Daily Review 14/12/2018

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, December 14th, 2018 - 46 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

46 comments on “Daily Review 14/12/2018 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. James Thrace 1
    14 December 2018 at 7:03 pm

    With over $1.2tn going through the financial markets every year, a financial transaction tax of 1% will give the govt an income of $120bn a year.

    The current raft of taxes generates just $85bn a year.

    It is not hard to see that scrapping all forms of taxes and implementing an FTT of 1% will lead to higher govt revenue and more money for consumers to spend as they see fit.

    • gsays 1.1
      14 December 2018 at 7:06 pm

      I vote for that.

    • dV 1.2
      14 December 2018 at 7:29 pm

      AND it would capture a lot of the non tax entities as well.

    • Antoine 1.3
      15 December 2018 at 2:27 am

      Your view is too static. Adding a new tax will always decrease the tax base it is levied on, sometimes drastically.

      A.

      • James Thrace 1.3.1
        15 December 2018 at 7:45 am

        Go on then, explain how an FTT will dramatically decrease the tax take

        • Antoine 1.3.1.1
          15 December 2018 at 9:19 am

          My point is that if an FTT is introduced, then the number and size of financial transactions will decrease. Because now a transaction is essentially free, there is no reason not to shuttle money back and forth. But if a transaction has a cost, people will find ways to avoid doing them or to reduce their size or to take them outside the taxed region. It would be naive to think this would not happen.

          A.

          • Antoine 1.3.1.1.1
            15 December 2018 at 10:06 am

            Think of it this way. Many financial dealings take the form, A pays B, B pays C. If there was an FTT, then B could simply arrange for A to pay C directly – halving the tax liability.

            Then, of course, it frequently happens that A pays B an amount of $X, and at some later time B pays A an amount of $Y. If there was an FTT, then either B could simply pay A an amount of ($Y – $X) (perhaps adjusted for interest on the $X), or they could simply keep score and settle up at some later time. Again, the tax liability would be reduced or avoided entirely.

            If you think that rich people and corporations wouldn’t bother to do these kinds of tricks, then you don’t know rich people or corporations.

            A.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.1.1.1
              15 December 2018 at 11:24 am

              Because now a transaction is essentially free, there is no reason not to shuttle money back and forth.

              Which invariably lumbers its own cost on society. See NZ 1987, the Asian Tiger collapse and the GFC.

              If there was an FTT, then B could simply arrange for A to pay C directly – halving the tax liability.

              Wouldn’t that be, like, a Good Thing? You know, increased efficiency and stuff.

              Then, of course, it frequently happens that A pays B an amount of $X, and at some later time B pays A an amount of $Y. If there was an FTT, then either B could simply pay A an amount of ($Y – $X) (perhaps adjusted for interest on the $X), or they could simply keep score and settle up at some later time.

              I’m pretty sure you’ll find that that already happens. IMO, you’ll find that’s why businesses invoice for the 20th of the month.

              • Antoine …
                15 December 2018 at 11:46 am

                >> If there was an FTT, then B could simply arrange for A to pay C directly – halving the tax liability.

                > Wouldn’t that be, like, a Good Thing? You know, increased efficiency and stuff.

                Nah. Because electronic transactions are very cheap, in reality. Cutting out one transaction is of no real economic benefit. If you have to take the time to make special arrangements to make it happen, it will be a real economic loss.

                >>If there was an FTT, then either B could simply pay A an amount of ($Y – $X) (perhaps adjusted for interest on the $X), or they could simply keep score and settle up at some later time.

                > I’m pretty sure you’ll find that that already happens.

                It happens sometimes, but not always. It would happen more often under a FTT.

                For instance, if I have a transactional account, savings account and a mortgage at once (such things are not unknown), my bank will charge me several fees, pay me interest and charge me interest – separately. Under the FTT, I would expect the bank to save us money by lumping those transactions. To no real economic benefit.

                A.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  15 December 2018 at 12:29 pm

                  Nah. Because electronic transactions are very cheap, in reality. Cutting out one transaction is of no real economic benefit. If you have to take the time to make special arrangements to make it happen, it will be a real economic loss.

                  What if it’s removing an entire middleman that’s just not really needed? I’d say that would be a huge saving.

                  It happens sometimes, but not always. It would happen more often under a FTT.

