A perceptive blogger recently asked the question ‘To Whom Do We Owe This Money, Exactly?’ It was right to do so. It comes to the core of all questions about the deficit.

To whom do we owe this money? Why have the lent it? Can it carry on? If so, how?

The answers are not straightforward. Macro economics is not.

One answer about to whom do we owe the money is, of course, ourselves. Quantitative easing was an exercise in the Bank of England lending money to banks who lent it to the Treasury, all via the gilts market as the EU bans direct lending of this sort. It’s just a shame, as I have noted here, that we added in the rather expensive and unjustly enriched as a result middleman. We need Green quantitative easing instead.

More importantly though, as Martin Wolf in the FT noted last June:

In 2010, according to the International Monetary Fund’s latest forecasts, the private sectors of every large high-income country will run a huge excess of income over spending. This is forecast at 7.8 per cent of gross domestic product for these countries as a group, at 12.6 per cent for Japan, at 9.7 per cent for the UK, at 7.7 per cent for the US and at 6.8 per cent for the eurozone.

What we are seeing, in short, is an epidemic of private sector frugality – just as many economic doctors recommended. Yet such thrift entails either current account surpluses or fiscal deficits.

To put it simply: the private sector is saving, and in large amount. What part of the private sector? Well, two parts are doing this. One part is homeowners who are paying down debt on their mortgages, which has the same effect as saving. After all, reducing borrowing is in net terms saving. Secondly, and as importantly, the world’s major corporations are increasingly sitting on enormous piles of cash that they will not use to a) pay tax b) pay to shareholders c) invest productively. The greatest brains of free enterprise are clueless what to do with their monkey right now.

At this point I need to introduce the work of Wynne Godley, as Martin Wolf does, and as Malcolm Sawyer does here.

Godley would have argued that cuts cannot have any impact on the deficit at this moment because the national income accounting identity of a budget deficit is:

Budget deficit = Private Savings minus Private Investment plus Current Account Deficit

In other words the deficit is only within the control of the government to the extent it can manipulate private savings, private investment and the trade current account. The government can seek to cut – but doing so will not matter to the deficit per se unless behaviour elsewhere is changed as a result. Cutting by itself will have no impact on the deficit. It can’t because it’s not an isolated action: the deficit is a residual of other behaviour.

The trade current account, we can safely assume, is not going to get much better, if at all, over the next five years. We are in deficit and will remain that way. Export led growth is not going to happen when most of our trade partners are themselves in deep crisis.

In that case we are down to private savings and investment to solve the budget deficit issue. It’s important to note here that savings and investment are entirely different beasts. Savings are cash put aside. Investment is the act of creating new productive capacity in the economy – whether by training, creating infrastructure, or by redesigning products and services. It’s also important to realise that these are independent variables. Investment is not dependent upon saving, it is only dependent upon credit. It can be funded from borrowing and banks are not dependent upon having savings (in large degree) to make loans.

Savings are rising right now, as Wolf has noted. And all the evidence is that this trend is increasing, rapidly. That’s the message being delivered by lower consumer spending. Saving is up. And rationally so in the face of uncertainty when assessed at an individual level.

Now that could of course be overcome if there was increasing investment. But there isn’t – corporations too are cutting back spending. And again rationally so for each of them in the face of declining consumer spending.

As a result the rational acts of savers and investors in increasing saving and reducing investment matched by a continuing current account deficit guarantee that spending cuts won’t cut the deficit. They can’t. It’s what Keynes called the paradox of thrift: the very things needed to boost the economy are denied to it at the time when they’re needed i.e. less saving and more investment are needed now and the private sector is not going to deliver either.

Osborne assumed both would be available as a result of cuts. He has acted on the belief that if only the state is cut the private sector will rush in to fill the void, feeling more confident that they and individuals will pay less tax in future and so will rush out to spend and invest now to celebrate their higher net earnings in the bright tomorrow that cuts offer to them by way of increased take home pay / ate tax profits.

As all the evidence suggests, Osborne is wrong. That is not how people are reacting to cuts. They’re doing as Keynes predicted and not as Osborne thought likely. Fear of losing your job is a much more powerful sentiment than belief that you should borrow now to spend your increased earnings (which you may or may not enjoy depending on whether your job is cut or not) now.

So we have a situation where current government action cannot resolve the deficit because the cuts programme is increasing savings and reducing investment. And the deficit can continue precisely because individuals who save and corporations who do not invest are lending their cash to the government to fund the deficit – which is why, incidentally, 90% of the Uk deficit (at least) is home funded, giving a lie to Osborne’s claim we are so dependent on the international bond markets.

In that case if solving the deficit is the priority – and for many reasons it is – then alternative action is needed. Plan B you might call it. And that would be designed to reduce private savings at present, or increase investment, or both, without impacting on the balance of trade. That’s the course for deficit reduction. And when put in this way it is clear that Osborne has got almost everything wrong.

To reduce savings people need to have confidence that they will have a job. So increasing employment has to be the priority. That suggests cuts are exactly the wrong way to go: indeed, because the marginal cost of employing people in state led activity is at present very low since benefits are saved and tax is paid by those working for the state creating short term state programmes (and even long term ones where appropriate to increase investment) is very obviously the right course of action at present, and reduces the deficit because those in work either spooned or at the very least create a mood of optimism that stops others saving, which reduces the deficit. This is the Green new Deal, of course.

And investment has to be stimulated. This is why I have suggested a programme for requiring that payments into pension schemes – currently wasted on speculation which is a savings act, not an investment act, must be compulsorily used to fund investment in new wealth and job creating activity to ensure that the deficit is cut.

Will this impact on foreign exchange markets? Not if it stimulates domestic growth. No, it won’t. It might do the exact opposite. And nor will it impact inflation – because these are self funding arrangements.

Those issues can be addressed separately – this blog is long enough.

But the point is that the only economic credibility left is to be found in rejecting a cuts programme, per se and in redirecting money to productive activity. That is Plan B.

 

The FT reports:

US Senate investigators probing the financial crisis will refer evidence about Wall Street institutions including Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank to the justice department for possible criminal investigations, officials said on Wednesday.

Carl Levin, Democratic chairman of the powerful Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations, said a two-year probe found that banks mis-sold mortgage-backed securities and misled investors and lawmakers.

“We will be referring this matter to the justice department and to the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission],” he said. “In my judgment, Goldman clearly misled their clients and they misled Congress.”

Last year, Goldman paid $550m to settle SEC allegations that it defrauded investors in Abacus, a complex security linked to subprime mortgages.

The report, released late on Wednesday, says that the subcommittee found “a variety of troubling and sometimes abusive practices” by banks, such as Goldman and Deutsche, involved in the creation and sale of collateralised debt obligations.

I suspect Carl Levin is right: I know his team are thorough.

There are serious issues in here:

1) honesty

2) accountability

3) breach of trust.

They do, admittedly, relate to specific issues, and not the sector in general, but that does not undermine their validity. If banks can’t be trusted then bailing them out and supporting their retention (the issue at the core of the Vickers report) is not worthwhile.

Is Carl levin right? I think he may well be. It suggests Vickers needs to take a much tougher line. And that these people cannot be trusted with any involvement with ordinary people’s one or the payment system that underlines our economy.

 

This press release, supposedly from GE in the US is doing the rounds. Shame it is a hoax:

Fairfield, CT, 13th April, 2011– GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt has informed the Obama administration that the company will be gifting its entire 2010 tax refund, worth $3.2 Billion, to the US Treasury on April 18, Tax Day, and will furthermore adopt a host of new policies that secure its position as a leader in corporate social responsibility.

“We want the public to know that we’ve heard them, and that we know many Americans are going through tough times,” said GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt. “GE will therefore give our 2010 tax refund back to the public and allow the public to decide how to spend it.”

Immelt acknowledged no wrongdoing. “All seven of our foreign tax havens are entirely legal,” Immelt noted. “But Americans have made it clear that they deplore laws that enable tax avoidance. While we owe it to our shareholders to use every legal loophole to maximize returns – we also owe something to the American people. We didn’t write the laws that let us legally avoid paying taxes. Congress did. But we benefit from those laws, and now we’d like to share those benefits. We are proud to be giving something back to America, and we are proud to set an example for all industry to follow.”

Over the coming weeks, GE will conduct a nationwide survey to determine how the company’s $3.2 billion returned refund is to be allocated. The survey will be conducted both online and offline, and will permit the public to weigh in on which of the recently-enacted budget cuts they would like to see reversed.

In tandem with the gift, the company is also announcing a host of new policies to restore public faith in the GE brand, including a commitment to keep American jobs in America, and to create one U.S. job for each new job created abroad. The ambitious plan will overhaul accounting systems to allow public transparency and phase out the use of tax havens in five years. “Given my recent appointment as President Obama’s Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, it is no longer appropriate for GE to engage in practices that, whether by fact or perception, are at odds with the greater good of the nation,” Immelt said.

Immelt outlined several concrete steps he would take to push for modernized tax policies that reflect the realities of the global economy. “I will personally ask President Obama to work with Congress to require country-by-country reporting by multi-national corporations of the sales made, profits earned and taxes paid in every jurisdiction where an entity operates. Instead of moving money via “transfer pricing,” corporations ought to pay taxes in the jurisdictions where profits are actually made. If Congress is able to establish standard industry-wide solutions, GE will close our tax haven operations abroad, including our subsidiaries in Bermuda, Singapore and Luxembourg.”

Further details on GE’s new policy will be released in the coming weeks.

 

The BBC has reported that HSBC set up a Guernsey-based company to reduce tax on profits from funding National Health Service hospitals provided under the notoriously opaque private finance initiative.

What can one say? This happened on the watch of HSBC’s former chairman Stephen Green, a Church of England minister and also trade minister in the British coalition government.

Now of course HSBC’s defence is that the private equity operations in the Uk that are owned by the Channel Islands’ subsidiary of HSBC will be taxed in the UK and so all will be fine. But that’s 10% iof the story.

First, the PFI operation will probably be funded using loans from offshore, so its cost of borrowing may well flow out of the UK to a tax haven. It would hardly be difficult for HSBC to arrange that. This will represent a significant part of any profit.

Then the UK operation may suffer charges from the offshore parent, so shifting more profit offshore. Subject to transfer pricing, of course, but still a shift – and hard and expensive for HMRC to challenge. Even harder as PFI is consistent with government policy.

And of course the sale of the PFI contract will be stamp duty free (and these sales happen – it’s how PFI companies seem to really make money) and capital gains free as well.

And so the exploitation of the NHS to enhance the banking sector goes on, and on, and on.

I’ve said this is equivalent to the enclosure of the commons by the aristocracy in the late 18th century before now. I’ll do so again. This is the enclosure of public money for the benefit of a financial elite. And that’s at cost to 99.5% of us. Who have to stop it.

Disclosure: I advised the BBC on this story

 

1,000 economists (with me included in that number) have written to the G20 and Bill Gates to call for a financial transaction tax.

We said:

Dear G20 Finance Ministers and Bill Gates,

We write to you as the call for a Financial Transaction Tax is now gathering global momentum, and the French government has made it a key priority for their G20 presidency.

This tax is an idea that has come of age. The financial crisis has shown us the dangers of unregulated finance, and the link between the financial sector and society has been broken. It is time to fix this link and for the financial sector to give something back to society.

Even at very low rates of 0.05% or less, this tax could raise hundreds of billions of dollars annually and calm excessive speculation. The UK already levies a tax on share transactions of 0.5%, or ten times this rate, without unduly impacting on the competitiveness of the City of London.

This money is urgently needed to raise revenue for global and domestic public goods such as health, education and water, and to tackle the challenge of climate change.

Given the automation of payments, this tax is technically feasible. It is morally right.

We call on you to implement the FTT as a matter of urgency.

Yours.

More on this here.

 

As the Guardian reports:

Labour are releasing a 16-page dossier setting out “the hidden reality of David Cameron’s health reforms”.

It identifies five main flaws in the bill. This is what they are, according to Labour.

1. There would be nothing to stop NHS hospitals going bust.

2. Hospitals would be subject to EU competition law, which means they could be fined up to 10% of turnover by the regulator.

3. There would be less accountability in relation to NHS services, which means NHS units could be closed without any consultation.

4. Hospitals would be allowed to give priority to private patients.

5. GPs would have the right to charge for services.

As they also note:

Some of these claims are strongly contested.

I think Labour have these issues right though.

If you promote the market hospitals have to be able to fail. This will be at massive cost to society.

EU competition law is going to apply – and the new regulators sole aim is not health care – but ensuring competition does rule.

Already data on health services is being denied because it may be ‘market sensitive’ and new consortia are outside FoI rules -as they’re private bodies. This is appalling.

And I have no doubt 4 and 5 follow – although 5 is not as clear as they others, yet.

But Labour is now counter attacking – and that’s the good news.

 

I have a habit of tackling right-wing libertarian extremists in the UK – who seem to have taken a dislike to me as a result. I can live with that.

And I make no apology for my attitude towards them. Their self-interested greed threatens the well being of vast numbers of people in this country, and most especially the young, the old, the sick, the disabled and those unable to work for any reason – including those that are no fault of their own. All of these people they would leave to the vagaries of the market – knowing full well they do not have the means to take part in the market and that they are as a result destined to abject poverty.

It’s easy to assume that these people just populate the right wing blogosphere. But that, unfortunately, is not true. They also populate the Tory party. I hear Tory MPs like Mark Field promoting 15% flat taxes for the UK, based on Hong Kong with no VAT either.

And I hear the same sentiment echoed time and again by new entrants to parliament from the Tory right.

And I realise that these people are not there to promote society as we know it – but something very different indeed. They’re seeking to overthrow that society we have enjoyed and replace it with a very explicit culture where the haves take all, and the rest are condemned to serve them without hope, chance of change or any effective means of sustaining anything other than what will be a quite basic living – and certainly much worse than that which many enjoy now. You can’t remove the safety net from so many and deliver anything else.

I am glad that awareness of this is now growing – largely because the Tea Party and its associates have taken such a hold on the Republican party in the States and this same madness is becoming more explicit there as a result.

Paul Krugman has delivered listening attacks on Paul Ryan’s budget proposals over the last few days – all worth reading. As he makes clear – this is greed without economic analysis.

Martin Wolf has now joined in – no doubt influenced by his weekend trip to the States. As he says in the FT:

What does the rise of libertarianism portend for the future of the US? This is not a question of interest to Americans alone. It matters almost as much to the rest of the world. A part of the answer came with the publication of a fiscal plan, entitled “Path to Prosperity”, by Paul Ryan, Republican chairman of the house budget committee. The conclusion I draw is the opposite of its author’s: a higher tax burden is coming. But that leads to another conclusion: much conflict lies ahead, with huge implications for politics, federal finance and the US ability to play its historic role.

In can’t quote extensively, but note his conclusion:

The Ryan plan is a “reductio ad absurdum” – a disproof by taking a proposition to a logical conclusion. It would turn the government into a miserly provider of pensions and health insurance. These functions would absorb three-quarters of non-interest spending by 2050. Other functions, including even defence, would collapse. This is most unlikely to happen. Indeed, even if the government were astonishingly successful in curbing the growth of spending on health, the share of federal spending in GDP is almost certain to be above 20 per cent.

A long-term fiscal fight looms. The solution may even have to come out of a crisis. But Mr Ryan has given the president an opportunity, by defining what surely will not happen. Mr Obama must seize it.

Not just Mr Obama.

Mr Miliband and Mr Balls too – because this is not so far removed from right wing Tory thinking.

And even Orange Book Lib Dem thinking.

Yes, we’re in for a fight. And the right have to lose. For the sake of the people of the UK, US and around the world this abusive philosophy based on greed and exploitation has to be shown for what it is – a blatant attempt to abuse.

 

Southern Cross is one of the UK’s largest providers of care homes. It has 754 in all with 37,600 beds. For many those beds are home.

And it if failing financially. Over burdened with debt as a result of reckless dealing whilst under private equity control and now facing a downturn in demand as local authorities can no longer afford to pay for respite care, and in some cases care at all, Southern Cross is facing financial failure. It is, in that sense, an example of the Likely failing of the NHS in future.

The care of the elderly is not a marginal activity: it is critical to the health and social care provision of the elderly. Once it was largely managed by local authorities. And then it was, largely, privatised. It was argued the private sector could provide these services much better than the state. But being property based, and being based on what was assumed to be a secure income stream the whole process was soon rapidly financially engineered, heavily leveraged, saled and leased backed, and very soon over leveraged to the degree that failure now seems inevitable. Upwards only pricing and growth assumptions may be reckless, but that’s what markets are.

