Why do Americans assume Europe isnt as conservative as America?

That’s not always the case as these figures show.

Ireland – 84% favor a Constitutional ban on abortion.
Switzerland – 50% of homes own guns
Spain – 80% favor tougher immigration laws
Germany – 65% believe AGW is not an issue
United Kingdom – 85% say National Health care is a failure
European Union – only 20% of Europeans have a likeable opinion of the EU

European countries with more economic freedom than the US:
Switzerland
Denmark
Ireland
Plus:
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Singapore
Hong Kong

http://www.heritage.org/index/

European countries that have an official state religion of Christianity:
Liechtenstein
Malta
Monaco
Vatican
Greece
Finland
Denmark
Iceland
Norway
Finland
England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

European countries were same-sex marriage is illegal:
Austria
Czech
Poland
Switzerland
Denmark
Finland
Hungary
UK
France
Ireland
Germany
Italy
Plus 17 more Eastern European countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg

European Union nations with currently a right wing government:
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Sweden
United Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council

European countries with lower business taxation:
Everyone single one

Oh my, are you one of those that will keep posting your ignorant posts until someone agrees with you?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AomD.sNcTmoejJjM8gIk5R7sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20110118192504AAWGU91

Read those answers again, if you wonder again. No reason to keep asking.

Tianjin 2010- Doing Business at the Next Frontier

September 13, 2010
The International Monetary Fund forecasts that “frontier markets” will grow at 10%, outpacing emerging markets that are forecast to grow at 5%. How is business done in frontier markets, which have lower levels of development and smaller capital markets than emerging markets?

Speakers
* Elizabeth Buse, Group Executive, International, Visa, USA
* Simeon Djankov, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Bulgaria
* Don Lam, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder, VinaCapital Group, Vietnam; Regional Agenda Council on South-East Asia
* J. Erik Fyrwald, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Nalco Company, USA
* Zhu Hongjie, Vice-President, The Export-Import Bank of China, People’s Republic of China

Moderated by * Tarun Khanna, Jorge Paulo Lemann Professor, Harvard Business School, USA; Young Global Leader; Global Agenda Council on Emerging Multinationals

Duration : 0:55:53

Read the rest of this entry…

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Think Europe isn’t as conservative as America, think again?

Ireland – 84% favor a Constitutional ban on abortion.
Switzerland – 50% of homes own guns
United Kingdom – 80% favor tougher immigration laws

European countries with more economic freedom than the US:
Switzerland
Denmark
Ireland
Plus:
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Singapore
Hong Kong

http://www.heritage.org/index/

European countries that have an official state religion of Christianity:
Liechtenstein
Malta
Monaco
Vatican
Greece
Finland
Denmark
Iceland
Norway
Finland
England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

European countries were same-sex marriage is illegal:
Austria
Czech
Poland
Switzerland
Denmark
Finland
Hungary
UK
France
Ireland
Germany
Italy
Plus 17 more Eastern European countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg

European Union nations with currently a right wing government:
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Sweden
United Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council

European countries with lower business taxation:
Everyone single one

Ireland is Catholic. Catholics tend to be against abortion. Almost all of the Catholics in the USA vote Democratic because of other issues.
There is nothing "conservative" about owning guns or wanting tougher immigration laws. Those issues have been politicized, but they are not political.

##

You Shoot, I Shoot (2001) part 2

Eric Kot is Bart, a hitman who’s been hit hard by the sagging Hong Kong economy. Not only are clients hard to come by, but those who do hire him frequently are strapped for cash. However, his newest job has an entirely different challenge. The client is Mrs. Ma (Miao Felin), who wants a variety of people dead for filming one of her sexual escapades and distributing it on VCD. Even more, she wants the assasination taped for her viewing pleasure. However, the video of Bart’s first hit—a slimy loser named Ray (Ken Wong) who filmed the initial video—turns out lousy, so he hires down-on-his-luck filmmaker Chuen (Cheung Tat-Ming) to become his partner in crime.

Chuen is one of those wannabe auteur filmmakers who idolizes Martin Scorcese, so he has initial objections to their new partnership. This is especially true since Bart never reveals that they’re actually killing people until he’s actually plugged their first victim. However, as the accolades roll in, Chuen succumbs to the allure of their new business. Even more, they soon become the toast of the hitmen-hiring, which means even more complications: copycat killers, even more annoying clients, and the eventual brush with the law.

Duration : 0:9:28

Read the rest of this entry…

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Global Foreign Direct Investment Trends

Global Foreign Direct Investment Trends

By Nasir Hafeez

According to the latest figures of the World Bank, IMF, ADB and other international agencies, there has been an overall phenomenal increase in the inflows of foreign direct investment around the globe since the start of the new millennium. It was at its peak in 2000, plunged by nearly 40 per cent in 2001 and slumped again in 2002-03. According to figures, it was the longest and biggest decline. However, 2004 marked the start of a rapid recovery and now it is in its third year. During this time, global FDI flows have risen by over 20 per cent a year. In fact, now it is estimated that global FDI is sailing through a favorable era, which can be extended, to the rest of the decade. With single-digit growth from 2007 onwards, global FDI inflows will in 2010 match the 2000 peak of US$1.4 trillion in nominal terms.

FDI and emerging markets

The post-2003 bounce back has been driven by emerging markets. FDI inflows to these regions grew by 57 per cent in 2004 and 26 per cent in 2005 to reach a record high of almost US$400 billion or more than 40 per cent of the global total.

According to the Global Competitiveness Report (2006-07), Pakistan scored relatively well on market efficiency (ranked 54th) with “business sophistication” and “innovation” (ranked 60th and 66th respectively which is a good sign for foreign investors.

According to Standard and Poor’s (S&P) the rising trend of FDI in emerging market economies (EME) is expected to continue in 2005. FDI inflows to EMEs increased at a rapid pace in 2004, reaching US$286 billion, which was a 42 per cent increase over 2003. As a result, global FDI flows increased for the first time in three years, reaching US$648 billion. It was 2.5 per cent higher than in 2003.

Future predictions

FDI flows to emerging markets will remain buoyant in 2006-10, averaging over US$400 billion per year, but growth rates will be modest as privatisation tails off and the global economy slows. FDI inflows may be dried up in the country as the process of privatization completes. Across the regions, in the Kingdom of Thailand, Federative Republic of Brazil, and the Republic of Poland, FDI in retail has been an important source of productivity growth, resulting in lower prices and higher consumption.

In 2006, inflows of FDI to emerging markets are expected to increase by only about 3 per cent in US dollar terms whereas inflows into the developed world are projected to rise by some 36 per cent. In part this is because the recovery in flows to emerging markets is largely complete, while that for developed countries is just getting started.

The United States, the world’s largest economy, is expected to continue to be a powerful magnet for foreign capital, attracting almost a quarter of the world’s FDI flows in 2006-10.

The United Kingdom is listed as the top recipient of FDI in 2005 at $164 billion. The top ten recipient countries mostly in the developed world are expected to account for more than two-thirds of global FDI inflows.

These countries include: the United Kingdom; the United States; China; France; Luxembourg; the Netherlands; Hong Kong; Canada; Singapore and Germany.

Phenomena of mergers and acquisitions

It is predicted that most of the increase in the inflows of the global FDI from 2007 onwards will take place in developed countries and cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A) will be the driving force in it.

The value of cross-border M&A surged to US$435 billion in the first half of 2006, a 48 per cent increase over the same period in 2005, and was concentrated heavily in the developed world. FDI flows have moved from resources to services as in banking (Barclays/Absa deal) and telecommunications (Vodafone/Vodacom deal).

Role of protectionism or economic nationalism

It has been predicted that due to increasing incidents of protectionism or economic nationalism, there could be a decline in the inflows of FDI and pace of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the days to come.

The rise of protectionism against China by the EU and the USA may hurt the true spirits of M&A. The European Commission and the US Congress have already initiated legal measures to protect their economies from the onslaught of Chinese goods and foreign possessions.

The deteriorating law and order situation, the slowing of the privatization process, lesser reforms mechanism and increasing levels of corruption, widening economic parities and finally high political risk are supposed to be one of the main reasons for the gradual slowing of inflows of FDI in emerging markets.

FDI and FPI in Pakistan

According to official claims, the country is aiming to obtain US$7 billion in foreign direct investment within the current financial year. The government is planning road shows in Middle East and Europe to inform investors of the many opportunities for investment in the country in manufacturing as well as infrastructure projects.

In this regard, the Privatization Commission has already published its priority list for the year 2007 sale-out. The inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI) also went up significantly during the first two months of the current fiscal year. During July-August 2006-07, FDI reached $375.4 million against $230.8 million during the corresponding period last year, showing a rise of 63 per cent.

Pakistan had received record FDI of about $3521 million during 2005-06, including privatisation proceeds. Experts believe that high portfolio investments would improve the country’s image abroad and the higher FDI is proof that the country has potential for foreign investment.

Comparative analysis

Of the FDI inflows to Pakistan in 2004-05 and 2005-06, the communication sector had the largest share with $517 million or 34 per cent. This was followed by financial business – 17.7 per cent, oil, gas and petrochemical – 14.3 per cent, power – 4.8 per cent, trade – 3.4 per cent, chemicals – 3.3 per cent and others – 22.5 per cent.

Recently, the government also established an Investors Relations Desk in the Ministry of Finance to keep foreign investors updated on Pakistan’s economy. As per their statistics, Pakistan exhibited an increase of 37.7 per cent in terms of total investment in the first two months of the current fiscal year against the same period last year.

Global depository receipts

Plans are underway to raise at least one billion dollars through overseas global depository receipts (GDRs) offerings from the financial sector alone. MCB, National Bank of Pakistan, United Bank Limited, Habib Bank and Kot Addu Power project are in line to launch their IPO and GDRs in the days to come.

However, due to several delays, OGDC’s share prices have dropped from Rs165 in June to Rs125 despite new discoveries by the Corporation.

MCB’s GDR floatation of $100 to 150 million by Merill Lynch is already underway and plans for road-shows in Far East, Middle East, Europe and North America are commencing from the next month.

Foreign private investment in Pakistan’s stock market suddenly jumped in September 2006. Almost all investments came from the United States and the United Kingdom.

According to the latest figures of SBP (2006), an investment to the tunes of $42.096 million flew into the Pakistani stocks markets. It was much higher than the portfolio investments made in July and August that total $31.9 million. While the usually active Singapore, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and some European countries remained on sidelines, the US invested $26.730 million and the UK $16.371m in September. Most of the investments went in the oil sector, while telecommunications and cement also attracted some investments.

Analysts believe that if this pace of portfolio investment continues for the whole year, it might cross last year’s investments.

Concluding remarks

FDI is the engine of to-day economic growth. Countries need more FDI and FPI in order to generate job opportunities, and desired economic targets. For Pakistan, it is a question of sustenance because FDI is vital for the reduction of widening of trade and account deficits.

In fact, Pakistan’s current account deficit has swelled to $5.5 billion in the FY06 and it was FDI worth $3.5 billion which included $1.5 billion privatization proceeds and $2 billion green field foreign investment that saw it sailing through the crisis. Hence it is imperative that efforts me made to attract more and more FDI and FPI.

nasir hafeez

Derham on the Law of Set-Off

BOOK REVIEW

DERHAM ON THE LAW OF SET-OFF

4th edition by Rory Derham

ISBN: 978-0-19-957882-5

Oxford University Press

www.oup.co.uk

THE RIGHT OF SET-OFF- WHEN IS IT AVAILABLE?

NOW IN A NEW, 4th EDITION… AN EXPOSITION OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES BUT NOT THE PLEADINGS!

An appreciation by Phillip Taylor MBE and Elizabeth Taylor of Richmond Green Chambers

As Australian lawyer Rory Derham points out, the business community does wish to attach the right to set cross-demands against each other, particularly in the event of insolvency, and it’s a subject which arises regularly at court-held Conferences although it’s remained a relatively unattractive area of law for academics… thankfully… as it’s about pleadings, client handling and practice as much as anything else. But we need the principles first which Derham gives us.