                  I’m pretty sure you’ll find that businesses that have strong bilateral business do it all the time. It’d save them in administration and transaction costs.

                  For instance, if I have a transactional account, savings account and a mortgage at once (such things are not unknown), my bank will charge me several fees, pay me interest and charge me interest – separately. Under the FTT, I would expect the bank to save us money by lumping those transactions. To no real economic benefit.

                  You do understand that lumping those transactions together means that the government would still get the same tax right?

                  1% of five transactions @$1 each is going to be the same as 1% of one transaction of $5.

                  • Antoine …
                    15 December 2018 at 1:08 pm

                    > What if it’s removing an entire middleman that’s just not really needed? I’d say that would be a huge saving.

                    ‘Huge’ seems like a stretch? Besides, in my example the middleman B is still needed to connect parties A and C together so they can transact with each other.

                    > I’m pretty sure you’ll find that businesses that have strong bilateral business do it all the time.

                    Some do, but not all, and not all pairs of businesses have strong bilateral business.

                    > You do understand that lumping those transactions together means that the government would still get the same tax right?
                    > 1% of five transactions @$1 each is going to be the same as 1% of one transaction of $5.

                    You are forgetting that some of the transactions are me paying the bank, some are the bank paying me. We only pay tax on the net transfer, which (in your example) can be as small as $1 (pay $3, get paid $2).

                    A.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      15 December 2018 at 1:28 pm

                      Some do, but not all, and not all pairs of businesses have strong bilateral business.

                      That’s what I’m getting at. If some businesses already have strong bilateral connections then they’re already doing it. If they’re not already doing it then the tax will make no difference because it’s not worth doing it in the first place.

                    • Antoine …
                      15 December 2018 at 2:06 pm

                      I think you exaggerate a little

                      A.

    • mikesh 1.4
      15 December 2018 at 8:15 am

      Won’t this add 3% to the cost of purchasing a home; i.e. 1% when you borrow the money, 1% when you purchase the house, and 1% when you repay the mortgage. Not to mention a further 1% on the interest.

      • dV 1.4.1
        15 December 2018 at 8:19 am

        BUT no income tax, no GST to compensate.

        Sorta like the model used by visa etc.

      • Antoine 1.4.2
        15 December 2018 at 9:20 am

        I bet I can think of innovative ways to avoid at least two of those 1%s occurring (or at least being seen by the NZ taxman).

        A.

        • dV 1.4.2.1
          15 December 2018 at 9:26 am

          The FTT would be attached to the banking system.

          • Antoine 1.4.2.1.1
            15 December 2018 at 9:58 am

            Transact through a bank outside NZ, or via bitcoin, or barter, or …

            A.

            • Antoine 1.4.2.1.1.1
              15 December 2018 at 9:59 am

              See e.g. https://www.ici.org/pubs/faqs/faqs_ftt#_q12:

              A transaction tax could be difficult to avoid or easy to administer, but it is unlikely to be both.

              The tax could be avoided simply by not trading. Indeed, one of the rationales for the tax is that it would reduce trading. However, the tax could also be avoided by changing the venue of the trade or the nature of the securities traded, as explained in the answer to Question 8 above.

              To minimize avoidance, the base of the transaction tax would need to be as broad as possible. However, broadening the base would make the tax harder to administer. To discourage transactions from moving offshore, both transaction tax rates and tax compliance would need to be coordinated internationally. Enforcing the tax on private (off-exchange) transactions would require much more reporting than currently occurs. Similarly, no system tracks exchanges in nonregistered securities. In addition, developments in financial markets would need to be closely monitored, as there would be an incentive to devise new ways to avoid the tax, such as designing new financial instruments.

              A.

              • DJ Ward …
                15 December 2018 at 12:31 pm

                Would it be just easier to ensure all citizens pay a genuine fair share of tax on any personal gain. Realised capital gain. Dividends. Interest, buisinesses profits, fees, contracts, withdrawal of funds from speculator websites, wages.

                Obviously all done in fair ways. Focused on the individuals responsibility to paying tax.

                If you try and tax imaginary transactions on the internet your dreaming. What happens to the losses in a trade. I think the tax on transactions is in the category.

                Milking : To remove liquid gold sustenance from a mammal.