This is the face of the NHS to come – because for all practical purposes these care homes are health and social provision – and yet here we have one of its largest players, that has been exploited mercilessly for profit – now being hung out to dry and begging for governemtn and local government support.

Has anyone heard this story before – in the banking sector?

Yes, here we have the repetition all over again. Southern Cross is in a very real sense too big to fail. So it is, in effect, asking to be bailed out. The reason is simple – these people cannot be made hmeless.

Now I agree, Southern Cross could go into administration and local authorities would then take the care homes over – they’d have to (but deals to protect shareholders would have to be done). However looked at, that’s still the upside risk going to shareholders and the resulting train crash going to the state.

Get used to it. A hospital fails having been sold and leased back, stripped of all value on site and left as a residual facility – and the state will get the husk back, subject to all the constraints in the lease, which will have to be honoured. And so on, and on.

Southern Cross shows the way the NHS is going – the most gigantic asset strip of all time with a securitised income stream for the private sector at cost to the state the inevitable residual consequence.

It’s all too obvious to see. But will anyone stop it?

 

The US edition of Nick Shaxsons’ book Treasure Islands was launched yesterday.

Senator Carl Levin spoke at the launch, saying:

Speech on Offshore Tax Havens and Nicholas Shaxson’s Treasure Islands

Speech as Prepared for Delivery, Washington Press Club

Good morning. I’d like to thank Nick Shaxson and the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition for inviting me to discuss for a few moments an issue that has huge implication for our country and for the global economy: offshore tax havens.

It’s an especially appropriate time of the year to take up this subject. I’d like to give you my thoughts on why it is not only timely, but of critical importance.

Next Monday is tax day. Millions of American families will finish their tax returns and file them with the IRS. Millions more will have already filed their returns by then. Needless to say, tax day is not exactly a celebrated American holiday. We will grumble. We will complain about how much we pay in taxes or owe to Uncle Sam. But nearly all of us will fill out the form, write the check if we have to, and file our returns.

We do so partly because, hey, who wants to get in hot water with the IRS? Failing to pay taxes is serious business, and nobody wants to take on the tax man. But for most of us, I think there is something else going on as well, even if it’s in the back of our minds, and that is a sense of civic duty. We have many disagreements about how much we should pay, who should pay, and how the money we pay should be spent. But most of us also know that for our country to remain safe, secure, and prosperous, paying taxes is not only necessary, but a patriotic commitment to the country we love. A country that, for all its flaws, we believe is the best place to live in the world.

Meanwhile, here in Washington, we see another aspect of the tax issue: the argument over the budget. The turbulence of the last two weeks is just a preview of the debate that has already begun over the budget for 2012 and beyond. By any accounting, our projected deficits in coming years are unsustainable. The mismatch between our spending and our revenue is too great. And this mismatch has sparked an enormous, contentious, difficult debate over how best to resolve the issue.

So how do those two events – tax day and the deficit debate – relate to Nick Shaxson and his book on tax havens? It’s the contrast between those millions of ordinary Americans fulfilling their legal and civic obligation to pay taxes to Uncle Sam, while others, most of them wealthy individuals or profitable corporations, are taking evasive action to dodge the very same obligations. Many of those tax dodgers will use offshore tax havens to hide income and assets, and shelter them from taxes. Which means that the families who pay their fair share will have to pay more, because they will have to carry the load for the tax dodgers using offshore havens to evade their taxes.

Nick Shaxson admirably lays out the history of how tax havens have become such an insidious feature of the global economy. Today, folks around the globe know to go offshore to hide money. They know tax havens can be used to hide funds not only from tax authorities, but from law enforcement, courts and creditors. Enron had over 400 offshore subsidiaries. A single building in the Cayman Islands, called the Ugland House, serves as the mail drop for nearly 19,000 companies incorporated there for tax-dodging purposes. Hedge funds whose employees live right here in the U.S. pretend to be based in tax havens to dodge U.S. taxes, and some companies keep their money offshore so they don’t have to pay one thin dime to support this country – in fact, they get tax refunds instead.