The publication of a fourth edition of this important book from the Oxford University Press is therefore timely, particularly in times of economic challenge facing us in the second decade of the 21st Century.

The original aim of this major work of more than 1,000 pages and 18 chapters was to examine some of the more important principles of the law of set-off. The question of when a right of set-off is available is indicative of the principles upon which the decided case law is based, which is why the author emphasizes it throughout.

This new edition examines a number of important developments that have taken place in the law of set-off since the third edition was published seven years ago. For example, the Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2005 introduced certain changes to set-off in company liquidation and administration.

In particular, the decision of the House of Lords is cited in Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v. Frid [2004] and Re SSSL Realisations (2002) Ltd [2006]. Muscat v.Smith [2003] and the issues it raises, especially in the matter of mutuality is dealt with in detail.

Other pertinent cases relating to this vast topic are listed in the 68-page — no less — Table of Cases. There is also a Table of Legislation, Treaties and Conventions which includes Europe, Bermuda, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore and more — as well as the UK and Australia. Indeed, the author considers the principles of set-off from both an English and Australian perspective, thus supplying a very useful global viewpoint from an author who wrote his doctoral thesis at Cambridge.

This is definitely a practitioner’s reference book and, speaking of “vast”, just one look at the excellent Table of Contents should be enough to convince the most demanding practitioner of the depth and breadth of coverage afforded to this complex subject. Starting with the meaning, importance and forms of set-off, this volume contains a wealth of material which deals with everything from substantive equitable set-off and set-off in bankruptcy and company liquidation to Trust Funds…Assignees and Other Interested Third Parties…Mutuality…Sureties and much, much more besides.

So, if, as a practitioner, you’re in any way involved with this area of law, ‘Derham on The Law of Set-Off’ would be a wise purchase for you. The law is stated as at 15 May 2010 and 4th edition is about principle as much as it is about the practical concepts we face, and fortunately it remains outside the complexities of pleadings.

Duration : 0:4:57

Read the rest of this entry…

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Fairer Tax System: Reduce Complexity and Increase Compliance

In this presidential election year the arguments for a tax system that is fair have reemerged.  The term fair is subjective and although there is no agreement on which tax structure would be the fairest, most would agree that it should be transparent, efficient, and simple.    One dimension of fairness that addresses these criteria is the complexity of tax laws.  Two hundred years ago James Madison, the fourth president of the U. S. reiterated this complexity conundrum:

“… if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood…or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.”

Studies have shown that reducing complexity–for filing, paying, and reporting–will increase compliance rates resulting in increased government revenues.  We want to maximize compliance rates without increasing the burden to comply and decrease tax evasion without adding to the administration costs.  In trying to improve tax fairness by satisfying economic, distributional or other policy goals, the political process adds complexity by adding exemptions and reduced tax rates.  The assumption is that to offset this loss in revenue statutory rates are increased and taxpayers that do comply bear the burden of paying a greater percentage of taxes and this affects fairness.   

The complexity of the current U. S. tax system is enormous.  In 1995 the federal tax laws had 40,500 pages and in 2006, total pages were 66,498.  It has over one hundred special tax provisions, phase-in and phase-out rules, and a parallel tax system–alternative minimum tax.  Businesses may pay up to five different types of taxes: profit, social, property, turnover, and other taxes for example municipal fees and fuel taxes.  This complexity adds a cost burden to compliance and according to IRS estimates, compliance costs are $140 billion per year.   Governments are reluctant to reduce business tax burdens because they fear decreased revenues but results from studies conducted by the World Bank indicate that countries that reformed their system increased investment and economic growth which increased their tax revenues.

Complexity and non-compliance contribute to the tax gap, the difference between taxes that are owed and what is actually paid.   Illegal tax evasion by the cash sector, Schedule C filers has the lowest compliance rates.  The estimated tax gap for 2001 is $345 billion and as of 2006 $55 billion of this was recovered.  The Internal Revenue Service estimates that underreporting is about 50% for this sector and the annual underground economy is estimated to be between one to three trillion dollars.  Tax avoidance, cheating, has become pervasive.

Complex tax systems in trying to address fairness have imposed different tax treatment on people with the same income and can lead to multiple interpretations of the same tax laws and this creates the opportunities for tax avoidance, non-compliance.  Compliance rates between the non-cash and cash sector create disproportionate payments of taxes.  Empirical studies support the theory that compliance decreases when people believe that others are evading taxes.  In 2008, congressional investigators found that over a ten year period, payments of federal payroll taxes withheld were short by $58 billion.  Over the past ten years payroll taxes that were withheld but not submitted doubled.    

There is growing political support to simplify the tax codes and reduce non-compliance.    It would appear that the simplest tax system would be a flat tax but no country has been successful at administering a flat tax.  Economists in Estonia, a former communist state in Eastern Europe who had implemented flat taxes, are promoting a change to a progressive system of taxation because of the social disparities caused by the flat tax.  Some other countries claiming to have a flat tax, such as Hong Kong in reality have a steeply progressive tax system.

 Another suggestion is to adopt a value added tax, (VAT).  Value added tax is one consumption tax that has been studied by the Government Accountability Office.  After studying five countries that were chosen for their range and complexity of VAT systems– Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand and the United Kingdom– they concluded that VATs required significant resources in order to maintain compliance even in simple systems.  Administering a VAT system would not reduce complexity and compliance risks because both the U. S. system and VATs use tax preferences and exemptions to further complicate the tax laws.  VATs may be easier to enforce but both systems can be manipulated, face compliance and burden challenges, and are subject to evasion.   

The conclusion based on studies and analysts demonstrates that making the tax system simpler, with fewer special provisions, does increase compliance rates and reduces the tax burden.  Broadening the tax base can mitigate the affects of high tax rates and increase government revenues.  Technically we could create a fairer tax system by reducing tax complexity and non-compliance and make it fair, transparent, efficient, and simple.  Making these changes appears to be difficult due to conflict with political goals and the propensity to avoid taxes.  Implementing a system that meets these criteria requires political and taxpayer commitment.

General Tax Rates for Select Countries*  

General Sales Tax

Country

Corporate
Taxes

Individual
Taxes

Payroll
Taxes

Value Added
Tax (VAT)

General Service
Tax (GST)

Sales
Tax

United States

Federal

15-39%

0-35%

15.30%

-

-

-

State

0-12%

0-10.3%

-

-

-

0-10.25%

Australia

30%

0-45%

-

-

10%

-

Canada

Federal

29.5-35.5%

15-29%

-

-

5%

-

Provincial

-

4-17.95%

-

-

-

0-10%

Estonia

22%

22%

33.90%

18%

-

-

France

33.30%

10-50%

45%

19.6%
(5.5% on food)

-

-

Hong Kong

16.50%

0-15%

 -

-

 -

-

New Zealand

30%

0-39%

-

12.50%

-

United Kingdom

21-28%

0,20,40%

23.80%

17.50%

-

-

* Does not compare social benefits received.

.

Luciana Di Nino

Why Does Canada Seem European & America So Little?

Talking about USA & Canda, they were both colonized by great britain and let free at some point peacfully. Regardless of the case, the laws, democracy, and values come great from what the british colonizal power left much like new zealand, austrailia, hong kong, singapore, and yah yah.

Anways, I have went to many canadian cities and boy I can tell you, the architecture, socialism, business strcuture, food, hospitality, and way of living is far more resemblance to europe especially in quebec where the french culture is dominant, In canda, the european atrributes are there, universal healthcare, low poverty, longer life expectance, much more social benefits, better education at all levels, more cultural diversity, more liberal values, and humble way of life with less greed, debt, individualism, and me me me syndrome.

I don’t understand how american distant itself from the european values instill by the british empire and both the european values of immigrants that made the country successful in the first. Its so different and nwhere in europe is the way of living, values, political, healthcare, and all other structures are so different, condescending, and unparalle to each other. In europe, every country is clean, decent standard of living, and guarantees the same rights while in america, everything is breaking apart, divided, unccoperative, and individualized.

I just don’t understand, canada retained much of european hertiage and doing very well perhaps even better when you look at social side than america but america just broke away and became different. I just don’t see how they country evolved without taking into accounts it roots and abiding by it. Its just such a different system.

Are you kidding, " let free at some point peacefully", where were you educated? Americans fought two wars with Britain to obtain freedom. In the second war, the British burned the American white house. Wake up mister.

America’s influence by the British extended to 13 colonies in the east. The northeast of America was subject to a 7 year French-Indian War not settled until the Treaty of Paris. Most of the American land was fought over by Natives who did not like giving up their lands to the poor who came toward the Mississippi River to find land to farm. We purchased the Louisiana Territory from France. Several wars were fought with Spain resulting in the Treaty of Adams-Onis aka the Transcontinental Treaty and the Florida Purchase Treaty.

Texians and Texicans fought against the Spanish, the French, and finally the Mexicans to achieve an independent Republic of Texas, which was finally annexed by the United States is 1845, where upon the Mexican government broke relations with the US and a war was fought for two year until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo settled some of the issues. Continued strife finally resulted in the Gadsen Purchase which finally settled some of the Mexican claims for the southerly border of Arizona and New Mexico.

A third war with the British was averted by the Oregon Territory Treaty of 1846.

War with Russia was averted in 1867 by the purchase of the Alaska Territory.

US and British troops landed in Hawaii in 1874 due to riots. In 1893 the Queen was overthrown and replaced with a Provisional Government and a Republic of Hawaii was formed in 1894. After much political intrigue, Hawaii was annexed into the United States as a Territory in 1898.

My point is that the formation of the United States was volatile, uncertain, and based on individual action rather than some government decision. Thousands of little battles were fought at the residential home level rather than at the organized federal level. This created a nation of rugged individuals that could survive anything.

Canada was fought over once and then peace reigned and freedom, life and property was never in dispute after the Seven Years War in 1763. On the contrary, the United States fought for her territory and rights through the early 1900′s with Teddy Roosevelt in the Spanish American War. As such, Americans found their homes in danger about 150 years longer than the country north of us. So Americans tend to be very very unpredictable and violent when it comes to people challenging our security. Americans simply grew up with violence at their very doorstep for several generations. This has shaped the everyday acceptance of violent behavior in this society. It is all Americans knew prior to World War 1, the second World War did not convince Americans to relax and chill out. The communist manifesto was used to galvanized Americans into believing that the USSR and Red China were simply interested in doing what all others had failed to do since the British, namely to control Americans. This of course was a false emergency, but many Americans still view communism as another threat to their way of life. I do think that Muslims fundamentalist terrorism has managed to usurp the communist threat. A grievous fundamental error recognized by those familiar with the history of Americans.

Fairer Tax System: Reduce Complexity and Increase Compliance

In this presidential election year the arguments for a tax system that is fair have reemerged.  The term fair is subjective and although there is no agreement on which tax structure would be the fairest, most would agree that it should be transparent, efficient, and simple.    One dimension of fairness that addresses these criteria is the complexity of tax laws.  Two hundred years ago James Madison, the fourth president of the U. S. reiterated this complexity conundrum:

“… if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood…or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.”

Studies have shown that reducing complexity–for filing, paying, and reporting–will increase compliance rates resulting in increased government revenues.  We want to maximize compliance rates without increasing the burden to comply and decrease tax evasion without adding to the administration costs.  In trying to improve tax fairness by satisfying economic, distributional or other policy goals, the political process adds complexity by adding exemptions and reduced tax rates.  The assumption is that to offset this loss in revenue statutory rates are increased and taxpayers that do comply bear the burden of paying a greater percentage of taxes and this affects fairness.   

The complexity of the current U. S. tax system is enormous.  In 1995 the federal tax laws had 40,500 pages and in 2006, total pages were 66,498.  It has over one hundred special tax provisions, phase-in and phase-out rules, and a parallel tax system–alternative minimum tax.  Businesses may pay up to five different types of taxes: profit, social, property, turnover, and other taxes for example municipal fees and fuel taxes.  This complexity adds a cost burden to compliance and according to IRS estimates, compliance costs are $140 billion per year.   Governments are reluctant to reduce business tax burdens because they fear decreased revenues but results from studies conducted by the World Bank indicate that countries that reformed their system increased investment and economic growth which increased their tax revenues.

Complexity and non-compliance contribute to the tax gap, the difference between taxes that are owed and what is actually paid.   Illegal tax evasion by the cash sector, Schedule C filers has the lowest compliance rates.  The estimated tax gap for 2001 is $345 billion and as of 2006 $55 billion of this was recovered.  The Internal Revenue Service estimates that underreporting is about 50% for this sector and the annual underground economy is estimated to be between one to three trillion dollars.  Tax avoidance, cheating, has become pervasive.

Complex tax systems in trying to address fairness have imposed different tax treatment on people with the same income and can lead to multiple interpretations of the same tax laws and this creates the opportunities for tax avoidance, non-compliance.  Compliance rates between the non-cash and cash sector create disproportionate payments of taxes.  Empirical studies support the theory that compliance decreases when people believe that others are evading taxes.  In 2008, congressional investigators found that over a ten year period, payments of federal payroll taxes withheld were short by $58 billion.  Over the past ten years payroll taxes that were withheld but not submitted doubled.    

There is growing political support to simplify the tax codes and reduce non-compliance.    It would appear that the simplest tax system would be a flat tax but no country has been successful at administering a flat tax.  Economists in Estonia, a former communist state in Eastern Europe who had implemented flat taxes, are promoting a change to a progressive system of taxation because of the social disparities caused by the flat tax.  Some other countries claiming to have a flat tax, such as Hong Kong in reality have a steeply progressive tax system.

 Another suggestion is to adopt a value added tax, (VAT).  Value added tax is one consumption tax that has been studied by the Government Accountability Office.  After studying five countries that were chosen for their range and complexity of VAT systems– Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand and the United Kingdom– they concluded that VATs required significant resources in order to maintain compliance even in simple systems.  Administering a VAT system would not reduce complexity and compliance risks because both the U. S. system and VATs use tax preferences and exemptions to further complicate the tax laws.  VATs may be easier to enforce but both systems can be manipulated, face compliance and burden challenges, and are subject to evasion.   

The conclusion based on studies and analysts demonstrates that making the tax system simpler, with fewer special provisions, does increase compliance rates and reduces the tax burden.  Broadening the tax base can mitigate the affects of high tax rates and increase government revenues.  Technically we could create a fairer tax system by reducing tax complexity and non-compliance and make it fair, transparent, efficient, and simple.  Making these changes appears to be difficult due to conflict with political goals and the propensity to avoid taxes.  Implementing a system that meets these criteria requires political and taxpayer commitment.

General Tax Rates for Select Countries*  

General Sales Tax

Country

Corporate
Taxes

Individual
Taxes

Payroll
Taxes

Value Added
Tax (VAT)

General Service
Tax (GST)

Sales
Tax

United States

Federal

15-39%

0-35%

15.30%

-

-

-

State

0-12%

0-10.3%

-

-

-

0-10.25%

Australia

30%

0-45%

-

-

10%

-

Canada

Federal

29.5-35.5%

15-29%

-

-

5%

-

Provincial

-

4-17.95%

-

-

-

0-10%

Estonia

22%

22%

33.90%

18%

-

-

France

33.30%

10-50%

45%

19.6%
(5.5% on food)

-

-

Hong Kong

16.50%

0-15%

 -

-

 -

-

New Zealand

30%

0-39%

-

12.50%

-

United Kingdom

21-28%

0,20,40%

23.80%

17.50%

-

-

* Does not compare social benefits received.

.

Luciana Di Nino

?????Homophoblic Bullying in School in Hong Kong. TVB Pearl Report

?????
On Air Date: 2010.12.27 (Mon)

The simple business of going to school or work could cause anxiety…if you’re a sexual minority. Kids get bullied, adults can lose their jobs. Also, by law, Hong Kong does not permit same-sex marriage. As producer Chris Lincoln reports, anti-discrimination laws protect sexual minorities, elsewhere, but not in Hong Kong.

Reporter: Chris Linclon

Duration : 0:12:53

Read the rest of this entry…

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,