                • Antoine …
                  15 December 2018 at 1:10 pm

                  > Would it be just easier to ensure all citizens pay a genuine fair share of tax on any personal gain

                  Well, maybe it would, but this is no longer the FTT that James proposed.

                  A.

            • dV 1.4.2.1.1.2
              15 December 2018 at 10:17 am

              So you don’t bring any money in/out of NZ to live on etc.
              But A you are right, the unethical bludgers will find a way!!

              • Antoine …
                15 December 2018 at 10:48 am

                You got it. This is why James Thrace’s estimate of the revenue the tax would generate is too high. I suspect at least 2x too high, maybe 10x.

                A.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.4.2.1.1.3
              15 December 2018 at 11:26 am

              And get jailed with loss of everything.

              Tax avoidance is illegal.

        • Dv 1.4.2.2
          15 December 2018 at 12:11 pm

          Sorta like venuezla paying their workers in tyres.
          Got it,

          • Antoine 1.4.2.2.1
            15 December 2018 at 12:12 pm

            Well paying your staff is one area where little or no avoidance is possible, I think, over and above what is already done to avoid income tax.

            A.

      • James Thrace 1.4.3
        15 December 2018 at 4:10 pm

        Nope. The FTT only applies once money actually leaves the holder. So in this case the FTT would only be charged on the borrower’s account when the funds are transferred to the vendors.

        FTT doesn’t get applied to every transaction – just the transactions which have an exit point.

        So if you’re transferring money between your own accounts, at the same bank, i.e. from your everyday account to savings, that doesn’t incur an FTT as the money doesn’t have an exit point as it’s still with you.

        But if you transfer money from your account to another account entirely, with either the same or different banks, then an FTT is charged as there’s an exit point.

        The $1.2tn figure is actually the entire value of all electronic transactions that have an exit point. The total value of money moved in NZ is closer to $5tn a year. The majority of that is just money moved between accounts which wouldn’t have an FTT applied.

        So Antoine’s argument is somewhat misleading

  2. Puckish Rogue 2
    14 December 2018 at 7:04 pm

    Releasing texts to show what was said…naah lets wheel out the baby, again

    https://spy.nzherald.co.nz/spy-news/jacinda-reveals-neve-s-christmas-costume/

    Don’t worry I’m sure its just a coincidence 🙂

  3. WILD KATIPO 3
    14 December 2018 at 7:35 pm

    Politicians and scientists.

    Can we trust them?

    M K Davis discusses the 1973 film of a Thylacine on the mainland of …

  4. Agora 4
    14 December 2018 at 9:09 pm

    Labour should prepare to fight the neoliberalism within the EU – Lexit is not an option. The cancellation of Brexit and the election of Jeremy Corbyn would transform the mood inEurope.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/12/labour-should-prepare-fight-neoliberalism-within

    • Ad 4.1
      15 December 2018 at 7:50 am

      Corbyn has a great position on Brexit.

      And if you don’t like that one, he has others.

      • Agora 4.1.1
        15 December 2018 at 8:26 am

        .. so which is yours ?

        UK has been part of EU for 40 years and suddenly faces high tarrifs potentially crashing the economy in short order with unpredictable consequences.

        You do not seem to to have been involved in negotiation.

    • SpaceMonkey 4.2
      15 December 2018 at 9:02 am

      Are you kidding? EU will go out of their way to make life miserable for a Corbyn-led UK. He would be much better served hard Brexiting. That’s even worse a nightmare for the EU if Corbyn’s policies were successfully implemented…

  5. Philj 5
    15 December 2018 at 12:19 pm

    I look forward to seeing how Jeremy Corbyn stops the neo liberal economic train wreck that is clearly unfolding before our eyes in real time.

  6. greywarshark 6
    15 December 2018 at 10:36 pm

    From Kiwipolitico
    From a rules based order to a state of nature.
    Posted on 14:11, December 15th, 2018 by Pablo

    Once again, might makes right in international affairs. Once again, the strong dominate the weak. Once again, power is truth and there is no speaking contrary to it. We are sliding into international anarchy

    Policy-makers in Wellington can speak to the need for multinational norms and the importance of being an honest broker in a contentious world. But those claims hark to an international system that was stable and in which rules and norms were adhered to in the main rather than the exception.

    The big picture looks murky.