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has spent more than a decade exploring how offshore tax havens conceal wealth, distort commerce, and abet crime, money laundering and corruption. The truth is that tax havens have declared economic war on honest countries, including the United States by helping U.S. taxpayers dodge U.S. taxes and rob the U.S. Treasury of needed funds.
The ongoing drain on the U.S. Treasury is massive – and it bears directly on the budget and deficit debate. In 2006, our Subcommittee estimated that offshore tax abuses cost our Treasury about $100 billion a year in lost revenues. The big budget debate this year focused on about $70 billion in proposed budget cuts, which means the revenues lost to tax havens might have – all by themselves –resolved the problem. Now I am not so naïve as to believe that if we had that lost tax haven revenue, we would avoid contentious debates over the budget. But whether you, like me, believe the budget cuts proposed by House Republicans are too deep, or whether you are a Tea Party fan who would use that revenue to fund additional tax cuts, there is no doubt that closing down tax haven abuse would make a big dent in the problems we face.
While offshore tax abuse remains rampant, the news is not all bad. There have been some recent successes in the effort to rein in the problem. Last year, Congress enacted the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act which, when it becomes effective in 2013, will require overseas banks to disclose to the IRS all accounts opened by U.S. depositors. If they don’t disclose, those banks will face a 30% withholding tax on all their U.S. income. That new law hopefully will help flush out hidden bank accounts by giving foreign banks a reason to disclose them. In another important step, in 2010, after a long battle, the IRS succeeded in piercing Switzerland’s veil of bank secrecy and forced its largest bank, UBS, to provide the names of thousands of U.S. clients who had opened hidden Swiss bank accounts. Similar efforts to identify tax cheats at other tax haven banks are under way.

These victories prove that the battle against offshore tax abuse can make progress, but they also represent skirmishes in what will likely be a very long war. I’d like to discuss two pieces of legislation that I have introduced in the past, and plan to reintroduce in this Congress, to continue the fight.

The first bill is the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which President Obama cosponsored when he was a member of the Senate. This bill would enact a number of measures to combat offshore tax abuse, including enabling the United States to take steps against offshore financial institutions or jurisdictions that impede U.S. tax enforcement. For example, it would allow the Treasury Department to act against tax haven countries that don’t cooperate with our tax enforcement efforts by preventing U.S. banks from doing business with or honoring credit cards from banks in those countries. It would also simplify U.S. tax enforcement by allowing courts to apply a rebuttable presumption that U.S. persons who form, send money to, or receive money from offshore entities control those entities; and it would toughen penalties against tax shelter promoters and others who aid or abet tax evasion.

The second bill is the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act, which addresses a problem in our own backyard. Nearly two million corporations and limited liability companies are formed within the United States each year, and we don’t know who is behind them, because the states forming those new companies don’t ask. U.S. corporations with hidden owners are not only used to evade taxes, but have been used by terrorists, narcotraffickers, corrupt dictators, and other criminals. My bill would require those who set up U.S. companies to disclose the names of the people behind them — the beneficial owners. Those names would be made available to law enforcement agencies and to the IRS upon presentation of a subpoena. It’s a heck of a lot harder to argue for an end to offshore secrecy in tax haven countries if we don’t put our own house in order and meet our international commitments to obtain ownership information for the corporations formed here.
So we have work to do. One important part of that work is informing the public, taxpayers, policy makers and the media about the scope of the offshore tax abuse problem. Nick Shaxson’s “Treasure Islands” does just that, pointing out problems not just in jurisdictions known for offshore secrecy, but also here in the United States, and in his home country, the United Kingdom. His book has won widespread praise in Europe. It’s been called “riveting,” “blistering,” “gobsmacking,” and “perhaps the most important book published in the UK so far this year.” I hope we on this side of the pond will give his book the same amount of attention. In the week before tax day and in the midst of the ongoing budget debates, his book will help us get serious about shutting down offshore tax abuses that continue to rob this country of needed tax revenues.

Ladies and gentlemen, Nicholas Shaxson.

It’s warm;y appreciated that there are some politicians, like Carl Levin, who are willing to stick their necks out on this issue.

© 2005 - 2011 Tax Research UK.
Some rights reserved. Creative Commons License
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha