Tax havens are by design secretive and opaque. The entire point of their existence is to conceal the wealth hidden within them. A new book by Gabriel Zucman, The Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Scourge of Tax Havens, reveals, as never before, the extent of their role in the global economy.
Zucman examines discrepancies in international accounts to provide the most precise and reliable figures people are likely to obtain about the amount of money stored in tax havens. He estimates that 8 percent of the world’s financial wealth — about US$7.6 trillion — is hidden in places such as Switzerland, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Singapore and Luxembourg. That is more wealth than is owned by the poorer half of the world’s 7.4 billion people.
This figure has critical consequences, as it represents money that should be in the tax base. If rich countries in Europe and North America cannot effectively tax the rich, they have little chance of preserving social democracy and offsetting the surge in inequality that has recently afflicted their economies. Similarly, emerging economies have little hope of putting in place progressive tax systems if they cannot find their plutocrats’ wealth.
To be sure, Zucman’s book relies on the unproven assumption that there are important data to be found in what is usually classified as “errors and omissions.” However, there is good reason to believe his figures are approximations. Switzerland’s central bank reports that foreigners hold US$2.4 trillion in Swiss banks alone. While Switzerland might be the world’s oldest tax haven, it is not the most advantageous place to park one’s money.
One reason why tax havens are difficult to eliminate is that not everyone in government necessarily views them in the same way. Wherever corruption is endemic — say, Russia, China and most of the Middle East — many officials might view tax havens not as a revenue problem, but as an attractive part of the job.
Even in the US, policies have all too often been deliberately designed to enable — rather than to discourage — tax avoidance via tax havens.
One former senior official in former US president George W. Bush’s administration said: “It is, ultimately, about freedom.”
The resulting lax enforcement accounts for a large portion of the one-third decline in the effective reach of the US corporate income tax since the late 1990s.
When it comes to tax havens, it is fashionable to say that nothing can be done. National sovereignty is deemed too important to be subordinated to international tax laws, and the day’s plutocrats are seen as having sway over elected politicians and civil servants.
More than a century ago, then-New Jersey governor Woodrow Wilson convinced the state legislature to get out of the corporate-tax-haven business. As soon as it did, US corporations picked up their legal headquarters and moved next door to Delaware.
However, what those who say that coordinated international policy is impossible do not say is that coordinating international policy always looks impossible, until suddenly the conditions change and everything falls into place. Tax havens can be eliminated; all that is required is to close the loopholes that allow legal tax avoidance and establish enforcement mechanisms that make illegal tax evasion no longer worth the risk.
The first step should be increased transparency. As the saying goes: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
Zucman favors a single global registry — a publicly accessible database detailing the ownership of financial instruments.
The second step would be to shift the corporate tax base from profits reported to have been earned in a country to sales made and wages paid in that country. As Zucman said, a corporation can move its legal headquarters and use mechanisms like transfer pricing to shift its tax burden, but moving its employees across national borders is more difficult, and it cannot move its customers.
If society is ever to combat inequality effectively, truly progressive taxation would have to be a part of the policy mix. However, unless tax havens are eliminated now, there is likely to be a lack of ability to implement it.
J. Bradford DeLong is a professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a research associate at the US National Bureau of Economic Research. Michael DeLong is a community organizer for Ceasefire Oregon.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose