and in person. […]
[…] I argue for fiscal sovereignty, good tax policy, and financial privacy to the denizens of Capitol Hill, both in writing and in person. […]
[…] Moreover, Clinton’s position on fiscal sovereignty has been very weak in the past. It was during his tenure, after all, that the OECD – with active support from the Clinton Treasury Department – launched its “harmful tax competition” attack against so-called tax havens. […]
[…] Moreover, Clinton’s position on fiscal sovereignty has been very weak in the past. It was during his tenure, after all, that the OECD – with active support from the Clinton Treasury Department – launched its “harmful tax competition” attack against so-called tax havens. […]
[…] he’s knowledgeable about the benefits of tax competition because he’s watched my videos or read my writings, but the real story is that he lived through and personally experienced the Irish […]
[…] knowledgeable about the benefits of tax competition because he’s watched my videos or read my writings, but the real story is that he lived through and personally experienced the Irish […]
[…] even if it requires bringing a message of liberty to traditionally hostile audiences such as readers of the New York Times and viewers of […]
[…] I’ve argued over and over again in favor of tax havens as a general principle (I recommend my New York Times piece if you want a good short summary), but it’s also worth noting that America’s tax haven […]
[…] all, if I’m willing to take part in a debate on tax havens for the upper-income folks who read the New York Times, I should do the same thing for the middle-class folks who patronize big-box […]
[…] surprisingly, so-called tax havens dominate the top spots in the ranking. And that’s the case even though financial privacy […]
[…] surprisingly, so-called tax havens dominate the top spots in the ranking. And that’s the case even though financial privacy […]
[…] Ms. Daley also comments on tax compliance and the risks of letting governments destroy financial privacy as part of their efforts to undermine tax competition. […]
[…] either a total optimist or a glutton for punishment. I recently explained the benefits of “tax havens” for the unfriendly readers of the New York […]
[…] either a total optimist or a glutton for punishment. I recently explained the benefits of “tax havens” for the unfriendly readers of the New York […]
[…] either a total optimist or a glutton for punishment. I recently explained the benefits of “tax havens” for the unfriendly readers of the New York […]
[…] often argue that we need to preserve tax competition and tax havens in order to limit the greed of the political […]
[…] often argue that we need to preserve tax competition and tax havens in order to limit the greed of the political […]
[…] often argue that we need to preserve tax competition and tax havens in order to limit the greed of the political […]
[…] why I recently defended tax havens and tax competition for the fiscal heathens who read the New York […]
[…] Why is it “inequitable” for there to be different tax policies in different states? That’s another way of describing federalism, and it’s something we should be celebrating and promoting. Particularly since it promotes tax competition, which is one of the most effective ways of restraining the greed of the political class. […]
[…] 3. Why is it “inequitable” for there to be different tax policies in different states? That’s another way of describing federalism, and it’s something we should be celebrating and promoting. Particularly since it promotes tax competition, which is one of the most effective ways of restraining the greed of the political class. […]
The property tax discriminates against a class of people, property owners, and fails to tax many of those who use our roads, bridges, water, hospitals, schools, parks, and services. This includes people from outside of Cobb County who work and shop here, and illegal aliens,” . The property tax is also subjective, complex and costly to administer, with, for example, two identical houses next to each other potentially being assessed at different values due to foreclosures, short sales, or auctions. The property tax should be replaced with nothing. A sales tax is bad to. The first of the 10 planks of “The Communist Manifesto” is the abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. this is done at the federal level through eminent domain and such agencies as the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of Defense, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others. At the local level, there are school and property taxes as well as eminent domain. http://www.oneofbook.com “Who owns your land if government can control what you can and cannot do on your land? And who owns your land if it can be taxed away from you?” “Who would want to buy your land once the government has decreed that it cannot be used for commercial or recreational purposes?” The federal government owns 30 percent of the land in the 50 states, or about 650 million acres. “I would personally like to eliminate the entire property tax for both individuals and businesses, because it would better protect our private property rights, broaden our tax base, lower our total taxes, and bring more businesses and jobs to Cobb County,”
So if you want to be really depressed, go into the OECD staff store where you can buy Dom and caviar tax and duty free. Beats having to pick up frozen tacos at the 7-11
I most certainly believe it would be OK to avoid paying for competently rendered public services that a person “enjoys” if they have no need of such services and do not wish to pay for them. The government might require me to pay for the political indoctrination of my child and they may do a bang up job of it but I fail to see how I am obliged to pay for it or any other damned foolish thing they come up with. They might run a very efficient gun confiscation program or build a beautiful bridge to nowhere that only I would have a need for but I see no moral obligation to pay for such things if I never asked for them or find them abhorrent. Nor is there a reason to pay for anything that I could otherwise get elsewhere.
Government is force and taxation is theft. To overcome the natural evil of these two things there has to be some existential threat present to justify their use. This is why in civilized countries these tools are only used for the military and police functions with a few ancillary things such as road building thrown in. Once you get much past that you really can’t justify the assault on personal liberty and human dignity… and you sure as hell can’t rick ending up with the sort of bankrupt, social welfare that is pimped by our universities these days. Such may be preferable to outright tyrannies but not by as much as people like to think.
As a long-retired Manager and sometime Councillor of the Cayman Islands Chamber of Commerce, I maintain a keen interest in offshore tax-havens and their fight to survive against high-tax nations. Predictably, I guess, I have zero sympathy for politicians and bureaucrats who make it their purpose in life to indulge their financial fantasies with money stolen from private citizens.
I have a blog on which I post occasional short (600 words) lightweight essays on the topic of offshore havens, and some of those posts might be of interest to readers of Daniel Mitchell’s article. It’s “Barlow’s Cayman”, and is easily accessed via Google. Of my several posts on the topic, two are particularly relevant “Tax havens – what they do” in January, and “In defence of tax havens” in August last year. There is also “Cyprus and Cayman” just last month, which offers a few thoughts on whether the Cyprus fiasco carries any warnings for Cayman.
But…but…Dan….It’s not Fair!
“Women and Children hurt most”
My issue with them is that they exist only for the wealthy who can afford the accountants and lawyers who can clear a path for the money to follow. Tax havens will only result in a further erosion of the middle class and will accelerate our decline to a nation of ultra rich and ultra poor.
I’m loving some of the comments on that NYT piece. They assume you’re an anarchist and proceed from there. I’m particularly fond of the comments that mention these tax haven-using individuals don’t pay for roads, courts, schools, etc., but conveniently omit income security and entitlement spending.
They don’t understand that the argument is less government v. more government and instead assume it’s government v. no government.
Thanks for making the case for tax havens. I have always though intellectually that were a form of cheating while viscerally I was all for them. I’ve even helped others in the kind of countries you mention make use of them and couldn’t explain to myself why I did that morally. It wasn’t even my money and I felt passionately that way, but couldn’t understand it. Even though I don’t think the issues are equivalent I think my reaction springs from the same place as the urge in the 1940s to help Jews escape Hitler, or in the 1850s to pass slaves along the underground railway. I don’t think I agree with someone using tax havens to avoid paying for competently rendered public services while enjoying same.