Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, the federal government (as well as other governments around the world) began to adopt policies based on the idea that crime could be reduced if you somehow could make it very difficult for criminals to use the money they illegally obtain. So we now have a bunch of laws and regulations that require financial institutions to spy on their customers in hopes that this will inhibit money laundering.
But while the underlying theory may sound reasonable, such laws in practice have been a failure. There's no evidence that these laws, which impose heavy costs on business and consumers, have produced a reduction in criminal activity.
Instead, the only tangible result seems to be more power for government and reduced access to financial services for poor people.
And now we have even more evidence that these laws don't make sense. In a thorough study for the Heritage Foundation, David Burton and Norbert Michel put a price tag on the ridiculous laws, regulations, and mandates that are ostensibly designed to make it hard for crooks to launder cash, but in practice simply undermine legitimate commerce and make it hard for poor people to use banks.
Oh, and these rules also are inconsistent with a free society. Here are the principles they say should guide the discussion.
The United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights, particularly the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, together with structural federalism and separation of powers protections, is designed to...protect...individual rights. The current financial regulatory framework is inconsistent with these principles. ...Financial privacy can allow people to protect their life savings when a government tries to confiscate its citizens’ wealth, whether for political, ethnic, religious, or “merely” economic reasons. Businesses need to protect their private financial information, intellectual property, and trade secrets from competitors in order to remain profitable. Financial privacy is of deep and abiding importance to freedom, and many governments have shown themselves willing to routinely abuse private financial information.
And here are the key findings about America's current regulatory morass, which violates the above principles.
The current U.S. framework is overly complex and burdensome... Reform efforts also need to focus on costs versus benefits. The current framework, particularly the anti-money laundering (AML) rules, is clearly not cost-effective. As demonstrated below, the AML regime costs an estimated $4.8 billion to $8 billion annually. Yet, this AML system results in fewer than 700 convictions annually, a proportion of which are simply additional counts against persons charged with other predicate crimes. Thus, each conviction costs approximately $7 million, potentially much more.
By the way, the authors note that their calculations represent "a significant underestimate of the actual burden" because they didn’t include foregone economic activity, higher consumer prices for financial services, lower returns for shareholders of financial institutions, higher financial expenses for unbanked individuals, and other direct and indirect costs.
And what are the offsetting benefits? Can all these costs be justified?
The original goal of the BSA/AML rules was to reduce predicate crimes, such as illegal drug distribution, rather than money laundering itself. Judged by this standard, very little empirical evidence suggests that the rules have worked as designed. In fact, even though BSA/AML rules have been expanded consistently throughout the past four decades, it remains difficult to discern any net benefit of the overall BSA/AML regulatory framework. Even though there is no clear evidence that the rules materially reduce crime, the BSA/AML bureaucracy began relentlessly expanding internationally—primarily through the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)—more than two decades ago. One comprehensive study reports that even though the FATF proceeds as if these rules have produced only public benefits, “[t]o date there is no substantial effort by any international organization, including the International Monetary Fund, to assess either the costs or benefits of” this regulatory framework. In fact, BSA/AML regulations have been sharply criticized as a costly, ineffective approach to reducing crime. ...compliance costs are high for financial companies, with a disproportionate burden falling on smaller firms..., where hiring even one additional employee can lower the return on assets by more than 20 basis points. Other research suggests that the increasing compliance burden in the banking industry is at least partly responsible for the trend toward consolidation and the disappearance of smaller banks. ...an American Bankers Association (ABA) publication highlights a small bank that reports it has to dedicate more than 15 percent of its employees to compliance-related tasks. An ABA survey also suggests that the cumulative cost associated with compliance has caused banks to offer fewer services and raise fees, thus harming consumers. ...the BSA/AML regime has been a highly inefficient law enforcement tool. At the very least, a high degree of skepticism about further expansion of these and similar requirements is in order. Given the billions of dollars spent annually by the private sector on the existing elaborate and costly AML bureaucracy, a serious data-driven cost-benefit analysis of the existing system is warranted.
If anything, I think they're being too nice.
