Though it gets strong competition from the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development wins the prize for being the worst international bureaucracy.
The Paris-based organization is infamous for pushing a statist agenda on a wide range of issues, including class-warfare taxation, energy taxation, business taxation, value-added taxes, Keynesian spending, green energy, and government-run healthcare.
And it relies on dodgy, dishonest, and misleading data when pushing big-government policies regarding poverty, pay equity, inequality, and comparative economics.
But what gets me most agitated is the OECD’s attempt, beginning in the late 1990s, to prop up decrepit welfare states by undermining tax competition.
I elaborated on my concerns in this interview last June.
To make matters worse, American taxpayers finance the lion’s share of the OECD’s statist agenda. Eliminating subsidies for the OECD arguably would be the budget cut with the greatest value per dollar saved.
Which is the point of some new research from the Heritage Foundation. James Roberts and Adam Michel make a strong case that the OECD is using handouts from American taxpayers to push policy that are contrary to U.S. interests.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)…has transformed itself into a dunning agency for European mega-welfare states that are straining to fund the generous but unsustainable pension, health care, and other government programs they have over-promised to their constituents. One need only undertake a cursory examination of research over the past five years to see that tax-related work by the OECD’s Centre for Tax Policy and Administration and by other OECD directorates (for example, on carbon taxes) has been focused almost entirely on studies that buttress political arguments for higher taxes and implementation of more intrusive ways to collect them. …high-taxing European members of the OECD have pushed the organization toward an almost obsessive research focus on international tax avoidance and evasion. These manifest through its base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project, and a proposed protocol amending the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters. …The BEPS project also complements a disproportionate OECD focus on income inequality…that, in the eyes of OECD’s international civil servants, could be addressed best by international wealth redistribution schemes… The Trump Administration should consider whether U.S. taxpayers should continue to subsidize an organization that increasingly acts contrary to the expressed wishes of a significant number of Americans, who voted into office in 2016 a government with a mandate to cut government spending and reduce taxes. It could decide to withdraw the United States completely from the OECD.
I normally would exclaim “amen” at this point, except the folks at Heritage are being far too nice, writing that the White House “should consider” whether to subsidize the OECD and noting that the U.S. “could” withdraw from the Paris-based bureaucracy.
I’m in no mood for diplomatic niceties when dealing with an organization that is pervasively hostile to economic liberty. The OECD is beyond salvage. If Republicans had any brains (yes, I realize that the GOP is known as “the stupid party” for good reason), handouts would have ended last decade.
I’ll close with an example of the OECD’s perfidy.
From the moment the bureaucracy’s anti-tax competition project began about 20 years ago, I explained that the OECD was seeking to destroy financial privacy so that uncompetitive governments could track capital 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 taxation and more extra-territorial taxation.
OECD bureaucrats and others scoffed at such assertions and said the project was simply about closing off options for tax evasion so that nations could afford to lower tax rates.
I viewed that explanation as laughably dishonest. After all, did oil-producing nations create OPEC so they could reduce petroleum prices?
Were my suspicions warranted? Well, see what the bureaucrats just wrote.
…opportunities may exist…to increase progressivity in the…taxation of capital income as a result of major changes to the international tax environment. …the recent move towards the automatic exchange of financial account information between tax administrations is likely to make it harder…for taxpayers to evade tax by hiding income and wealth offshore… This may present a particular opportunity for countries that previously moved away from progressive taxation of capital income (due to concerns regarding such tax evasion) to reintroduce a degree of progressivity.
In other words, now that the OECD has succeeded in greatly weakening financial privacy, the bureaucrats openly admit that the real goal was to make it possible for uncompetitive welfare states to impose higher tax burdens on saving and investment. I’m shocked, shocked.
Here’s my video on the OECD. It was released in 2010, but nothing has changed other than there’s even more evidence against the parasitical bureaucracy.
P.S. To add more insult to all the injury, the tax-loving bureaucrats at the OECD get tax-free salaries. Must be nice to be exempt from the bad policies they support.
[…] why I’m so hostile to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Politicians from high-tax nations […]
[…] I realize that some folks on the left will be skeptical, even though I’m using data from the left-leaning OECD. […]
[…] I realize that some folks on the left will be skeptical, even though I’m using data from the left-leaning OECD. […]
[…] I realize that some folks on the left will be skeptical, even though I’m using data from the left-leaning OECD. […]
[…] P.P.S. I’m not surprised that OECD bureaucrats push statist policies. They get tax-free salaries (subsidized by American taxpayers!) and thus are insulated from the real-world impact of their dirigiste agenda. […]
[…] Everything I said in that video is still true, except now the federal budget is far bigger and the OECD has had about a dozen more years to push for dirigiste policies. […]
[…] bottom line is that there are clever ways to push for tax cartels (for example, the OECD’s despicable campaign to squash tax competition). By contrast, the states mentioned in this column are pushing a really […]
[…] you understand why I’ve argued that the OECD may be the world’s worst international bureaucracy. Especially since OECD bureaucrats get tax-free salaries while urging higher taxes on the rest of […]
[…] you understand why I’ve argued that the OECD may be the world’s worst international bureaucracy. Especially since OECD bureaucrats get tax-free salaries while urging higher taxes on the rest of […]
[…] you might expect, that is utter hogwash. Here’s a chart, based on data from the Paris-based (and left-leaning) Organization for Economic Cooperation and […]
[…] you might expect, that is utter hogwash. Here’s a chart, based on data from the Paris-based (and left-leaning) Organization for Economic Cooperation and […]
[…] might expect, that is utter hogwash. Here’s a chart, based on data from the Paris-based (and left-leaning) Organization for Economic Cooperation and […]
[…] the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have an unfortunate track record of promoting higher taxes and bigger […]
[…] the burden of government. This report on Estonia is further evidence that the OECD arguably is the world’s worst bureaucracy (which is quite an achievement considering the many shortcomings of the […]
[…] to international bureaucracies such as the IMF and OECD, the United Nations has very little power to impose bad […]
[…] readers know that I’m not a big fan of this Paris-based international bureaucracy. Yes, there are some economists at the OECD who do […]
[…] Which is why I’m a big fan of defunding the OECD. […]
[…] OECD is a pro-statism international bureaucracy that looks after the interests of politicians rather than […]
[…] I’ve regularly noted, the economists who work at the OECD often produce very solid analysis. The problem with that bureaucracy is that it has very statist leadership, which is why the OECD’s policy agenda includes […]
[…] regularly noted, the economists who work at the OECD often produce very solid analysis. The problem with that bureaucracy is that it has very statist leadership, which is why the OECD’s policy agenda includes […]
[…] Back in 2015, I joked that my life would be simpler if I had an “automatic fill-in-the-blanks system” for columns dealing with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. […]
[…] And it comes from an unexpected source, the pro-tax Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD). […]
[…] And it comes from an unexpected source, the pro-tax Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD). […]
[…] it comes from an unexpected source, the pro-tax Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development […]
[…] To add insult to injury, American taxpayers finance the biggest portion of the OECD’s […]
[…] not a big fan of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Simply stated, the Paris-based […]
[…] And that’s also my view of the tax-loving bureaucrats at the International Monetary Fund, as well as their counterparts at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. […]
[…] solved this dilemma by allowing a rotation. Today, the OECD is at the top of my […]
[…] I also thought about listing Trump’s failure to follow through on his proposal to get rid of taxpayer subsidies for the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and […]
[…] This set of data perfectly illustrates why the OECD is an untrustworthy and biased bureaucracy. […]
[…] For instance, I strongly disagree with many of the policy prescriptions from the IMF and the OECD, but those international bureaucracies are reasonably rigorous with […]
[…] si alguna vez llegamos a ese maravilloso día en que Washington pone fin a los subsidios de los contribuyentes para la OCDE, tal vez también […]
[…] if we ever get to that wonderful day when Washington puts an end to taxpayer subsidies for the OECD, maybe they’ll simultaneously […]
[…] if we ever get to that wonderful day when Washington puts an end to taxpayer subsidies for the OECD, maybe they’ll simultaneously […]
[…] why the World Bank seems friendlier to good policy than either the International Monetary Fund or Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. I point out that it’s not uncommon to see quality work from the professional economists at […]
[…] seems that the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have an ongoing contest to see which bureaucracy can be the biggest cheerleader for bad fiscal […]
[…] was a nonsensical claim. I actually read the various reports issued by the Paris-based bureaucracy. It was abundantly clear that the effort was based on a pro-tax harmonization theory known as […]
[…] unlike the International Monetary Fund or Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, this is a part of the “post-war order” that’s worth […]
[…] The Economist relied on dodgy data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And if you read the columns about the other Poverty Hucksters, you’ll find that most of them […]
[…] by anti-market bureaucracies such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the answer is a resounding […]
[…] with good reason. The Paris-based OECD has been trying to curtail tax competition in hopes of propping up […]
More waste. For Pete’s sakes defund it and everything else except everyone’s right to be free from the interference of anyone else!
[…] Cooperation and Development. After all, the Paris-based bureaucracy is infamous for pushing bigger government and higher […]
[…] And bad policy from the U.S. has given other nations an excuse to adopt similar bad rules – aided and abetted by statist international bureaucracies such as the European Commission and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. […]
[…] problem is so acute that even the normally statist bureaucrats at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development are expressing considerable […]
[…] a difficult question to answer. I’ve argued that giving U.S. tax dollars to the OECD is the worst item in the budget, on a per-dollar-spent […]
[…] (the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, World Bank, G-7, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, NATO, etc) that western nations created after World War […]
[…] P.P.S. I feel sorry for the professional economists at the OECD, who often produce very good studies. It must be embarrassing for them when the political appointees push bad policies. […]
[…] Like most taxpayer-supported international bureaucracies, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has a statist orientation. […]
[…] problem is so acute that even the normally statist bureaucrats at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development are expressing considerable sympathy […]
[…] those of us who closely follow this bureaucracy, this hack behavior is very familiar. For instance, it has used dodgy, dishonest, and misleading […]
[…] we have another unlikely ally. Regular readers know that I’m not a big fan of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The Paris-based international […]
[…] can occasionally find good analysis from other international bureaucracies, such as the OECD and IMF, but it’s far more likely that those organizations will promote statist analysis because […]
[…] can occasionally find good analysis from other international bureaucracies, such as the OECD and IMF, but it’s far more likely that those organizations will promote statist analysis […]
[…] When writing about the statist agenda of international bureaucracies, I generally focus my attention on the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. […]
[…] hen writing about the statist agenda of international bureaucracies, I generally focus my attention on the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. […]
[…] When writing about the statist agenda of international bureaucracies, I generally focus my attention on the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. […]
[…] this month, I revealed that the OECD finally admitted that it’s anti-tax competition project was motivated by a desire for class warfare and bigger […]
[…] this month, I revealed that the OECD finally admitted that it’s anti-tax competition project was motivated by a desire for class warfare and bigger […]
[…] to say, I’d much rather focus on defunding the OECD or defanging the IMF. But if Trump’s nonsensical protectionism somehow leads to the […]
[…] money. Now that privacy has been weakened, however, anti-tax competition folks at the OECD are openly chortling that there can be higher taxes on […]
[…] money. Now that privacy has been weakened, however, anti-tax competition folks at the OECD are openly chortling that there can be higher taxes on […]
the OECD objective would seem to be a globalist system based on the European model… a hop-skip-and a jump… and we have global Communism… the turn-key version……………………………..
The OECD is a creation of the governments by the governments for the governments. Of course they support ever bigger government.
But as long as the people see government as a redistribution machine, they will just go along with it, and their countries will decline.
The exemplary continent that follows the OECD advice is Europe, the slowest growing continent on earth. But you don’t have to be the slowest growing continent on earth to decline. Any continent that does not at least match the average pace of worldwide growth is in decline, almost by definition. That current worldwide average now stands at around four percent, an unprecedented level in human history, with a strong long term acceleration trendline.
The leadership of countries that cannot match this growth rate is in serious peril. OECD will go down the drain with them. Don’t get caught on that boat.
The OECD is one of the biggest meddlers into US elections.
The entities that work so hard for equality of outcomes are the only ones that are exempt from it. That is why international bureaucrats receive tax free salaries. Such great service to the people merits an exemption from forced equality.
Maybe membership/funding of international organizations should be subject to evaluation, and routine sunset review. A “Brexit” moment, like a hanging, does concentrate the mind.