We do not begrudge this issue much in Asia because the bulk of our tax codes are relatively simple, straight forward and with minimal rebates. We all should be very thankful for that. A number of developed countries have developed the tax code into an art form, creating legislation that evolves and multiply, so much so that they created a substantial new sub-industry in tax accounting, tax advice and compliance.
These huge tax codes and legislations were mainly aimed at trying to better balance the avenues you get taxes from, to encourage spending and investment in certain areas, and to advance the social equality platform for various disadvantaged groups. ... And people, that is the crux of the problem, YOU DON'T USE THE TAX CODE to do the social accounting disbursements. or even to encourage various investments via tax advantageous legislations. You do that separately!!!
Why .... first if you put in a simplified code, say first for personal taxes ... RM20,000 tax free - that is a given, the initial sum to maintain your heads above poverty level. Then there should not be too many other levels above that because the more the levels, the more you encourage "BAD BEHAVIOUR" from various facets of the society. So, say RM20,001 to RM150,000 gets a 18% and above that 22%. Thats all, you will get an easy collection and verification. Try not to give rebates blah blah via taxation. The more convoluted you make it, the less effective it will be.
There are other ways to promote a reduction in social inequality, try not to do that via the tax code.
As for corporates, do a flat rate, but I would put in a low rate for the first RM500,000 so as to encourage small businesses... so it will be for profits below RM500,000 you pay 10%, any amount above that 20% flat. There will be plenty of incentives to do certain investments and deductions blah blah, and thats where BAD BEHAVIOUR arise. Just read the funny but real OZ companies' stories. My comments in red.
When Macquarie Bank handed down its profit result the other day, there was one thing that really stood out: its humungous tax bill.
Five years ago dear old Maccas paid just 7 per cent tax. Now it pays 40 per cent, well above the corporate tax rate of 30 per cent, and up half a billion dollars in the past two years alone. That's civic-mindedness for you.
(LOL, when the tax rate is 30%, the ONLY plausible reason why you are paying 40% is you have been whacked by the tax department for under declaring in previous years, kena fined big time, or reach s settlement of sorts for certain dubious violations ... not good, but funny enough to think the mighty and bright Mac Bank with tons of smart people can end up being too smart for themselves).
We confess that we have a big mushy soft spot for this bank, especially since it rebounded with such aplomb from its near-death experience in the financial crisis. We all pitched in gladly as taxpayers, of course, backing it to raise a cool $17 billion on the bond market with our sovereign guarantees, helping it to survive and prosper.
And it has not failed us. Like any high-minded philanthropist, however, Macquarie covets a low profile when it comes to its giving. The left hand, if you like, may not know what the right hand is getting up to.
We sought comment from the bank about its elephantine tax bill but were advised chief financial officer Patrick Upfold was too busy to talk. Then we were cordially invited to ''please check any facts you want to put to us''.
There are not really a lot of facts to put. There is a thwacking tax bill of $827 million followed by two short lines of explanation: ''Rate of 39.5 per cent broadly in line with prior year due to geographic mix of income and tax uncertainties.''
Sadly, there is scurrilous chatter doing the rounds that ''tax uncertainties'' is code for dear old Maccas being rumbled by the taxman, being forced to pay penalties and so forth. Further, there are vile accusations that the bank ought to provide a little more by way of disclosure, even inform the market perhaps.
What these cynics fail to comprehend is that it is vulgar for one to boast about one's charity. Surely modesty precludes Upfold from discussing the matter since he himself has had such an intimate involvement in the bank's affaires fiscales.
Unlike credit market risk, compliance risk and other assorted risks which are reported to the bank's risk management group, tax risk sits in the financial management group, which reports to Upfold.
We will delve further into the enigmas of Macquarie's tax shortly. In the meantime, something has just come in.
News Corp artform
What a poignant moment your humble essayist has just endured, happening upon none other than the latest set of accounts for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
When it comes to paper shuffling and skiving out of tax, Murdoch's faithful are without peer. They are veritable masters of origami. Like the Macquarie of yore, tax is an art-form, not an obligation.
Unlike Maccas though, News has a legion of scribes, mobilised daily across the nation, avidly issuing instructions to anybody prepared to listen on precisely how to conduct their lives. How they should vote, adore billionaires, hate greenies, you know the drill.
And at the very time we perused the News financial statements, we noticed the lead story on the News Limited websites:
''Welcome to the welfare nation: half of Australia's families pay no net tax''.
Damn those welfare bludgers. It was blood-boiling stuff.
News deemed this tax-bludgers yarn to be so important that it even ran above the ''Nude revelry at holiday house of horrors'' story on the Daily Tele's home page.
There was video coverage, too, captioned, ''Abbott budget pain 'shared by all'''. Shared by all? Really? Shared even by Abbott's cheerleaders at News Corporation?
Casting an eye over the latest profit result, it appeared that News' revenues for the three months to March were $2 billion and its tax bill was … wait for it … $1 million.
(How can anyone get away with this, $2bn profits, $1 million taxes ... if you implemented a straight out tax rate at 20%, you would have at least gotten $400m in taxes, obviously a lot of clever shit went into it).
It gets better. Drum-roll … it actually recorded a $686 million income tax benefit for the nine months to March. How good is that! Taxpayers not only had the pleasure of sage advice from Murdoch's commentators but also the privilege of transferring $686 million of our sovereign wealth to News Corp.
Back to Maccas
Back in the day Macquarie was right in the game. In 2008 it even recorded a tax rate of 1.7 per cent after a legendary ''tax arb'' deal, a currency swap so successful it was embarrassing. It delivered a profit of $850 million in Hong Kong and a matching loss in Australia. Ergo big tax losses.
(This was so outrageous, its fixed trade between two parties with same interests).
Trouble was it also blew away a big chunk of franking credits and stuck out like a sore thumb. Since then, it has expanded further overseas, further constraining capacity to pay franked dividends.
With tax rate and franking situation, Maccas has to earn about $160 to get the return to shareholders that $100 used to make.
The bank has increased its payout ratio and it made a special return of capital from Sydney Airport. Shareholders can be well pleased, except on the issue of tax and disclosure. The combination of a 40 per cent tax rate and a 40 per cent franking has taken its toll.
As for the ''geographic mix of income and tax uncertainties'', the latter says nothing and the former has not changed sufficiently to match the deterioration in tax rate.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/macquarie-banks-humungous-tax-bill-catches-eye-20140509-380zd.html#ixzz31Swybexu
The brilliant snapshot of asset class returns compiled by Blackrock makes for interesting analysis. See if you can deduce any pointers from...
Nobody is spooking anyone by revealing the level of debt the country is facing. Before we can properly address the debt, we have to be hone...
(Farah Ann Abdul Hadi) There are tons of financial newsletters but the only one I read religiously is Maudlin Economics. ...