UK firms manage approximately L1 trillion in assets for European investors outside of the UK. With the Brexit negotiations slated to start this month, the UK Investment Association has raised serious questions about whether those assets could be taken away from UK asset managers – especially given Prime Minister May’s prioritization of immigration limits over capital markets.
However, even if the UK does not obtain preferential access to the EU’s capital markets in the Brexit negotiations, UK firms can continue to manage assets for EU clients, just like other non-EU firms including many US money managers. The two key strategies employed by non-EU asset managers have been: indirect passporting and regulatory equivalence.
Read the rest at realclearmarkets.com…
While almost everyone agrees that the current U.S. system for taxing foreign profits of American corporations is counterproductive, there has been heated partisan debate about what should be done. Now, with Republican dominance of Congress and the White House, we should look carefully at House Speaker Paul Ryan’s path-breaking plan for corporate tax reform
Under current law, foreign profits of American corporations are legally subject to a 35 percent U.S. tax — the highest corporate tax rate among industrialized countries. In fact, American corporations do not pay this tax unless and until they bring these foreign profits back to the U.S.
Thus, the current system mainly benefits tax lawyers and accountants.
U.S. companies hold abroad approximately $2.5 trillion in past foreign profits. The U.S. Treasury collects little revenue from foreign profits, and U.S. corporations are discouraged from investing those profits back in this country.
Read the rest at bostonherald.com…
Donald Trump’s campaign to become the next president of the U.S. has thrown up two far-reaching proposals to reform the taxation of corporate profits: reducing the tax rate on domestic profits to 15 per cent, and taxing foreign profits of U.S. corporations at 15 per cent each year.
The first proposal, a budget buster, is a poorly designed way to tax business; the second proposal, a revenue raiser, is a reasonable way to fix the current system for taxing foreign profits.
The current tax rate of 35 per cent is almost the highest in the world, so it should be lowered to make the U.S. a more competitive location for corporate facilities and jobs.
Read the rest at brookings.edu…
Bonds issued by governments and companies are priced high these days. In the seesaw relation of bond prices to their yields, prices are up, and yields are smacking hard against the ground, at record lows.
Investors, wary of stock valuations and looking desperately for yield, have poured money into bonds and bond funds.
There was a brief scare in September when bond prices suddenly fell over concerns that the Federal Reserve and other central banks might end their “easy money” policies.
But that pullback quickly vanished, with investors convinced that the Fed will move slowly in eventually raising rates. Bond prices recovered.
So, are we left with a valuation bubble that will burst, as tech-stock investors experienced more than 15 years ago? Or are the worries merely another false alarm, which bond investors have heard before for many years?
Robert C. Pozen, a senior lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management and former mutual-fund executive, argues that the situation is verging on a bubble as yield-hungry investors are gravitating toward riskier bonds. Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott in Philadelphia, says he doesn’t see the credit excesses that would qualify this market as a bubble.
Read the rest at wsj.com….
As voters in Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi and Hawaii head to the polls on Tuesday for the GOP primary, they should take a closer look at the frontrunner’s tax plan and what that could mean for their wallets.
Donald Trump’s plan would sharply reduce the top tax rate on individual income from 39.6% to 25% and broadly reduce rates for individuals with lower incomes. His plan would also lower the tax rate on corporate income from 35% to 15%, and apply this 15% to other “business income.”
While his plan limits certain tax preferences and deductions, it does not include any reductions in federal spending. As a result, the Trump plan increases the federal deficit over the next decade by $10 trillion or $12 trillion, according to several estimates that do not include macroeconomic changes in GDP, investment and employment. Of course, these so-called “static” estimates do not reflect the potential tax revenue from the economic growth resulting from lower tax rates. However, even under “dynamic” scoring, which takes into account a broad range of macroeconomic effects of tax proposals, his tax cuts would still expand the federal deficit over the next decade by $10 trillion — on top of the $10 trillion increase in the federal deficit already projected under current law.
Let’s consider two prominent analyses of the Trump tax plan — one by the Tax Foundation and the other by the Tax Policy Center. Despite their different methodologies, they both estimate that the Trump plan would cut tax revenues by over $10 trillion in the next decade.
Read the rest at fortune.com…
Christmas came early for Congress this year as politicians from both sides of the aisle came together to pass – by wide margins – a US$1.8 trillion package of tax cuts and new spending.
At year end, Washington seemed awash in a spirit of holiday cooperationwith the president praising new Speaker Paul Ryan. But does the bipartisan approval of the budget deal really mean that Democrats and Republicans have learned to play together nicely in the Congressional sandbox?
This legislative package was adopted with little rancor because both parties agreed to lift existing caps on discretionary spending and to cut taxes without trying to raise offsetting revenues. So both sides got most of their desired list of Christmas presents – increases in defense and domestic spending plus expanded tax incentives for businesses and individuals.
The big losers were future taxpayers who will have to shoulder the burden of higher interest payments. As the size of the national debt balloons and the rate of interest gets back to normal levels, these payments will consume more of the annual budget and leave less room for spending on defense as well as domestic programs (except for entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare).
Even before this year-end legislation, the national debt was already huge relative to the size of the US economy. While declining annual budget deficits in the last few years have created the impression of fiscal responsibility, the U.S. national debt has more than doubled over the last decade.
Read the rest at the conversation.com…
The corporate aspects of the tax plan recently announced by presidential candidate Jeb Bush are aimed at achieving the worthwhile goals of economic growth and job creation. However, these goals are likely be undermined by the plan’s treatment of foreign profits of U.S. multinationals and unrealistic projections of tax revenues from rate cuts.
Almost everyone would agree that the current U.S. system for taxing foreign profits of U.S. multinationals is seriously flawed. In theory, such profits are taxed by the U.S. at its standard corporate tax rate of 35 percent — one of the highest in the industrialized world. In fact, such profits are NOT subject to any U.S. corporate tax as long as they are held overseas. As a result, such profits of U.S. multinationals are effectively “trapped” overseas – they are generally not repatriated to build US plants, buy US start-ups or pay dividends to their American shareholders.
The Plan on taxing PAST foreign profits of U.S. multinational is sensible — a one-time tax of 8.75 percent paid over a period of years. That could raise close to $180 billion in revenues. Since U.S. multinationals reasonably relied on the existing U.S. tax rules for foreign profits by holding them abroad, these corporations should be taxed at a modest rate on such past profits.
In the future, however, Jeb’s plan calls for a pure territorial system — foreign profits will be taxed only in the country where they are “earned.” This plan, if adopted, would strongly encourage U.S. multinationals to transfer their intellectual property (patents, copyrights and trademarks) — which can be moved easily at minimal cost — to tax havens, like the Bahamas, where they pay little or no corporate taxes.
Read the rest at realclearmarkets.com…