The cost-benefit analysis already exists. The laws and regulations don't work.
Let's expand our look at the issue. The Wall Street Journal notes that the current approach has myriad negative consequences as banks sever relationships with customers (in a process called "derisking") because they don't want to deal with the hassle, expense, and liability of money-laundering red tape.
...financial firms, faced with strict penalties over counterterror and anti-money-laundering rules, have severed accounts of thousands of customers in recent years over fears of heightened risk. The consequences of shuttered accounts were detailed this week in a Wall Street Journal investigation showing how money-transfer firms whose bank accounts have been closed have been pushed out of the global banking system. In addition, nonprofit organizations operating in Syria and Lebanon have faced challenges after losing their bank accounts. ...In February of this year, more than 50 nonprofits asked the U.S. Treasury to publicly affirm that nonprofit organizations aren’t inherently high risk. ...Two studies by the World Bank in late 2015 found that money-service businesses—which include money transmitters—and foreign banks were both seeing account closures at increasing rates.
This process has made life much more difficult for people and businesses seeking to engage in legitimate commerce.
Not to mention that the government abuses the enormous powers it has accumulated, as we can see from the Obama Administration's odious "Operation Choke Point."
Another report from the WSJ explains that the rules actually make it harder for law enforcement to monitor the people who might actually be doing bad things.
U.S. banks have closed thousands of accounts held by people and organizations considered suspicious, high-risk or difficult to monitor—including money-transfer firms, foreign banks and nonprofits working abroad. Closing accounts for fear their customers may be up to no good evicts from the financial system the innocent as well as those the U.S. government would most like to watch, a consequence not anticipated by Washington. Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry this month acknowledged the potential danger. “Transactions that would have taken place legally and transparently may be driven underground,” he told an international conference of bankers and regulators in Washington. ...Fearing steep financial penalties for failing to spot a wayward customer, many banks now shun anyone who looks risky. That leaves ostracized companies to seek alternatives—such as toting bags of cash overseas—a practice that allows hundreds of millions of dollars to leave the global banking system... “The whole flow of money goes underground, and that becomes counterproductive to the original purpose of being able to track” it, said Dilip Ratha, head economist of the World Bank’s unit that studies remittances. “It’s a bit paradoxical.” U.S. officials said they didn’t intend banks to close whole categories of customer accounts.
So potential bad guys are harder to track.
And financial institutions waste lots of money (which translates into higher costs for consumers).
Risky accounts should be managed, officials said, not avoided altogether. ...Western Union said it now spends $200 million a year watching for suspicious activity... J.P. Morgan Chase & Co....now has about 9,000 employees dedicated to anti-money-laundering and has cut off thousands of customers viewed as higher-risk. ...Jaikumar Ramaswamy, a Bank of America Corp. compliance executive and former federal prosecutor, said, “I’m surprised at how much of my time is spent not focusing on the guilty but chasing the innocent.” Instead of looking for needles in haystacks, he said, the system demands banks “turn over every piece of hay.”
Here's a novel idea. Why doesn't law enforcement engage in actual, old-fashioned police work. In other words, instead of having costly burdens imposed on everybody, governments should use the approach which historically has successfully reduced crime - i.e., policies that increase the likelihood of apprehension and/or severity of punishment.
But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
Instead, we actually get politicians and policy makers coming up with schemes to expand the burden of money laundering laws. Some of them want to ban the $100 bill, or perhaps even ban cash entirely. All so government can more closely monitor the private financial choices of innocent people.
If you want more information, here's a video I narrated on this topic for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.
Last but not least, let's return to the Heritage study, which includes this very important warning about a very risky and dangerous treaty that may be considered by the U.S. Senate.
...the willingness to impose costs on the private sector and to violate the privacy interests of ordinary people should be less in the case of information sharing for tax purposes than for the purposes of preventing terrorism or crime. Moreover, tax-information-sharing programs are quite often a veiled attempt to stifle tax competition from low-tax jurisdictions. Tax competition is salutary and limits the degree to which governments can impose unwarranted taxation. ...The U.S. Senate is currently considering the “Protocol Amending the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters,” which would impose a wide variety of new information-reporting requirements on financial institutions to help foreign governments collect their taxes. A second treaty—worse than this protocol—is the follow-on OECD treaty known as the “Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information.” This follow-on treaty implements both the protocol and the 311-page OECD “Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters.” Together, the protocol, the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement, and the OECD Standard constitute the three main parts of a new automatic information-exchange regime being promoted by the OECD and international tax bureaucrats. If the U.S. ratifies the protocol and implements the new OECD standard, Washington would automatically, and in bulk, ship private financial and tax information—including Social Security and other tax identification numbers—to Argentina, China, Colombia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Russia, and nearly 70 other countries. In other words, foreign governments that are hostile to the U.S., corrupt, or have inadequate data safeguards, would automatically have access to private financial (and other) information of some U.S. taxpayers and most foreigners with accounts in the U.S.
A truly awful pact. And keep in mind it also would be the genesis of a World Tax Organization.
P.S. Since we closed by discussing the intersection of tax and money laundering, I should point out that statists frequently demagogue against so-called tax havens for supposedly being hotbeds of dirty money, but take a look at this map put together a few years ago by the Institute of Governance and you’ll find only one low-tax jurisdiction among the 28 nations listed.
P.P.S. You probably didn’t realize you could make a joke involving money laundering, but here’s one starring President Obama.
P.P.P.S. But when you look at the real-world horror stories that result from these laws, you realize that the current system on money laundering is no laughing matter.
Politicians hate cash.
That may seem an odd assertion given that they love spending money (other people's money, of course, as illustrated by this cartoon).
But what I'm talking about is the fact that politicians get upset when there's not 100 percent compliance with tax laws.
They hate tax havens since the option of a fiscal refuge makes confiscatory taxation impractical.
They hate the underground economy because that means hard-to-tax economic activity.
And they hate cash because it gives consumers an anonymous payment mechanism.
Let's explore the animosity to cash.
It's basically because a cashless society is an easier-to-tax society, as expressed by an editorial from the U.K.-based Financial Times.
...unlike electronic money, it cannot be tracked. That means cash favours anonymous and often illicit activity; its abolition would make life easier for a government set on squeezing the informal economy out of existence. ...Value added tax, for example, could be automatically levied. ...Greece, in particular, could make lemonade out of lemons, using the current capital controls to push the country’s cash culture into new habits.
And some countries are actually moving in this direction.
J.D. Tuccille looks at this issue in an article for Reason.
Peter Bofinger of the German Council of Economic Experts...wants to abolish the use of cash... He frets that old-fashioned notes enable undeclared work and black markets... So rather than adjust policy to be more palatable to the public, he'd rather leave no shadows in which the public can hide from his preferred policies. The idea is to make all economic activity visible so that people have to submit to control. Denmark, which has the highest tax rates in Europe and a correspondingly booming shadow economy, is already moving in that direction. ...the Danmarks Nationalbank will stop internal printing of banknotes and minting of coins in 2016. After all, why adjust tax and regulatory policy to be acceptable to constitutents when you can nag them and try to reinvent the idea of money instead?
By the way, some have proposed similar policies in the United States, starting with a ban on $100 bills.
Which led me to paraphrase a line from the original version of Planet of the Apes.
Notwithstanding my attempt to be clever, the tide is moving in the wrong direction. Cash is beginning to vanish in Sweden, as reported by the New York Times.
...many of the country’s banks no longer accept or dispense cash. Bills and coins now represent just 2 percent of Sweden’s economy, compared with 7.7 percent in the United States and 10 percent in the euro area. This year, only a fifth of all consumer payments in Sweden have been made in cash, compared with an average of 75 percent in the rest of the world, according to Euromonitor International. ...Cash machines, which are controlled by a Swedish bank consortium, are being dismantled by the hundreds
Though the article notes that there is some resistance.
Not everyone is cheering. Sweden’s embrace of electronic payments has alarmed consumer organizations and critics who warn of a rising threat to privacy and increased vulnerability to sophisticated Internet crimes. ...The government has not sought to stem the cashless tide. If anything, it has benefited from more efficient tax collection, because electronic transactions leave a trail; in countries like Greece and Italy, where cash is still heavily used, tax evasion remains a big problem. Leif Trogen, an official at the Swedish Bankers’ Association, acknowledged that banks were earning substantial fee income from the cashless revolution.
The problem is when governments use coercion to limit and/or abolish cash so that politicians have more power. And this is why the French (gee, what a surprise) are trying to crack down on cash.
Writing for the U.K.-based Telegraph, Matthew Lynn mentions the new policy and France and also explores some worrisome implications of this anti-cash trend.
France is banning the use of cash for transactions worth more than €1,000...part of a growing movement among academics and now governments to gradually ban the use of cash completely. ...it is a “barbarous relic”, as some publications loftily dismiss it. The trouble is, cash is also incredibly efficient. And it is a crucial part of a free society. There is no convincing case for abolition. ...When it comes to creeping state control, it is no surprise to find the French out in front. ...A cashless economy would be far easier to both tax and control. But hold on. ...cash is far too valuable to be given up lightly. ...While terrorists and criminals may well use cash to buy weapons, or deal in drugs, it is very hard to believe that they would not find some other way of financing their operations if it was abolished. Are there really any cases of potential jihadists being foiled because they couldn’t find two utility bills (less than three months old, of course) in a false name to open an account?
Amen. Banning cash to stop terrorists is about as foolish as thinking that gun control will thwart jihadists.
In any event, we need to consider trade-offs. Chris Giles highlighted that issue in a piece for the Financial Times.
...an unfortunate rhetorical echo of Maoist China. It is illiberal... Some argue there would be beneficial side effects from abolishing notes and coins through the regularisation of illegal activities. Really? ...Cash would have to be abolished everywhere and the BoE does not have those powers, thankfully. The anonymity of cash helps to free people from their governments and some criminality is a price worth paying for liberty.
Though I suppose we should grudgingly give politicians credit for cleverly trying exploit fear to expand their power.
But never forget we're talking about a bad version of clever. If they succeed, that will be bad news for freedom. J.D. Tuccille of Reason explains in a second article why a growing number of people prefer to use cash.
Many Americans happily and quietly avoid banks and trendy purchasing choices in favor of old-fashioned paper money. Lots of business gets done that way...the Albuquerque Journal pointed out that over a third of households in the city either avoid banks entirely (the “unbanked”) or else keep a checking account but do much of their business through cash, check-cashing shops, pawn shops, money orders, and other “alternative financial products” (the “underbanked”). A few weeks earlier, the Kansas City Star reported a similar local situation... Twenty-six percent cite privacy as a reason for keeping clear of banks – bankers say that increased federal reporting and documentation requirements drive many customers away. “A lot of people are afraid of Uncle Sam,” Greg Levenson, president and CEO of Southwest Capital Bank, told the Albuquerque Journal. ...most people aren’t idiots. When they avoid expensive, snoopy financial institutions, it’s because they’ve decided the benefits outweigh the costs.
Very well said, though I'd augment what he wrote by noting that some of these folks probably would like to be banked but are deterred by high costs resulting from foolish government money-laundering laws.
More on that later.
Let's stay with the issue of whether cash should be preserved. A business writer from the U.K. is very uneasy about the notion of a society with no cash.
...tax authorities have become increasingly keen on tracking everything and everyone to make absolutely certain that no assets slip under their radars. The Greeks have been told that, come 2016, they must begin to declare all cash over €15,000 held in safes or mattresses, and all precious stones, gold and the like worth more than €30,000. Anyone else think there might be a new tax coming on all that stuff? ...number-crunchers...are maddened by the fact that even as we are provided with lots of simple digital payment methods we still like to use cash: the demand for £20 and £50 notes has been rising. ...They are maddened because “as untraceable bearer instruments, it is not possible to locate where banknotes are being held at any one time”... Without recourse to physical cash, we are all 100% dependent on the state-controlled digital world for our financial security. Worse, the end of cash is also the end of privacy: if you have to pay for everything digitally, every transaction you ever make (and your location when you make it) will be on record. Forever. That’s real repression.
She nails it. If politicians get access to more information, they'll levy more taxes and impose more control.
And that won't end well.
Last but not least, the Chairman of Signature Bank, Scott Shay, warns about the totalitarian temptations that would exist in a cash-free world. Here's some of what he wrote in a column for CNBC.
In 2010, Visa and MasterCard, bowed to government pressure — not even federal or state law — and banned all online-betting payments from their systems. This made it virtually impossible for these gambling sites to continue operating regardless of their jurisdiction or legality. It is not too far-fetched to wonder if the day might come when the health records of an overweight individual would lead to a situation in which they find that any sugary drink purchase they make through a credit or debit card is declined. ...there is...a sinister risk...a cashless society would certainly give governments unprecedented access to information and power over citizens.
And, he warns, that information will lead to mischief.
...the U.S. government is already using its snooping prowess and big-data manipulation in some frightening ways. ...the U.S. government is becoming very fond of seizing money from citizens first and asking questions later via "civil forfeiture." Amazingly, the government is permitted by law to do this even if it is only government staff members who have a suspicion, not proof, of wrongdoing. ...In recent years, it made it increasingly difficult for companies to operate or individuals to transact by adding compliance hurdles for banks wishing to deal with certain categories of clients. By making it too expensive to deal with certain clients or sending the signal that a bank should not deal with a particular client or type of client, the government can almost assuredly keep that company or person out of the banking system. Banks are so critically dependent on government regulatory approval for their actions... It is easy to imagine a totalitarian regime using these tools to great harm.
Some folks will read Shay's piece and downplay his concerns. They'll say he's making a slippery slope argument.
But there are very good reasons, when dealing with government, to fear that the slope actually is slippery.
Let's close by sharing my video on the closely related topic of money laundering. These laws and regulations have been imposed supposedly to fight crime.
But we've slid down the slope. These policies have been a failure in terms of hindering criminals and terrorists, but they've given government a lot of power and information that is being routinely misused.
P.S. The one tiny sliver of good news is that bad money laundering and know-your-customer rules have generated an amusing joke featuring President Obama.
P.P.S. If politicians want to improve tax compliance in a non-totalitarian fashion, there is a very successful recipe for reducing the underground economy.
I've complained many times about the pointless nature of anti–money laundering laws. They impose very high costs and force banks to spy on their customers, but they are utterly ineffective as a weapon against criminal activity. Yet politicians and bureaucrats keep making a bad system worse, and the latest development is a silly scheme to ban $100 bills!
It also seems that poor people are the main victims of these expensive and intrusive laws. According to a new World Bank study, half of all adults do not have a bank account, with 18 percent of those people (click on the chart below for more info) citing documentation requirements---generally imposed as part of anti–money laundering rules---as a reason for being unable to participate in the financial system.
But this understates the impact on the poor. Of those without bank accounts, 25 percent said cost was a factor, as seen in the chart below. One of the reasons that costs are high is that banks incur regulatory expenses for every customer, in large part because of anti–money laundering requirements, and then pass those costs on to consumers.
Here are some of the key points in the World Bank report:
The data show that 50 percent of adults worldwide have an account at a formal financial institution... Although half of adults around the world remain unbanked, at least 35 percent of them report barriers to account use that might be addressed by public policy.
...The Global Findex survey, by asking more than 70,000 adults without a formal account why they do not have one, provides insights into where policy makers might begin to make inroads in improving financial inclusion.
...Documentation requirements for opening an account may exclude workers in the rural or informal sector, who are less likely to have wage slips or formal proof of domicile. ...Analysis shows a significant relationship between subjective and objective measures of documentation requirements as a barrier to account use, even after accounting for GDP per capita (figure 1.14). Indeed, the Financial Action Task Force, recognizing that overly cautious Anti–Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (AML/CFT) safeguards can have the unintended consequence of excluding legitimate businesses and consumers from the financial system, has emphasized the need to ensure that such safeguards also support financial inclusion.
One would hope leftists, who claim to care about the poor, would join with libertarians to roll back absurd anti–money laundering requirements. Heck, one would hope conservatives, who claim to be against pointless red tape, would join the fight as well.
Here's the video I narrated on the general topic of money laundering laws. I think it makes very good points, but I wish these data had been available when I did the video so I could explain in greater detail how low-income people are the main victims.
Last but not least, I should point out that statists frequently demagogue against so-called tax havens for supposedly being hotbeds of dirty money, but take a look at this map put together by the Institute of Governance and you'll find only one low-tax jurisdiction among the 28 nations listed.
P.S. You probably didn't realize you could make a joke involving money laundering, but here's one starring President Obama.
Being the world's self-appointed defender of so-called tax havens has led to some rather bizarre episodes.
For instance, the bureaucrats at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development threatened to have me thrown in a Mexican jail for the horrible crime of standing in the public lobby of a hotel and giving advice to low-tax jurisdictions.
On a more amusing note, my efforts to defend tax havens made me the beneficiary of grade inflation and I was listed as the 244th most important person in the world of global finance — even higher than George Soros and Paul Krugman.
But if that makes it seem as if the battle is full of drama and (exaggerated) glory, that would be a gross exaggeration. More than 99 percent of my time on this issue is consumed by the difficult task of trying to convince policymakers that tax competition, fiscal sovereignty, and financial privacy should be celebrated rather than persecuted.
Sort of like convincing thieves that it's a good idea for houses to have alarm systems.
And it means I'm also condemned to the never-ending chore of debunking left-wing attacks on tax havens. The big-government crowd viscerally despises these jurisdictions because tax competition threatens the ability of politicians to engage in class warfare/redistribution policies.
Here's a typical example. Paul Vallely has a column, entitled "There is no moral case for tax havens," in the UK-based Independent.
To determine whether tax havens are immoral, let's peruse Mr. Vallely's column. It begins with an attack on Ugland House in the Cayman Islands.
There is a building in the Cayman Islands that is home to 12,000 corporations. It must be a very big building. Or a very big tax scam.
As I've already explained in a post about a certain senator from North Dakota, a company’s home is merely the place where it is chartered for legal purposes. A firm’s legal domicile has nothing to do with where it does business or where it is headquartered.
In other words, there is nothing nefarious about Ugland House, just as there is nothing wrong with the small building in Delaware that is home to more than 200,000 companies. President Obama, by the way, demagogued about Ugland House during the 2008 campaign.
Let's see what else Vallely has to say:
Are there any legitimate reasons why anyone would want to have a secret bank account – and pay a premium to maintain their anonymity – or move their money to one of the pink dots on the map which are the final remnants of the British empire: the Caymans, Bermuda, the Turks and Caicos and the British Virgin Islands?
Actually, there are lots of people who have very compelling reasons to keep their money in havens, and only a tiny minority of them are escaping onerous tax burdens.What about:
Jews in North Africa and the Middle East?
Persecuted ethnic Chinese in Indonesia and the Philippines?
Political dissidents in places such as Russia and Venezuela?
Entrepreneurs in regimes such as Venezuela and Zimbabwe?
Families threatened by kidnapping failed states such as Mexico?
Homosexuals in homophobic regimes such as Iran?
As this video explains, there are billions of people around the world who are subject to state-sanctioned (or at least state-permitted) religious, ethnic, racial, political, sexual, and economic persecution. These people are especially likely to be targeted if they have any money, so the ability to invest their assets offshore and keep that information hidden from venal governments can, in some cases, be a life-or-death matter.
And let's not forget the residents of failed states, where crime, expropriation, kidnapping, corruption, extortion, and economic mismanagement are ubiquitous. These people also need havens where they can safely and confidentially invest their money.
Vallely is apparently unaware of these practical, real-world concerns. Instead, he is content with sweeping proclamations:
The moral case against is clear enough. Tax havens epitomise unfairness, cheating and injustice.
But if he is against unfairness, cheating, and injustice, why does he want to empower the institution — government — that is the largest source of oppression in the world?
To be fair, Vallely does attempt to address the other side of the argument.
Apologists insist that tax havens protect individual liberty. They promote the accumulation of capital, fair competition between nations and better tax law elsewhere in the world. They also foster economic growth.
...Yet even if all that were true – and it is not – does it outweigh the ethical harm they do? The numbered bank accounts of tax havens are notoriously sanctuaries for the spoils of theft, fraud, bribery, terrorism, drug-dealing, illegal betting, money-laundering and plunder by Arab despots such as Gaddafi, Mubarak and Ben Ali, all of whom had Swiss accounts frozen.
He can't resist trying to discredit the economic argument by resorting to more demagoguery, asserting that tax havens are shadowy regimes. Not surprisingly, Vallely offers no supporting data. Moreover, you won't be surprised to learn that the real-world evidence directly contradicts what he wrote: the most comprehensive analysis of dirty money finds 28 problem jurisdictions, and only one could be considered a tax haven.
Last but not least, the author addresses the issue that really motivates the left: the potential loss of access to other people's money, funds that they want the government to confiscate and redistribute.
Christian Aid reckons that tax dodging costs developing countries at least $160bn a year — far more than they receive in aid. The US research centre Integrity estimated that more than $1.2trn drained out of poor countries illicitly in 2008 alone. ...Some say an attack on tax havens is an attack on wealth creation. It is no such thing. It is a demand for the good functioning of capitalism, balancing the demands of efficiency and of justice, and placing a value on social harmony.
There are several problems with this passage, including Vallely's confusion of tax evasion with tax avoidance. But the key point is that the burden of government spending in most nations is now at record levels, undermining prosperity and reducing growth. Why add more fuel to the fire by giving politicians even more money to waste?
Consider some real-world evidence: The Wall Street Journal has an article on the Canton of Zug, Switzerland's tax haven within a tax haven. This hopefully won't surprise anyone, but low-tax policies have been very beneficial for Zug:
Developed nations from Japan to America are desperate for growth, but this tiny lake-filled Swiss canton is wrestling with a different problem: too much of it. Zug's history of rock-bottom tax rates, for individuals and corporations alike, has brought it an A-list of multinational businesses. Luxury shops abound, government coffers are flush, and there are so many jobs that employers sometimes have a hard time finding people to fill them.
Here's some more evidence of how better fiscal policy promotes prosperity. This is economic data, to be sure, but isn't the choice between growth and stagnation also a moral issue?
Zug long was a poor farming region, but in 1947 its leaders began to trim tax rates in an effort to attract companies and the well-heeled. In Switzerland, two-thirds of total taxes, including individual and corporate income taxes, are levied by the cantons, not the central government. The cantons also wield other powers that enable them compete for business, such as the authority to make residency and building permits easy to get.
...[B]usinesses moved in, many establishing regional headquarters. Over the past decade, the number of companies with operations of some sort in the canton jumped to 30,000 from 19,000. The number of jobs in Zug rose 20% in six years, driven by the economic boom and foreign companies' efforts to minimize their taxes. At a time when the unemployment rate in the European Union (to which Switzerland doesn't belong) is 9.4%, Zug's is 1.9%.
It turns out that Zug is growing so fast that lawmakers actually want to discourage more investment. What a nice problem to have.
Describing Zug's development as "astonishing," Matthias Michel, the head of the canton government, said, "We are too small for the success we have had."
...Zug has largely stopped trying to lure more multinationals, according to Mr. Michel.
It's worth pointing out that the residents of Zug are not some sort of anomaly. The rest of Switzerland is filled with people who recognize the value of limited government:
[T]he Swiss are mostly holding fast to their fiscal beliefs. Last November, in a national referendum, they overwhelmingly rejected a proposal that would have established a minimum 22% tax rate on incomes over 250,000 francs, or about $315,000.
Sadly, even though the world is filled with evidence that smaller government is good for prosperity (and even more evidence that big government is bad for growth), statism is not abating.
Indeed, the anti-tax haven campaign continues to gain steam. At a recent OECD meeting, high-tax nations (with the support of the Obama administration) put in place a bureaucratic monstrosity that is likely to become a world tax organization.
This global tax cartel will be akin to an OPEC for politicians, and the impact on taxpayers will be quite similar to the impact of the real OPEC on motorists.
If that's a moral outcome, then I want to be amoral.
To conclude, here are two other videos on tax havens. This one looks at the economic issues:
And here's a video debunking some of the usual attacks on low-tax jurisdictions:
Okay, perhaps the title of this post is not quite as memorable as Charlton Heston's famous line from Planet of the Apes, but it certainly captures my sentiments after reading an article in Slate that calls for the elimination of the $100 bill. The author, Timothy Noah, says that large bills are only for "criminals and sociopaths." Here's the crux of his argument.
...why does the U.S. continue to print C-notes...? Technological change has reduced much further the plausible need of any law-abiding American to carry a C-note in his wallet or to stash a pile of C-notes in his mattress.
Noah's argument is unconvincing for several reasons. First, he is underestimating the degree to which "law-abiding" Americans use "Benjamins." And with higher inflation almost certainly around the corner, one can safely expect that $100 bills will become even more common in the future. Second, his entire argument rests on the statist assumption that government should restrict honest people because this will somehow make life more difficult for criminals. Yet he debunks his own anti-money laundering argument by noting that the government already has stopped printing larger bills, such as the $500 note. Has that stopped the drug trade? Hello? Anyone? Bueller?
Like much of what government does, the campaign against money laundering is a costly exercise with very few tangible benefits. This video examines the cost-benefit issues.
I actually think the moral arguments against anti-money laundering laws are even more powerful. As Americans, we should have a presumption of innocence in our daily lives. What business is it of government whether we want to carry $20 bills or $100 bills? And think about the implications of these laws. What if the government said we need to ban cars, or put government-monitored homing devices in all vehicles, because bank robbers occasionally use automobiles as getaway vehicles? In this case, there is a theoretical benefit to the policy, just like there is a somewhat plausible case for anti-money laundering laws, but presumably we would reject such a policy as too intrusive.
Anti-money laundering laws are a classic case of bad policy leading to more bad policy. The government passes drug laws that create huge profits for criminals. But rather than getting rid of victimless crimes, the government imposes policies that make life more difficult and costly for everyone else.
I recently publicized an interesting map showing that so-called tax havens are not hotbeds of dirty money. A more fundamental question is whether anti-money laundering laws are an effective way of fighting crime -- particularly since they substantially undermine privacy.
In this new six-minute video, I ask whether it's time to radically rethink a system that costs billions of dollars each year, forces banks to snoop on their customers, and misallocates law enforcement resources.
Demagogues such as Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), as well as many other politicians and journalists, often assert that low-tax jurisdictions are havens for dirty money and terrorist financing. From a theoretical perspective, this does not make sense. So-called tax havens have a big incentive to avoid scandal since they are much more vulnerable to reputational risk. Just imagine what would have happened, after all, if the 9-11 terrorists had used a bank in the Bahamas instead of a bank in Florida. Critics of low-tax jurisdictions automatically would have assumed that the bank was complicit and the entire financial services industry in the Bahamas would have been crippled -- or even destroyed. But because the terrorists used American banks (as well as banks in high-tax European nations and the Middle East), there was no knee-jerk reaction. People understood that the bank tellers and managers had no way of knowing that the flight school students were actually lunatics.
But this does not stop the anti-tax haven smear campaign. Low-tax jurisdictions are viewed as a threat by politicians since it is much harder to impose bad tax policy in a world where tax competition is allowed to flourish. This is why tax havens are attacked whenever something bad happens. If there is a terrorist attack, blame tax havens. If there is a financial crisis, blame tax havens.
With this in mind, a new report from the University of Basel's Institute of Governance did some real research and came up with a list of nations where there actually is a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. As the map below indicates, only one so-called tax haven is among the 28 countries listed, and that nation was in the lowest-risk category.