Economics 07/06/2010: My points from CPA conference

The following is a quick transcript of the main points of my speech at CPA Ireland annual conference last Friday, with some of additional points in brackets.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Ireland is ten quarters into twin crises of credit contraction and house price declines which [can be expected] last for 33 quarters unless radical policy changes are made according to Dr Constantin Gurdgiev. Dr Gurdgiev was speaking at the annual national conference of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants (CPA) in Carton House, Maynooth, today.

Dismissing optimistic reports of an imminent recovery Dr Gurdgiev said: “Since May 2009, we’ve been “turning corners” to a recovery more often than Michael Schumacher on a World Grand Prix circuit.”

According to Dr Gurdgiev, Ireland’s combined Government and economy-wide debt is the worst of any of the other so-called PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) states and the other three EU member states which he groups with them in terms of economic difficulties – Belgium, Austria and the Netherlands (BAN).

“The structure of our fiscal spending is working against us”, Dr Gurdgiev told the conference. “Fiscally we have excessive structural deficits of 50-60% of the total deficit and, courtesy of the banks we are now accumulating off balance sheet structural deficits. Our deficits are the worst in BAN-PIIGS group.”

Ireland’s asset bubble implosion is also set to continue for some time. “Asset bubble crashes last longer than our policies anticipate”, he said. “The OECD average is 10 quarters of credit busts for 18% average contraction and 19 quarters of house price falls for a 29% average price decline. Ireland’s bubble of a 60% decline in credit supply implies 33 quarters of credit contraction and our 50% house price fall implies 33 quarters of price declines. We are currently roughly 10 quarters into these twin crises.”

Compounding these crises is the fact that Ireland has the least competitive economy in the BANPIIGS group in terms of relative unit labour costs. “We haven’t been competitive since at least the mid-1990s”, Dr Gurdgiev contended. “While the latest data from the Irish Central Bank provides some grounds for optimism on the competitiveness front, regaining our overall competitiveness compared to other small open economies around the world will require more hard choices on public sector reforms and restructuring of our public utilities and semi-state service providers.” [You can see more on these points here]

On the other hand, Ireland does have a healthy exporting sector dominated by multinational companies. “But it is struggling against uncompetitive capital, public services and utilities markets, has no credit support and is suffering from capital flight and assets downgrades. Our exporting sector alone cannot carry this economy out of the hole. We are in for a structural recession; unemployment will remain high and employment will continue to fall.” [Notice, I am stressing the word ‘alone’ – it is naïve to believe that we can move out of the crisis on the back of exports. In the longer run, exporting activities will have to dominate the overall economic structure, but we are very far away from this being a reality. More importantly, our exports are being held back – at the indigenous firms’ level – by uncompetitive domestic economic structures, with some of the most pressured areas relating to semi-state companies operations].

Looking at the international picture he claimed there will be decreased pool of foreign direct investment and portfolio investment for Ireland to compete for and there will also be a decreased appetite among investors globally for an ‘Irish story’; “Firm fundamentals will matter in future. In addition, competition for foreign direct investment and portfolio investment amongst the smaller EU states will heat up and as investment diversification becomes more important the flight of capital from Ireland will be significant.”

[There are several things going on here. First on inward FDI – it is clear that Ireland will have to be re-packaged for the future efforts by IDA and EI and in general as a location for inward FDI.

Tax advantage on the corporate side will have to be matched by tax advantages on labour side, especially on skills and entrepreneurship, creativity and knowledge. This means that just as we did with the corporate tax rates, we will have to move to lower tax on premium that skills and other forms of human capital earn in the market place. And this means the need for dramatically re-thinking the system of taxation of labour and the system of taxation in general.

In addition, Ireland will need to get more serious about importing not just raw corporate FDI, but also much higher risk and less anchored entrepreneurial investment. We need to actively pursue young, aggressive, promising start ups and even potential start ups. This too requires re-balancing tax rates, amongst other things, away from taxing labour returns and in favour of taxing immobile and less productive forms of capital. Land is clearly a good target for shifting tax burden.

Ireland will have to re-market itself. We need to put to rest the tourist brochure approach to presenting ourselves and start putting in place real and meaningful changes to our immigration regime, naturalization regime, visa agreements with the neighboring countries. We also need to start thinking about the problems of services provided by the public sector, our cities, to citizens and residents. These services will have to be world class, competitive, easily responsive to demand changes, efficient, individualisable and, frankly speaking, dramatically different from the ‘cattle-em-onto-a-bus’ type of service we supply currently. If Ireland were to become competitive as a location for younger, dynamic, globally mobile highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs of the future (home-grown and foreign alike), the idea of having people on trolleys in dirty hospital halls will have to be buried, fast. The idea of expecting public transport passengers stand in freezing rain for hours waiting for a bus that operates to the bus driver-own schedule has to be binned asap.]

Dr Gurdgiev told the CPA Annual Conference that he did see some opportunities for Ireland’s exporters in the near term, however, particularly among those countries experiencing a relatively high speed recovery - primarily in rapidly developing emerging markets in parts of Asia and to a lesser extent Latin America.

“There is a substantial continued demand for investment in major public infrastructure in these countries [as well as in areas of domestic private demand]”, he said. “These regions are likely candidates for products and services from Ireland, but Irish firms need a differentiator in entering these markets. They have to attract and deploy top talent and deliver meaningful gains to local and foreign clients investing in these regions, while offering the legal and counterparty security of being domiciled in Ireland. The most likely pathway to these markets is by partnering in broader joint ventures with local providers in the countries themselves.” [This too requires a categorical change in indigenous enterprises. The Celtic Tiger ways of hiring ‘bright young foreigners’ for lower grade positions and retaining often unskilled, inexperienced senior staff with legacy tenure will have to go. The glass ceiling for younger and more ambitious and career driven, skilled foreign and domestic younger people will have to be broken.]

Growing knowledge economy in Ireland is the long term solution to Ireland’s economic problems, Dr Gurdgiev argued. “We have no choice but to develop our higher value added, traded services sectors. This is the real ‘knowledge’ economy.

[And I have gone to pains to explain that the ‘knowledge economy’ the policymakers have been talking about is just a small subset of the real knowledge economy. What differentiates my view of the knowledge economy from that of official policy-driven one is that to me knowledge economy reaches across various sectors of services that are largely neglected by our politicians and civil servants. Advertising and new media, e-games, health services, legal services, financial services, design and technology/creativity integration – these are some of the examples of real traded and high value added services that we should be developing here.]

But our prospects are not guaranteed here. The knowledge economy is human capital intensive and our taxation system creates no incentives to invest in human capital. We need to become more human capital focused.

“This requires a maximum flat rate income tax of 20%; a shift of the tax base to property; closing the welfare trap; and reducing the fiscal burden”. [I specifically pointed to the fact that we have a good policy on the books – the Land Value Tax – but that virtually no work is being done today to get this tax implemented in the next Budget. I also clearly stated that this should be a revenue-neutral shift in tax burden, not a new tax grab by the Exchequer. For links to background papers on SVT/LVT see here. On flat tax - back in 2006 I wrote a series of 3 articles in Business & Finance magazine on the issue of Ireland adopting flat income tax. I should dig them up and post them on my long run site...]

“We used to have a more productive and balanced economy”, Dr Gurdgiev concluded. “We’ve lost it to hype and construction, property, credit and fiscal bubbles. We need a productive knowledge based services economy next.”

Economics 26/01/2010: House affordability in Ireland

Demographia International issued Housing Affordability Survey: 2010 (based on Q3 2009 data) (hat tip to Ronan Lyons).

Couple of interesting points highlighted below:

1. Irish dynamics are improving, but not fast enough; and
2. International evidence suggests that land (site) value taxation might be a better way of cooling the overheating markets than draconian planning and regulatory restrictions on land use.
   

The ratings are based on a house price relative to a median multiple of income, with table below showing the relative categories.The authors use gross median income, which, of course implies that taxes are not considered to be an impediment to affordability. Now, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States are the markets considered, and in general Ireland stands out as the higher tax economy here.

The ratings are based on major urban centres' data for 272 markets surveyed across the countries listed above.

For the entire sample, the study found that in 2009 there were 103 affordable markets, 98 in the United States and 5 in Canada. None in Ireland.

Note that of 5 regional markets surveyed for Ireland, 3 were found to be moderately unaffordable and 2 were seriously unaffordable.

In other words, we are still way off from actually reaching affordability that would be consistent with our house price declines and income uncertainty (ca x2.5-2.75 multiple). Or, put differently, we are far away from getting support for this property market.

But what about regional variation?
Now, I am not going to pass a judgment as to whether Limerick is more desirable than Cork or Galway... One has to enjoy though a comparative: Limerick is ranked next to Portland (Oregon). I had a laugh. Galway is between Sacramento (California) and Austin (Texas). Cork is ranked next to Atlantic City (NJ) - somewhat reasonably, but more expensive than Quebec in Canada. Waterford is, apparently, comparable to Philadelphia and Tucson Arizona. Hmmm...


An interesting chart: relationship between housing affordability and land regulation. Notice the reds - these correspond with more prescriptive nature of land regulation - regulation based on more planning, stricter planning and more state/local authorities' controls. Predictably - greater controls, higher prices, lower affordability.
Unfortunately, I cannot tell out of this chart or the discussion in the report as to what exactly comprises prescriptive model of regulation. Only a glimpse:

"Severely Unaffordable Markets: There were 62 severely unaffordable markets this year, down from 64 in 2008. The least affordable markets were concentrated in Australia (22) the United Kingdom (19) and the United States (11). Nine of the 11 US severely unaffordable markets were in California. There were 5 severely unaffordable markets in New Zealand and 5 in Canada (Table ES-3). However, many of these severely unaffordable markets have experienced steep price declines in the last year. Among the major markets, Vancouver is the least affordable, with a Median Multiple of 9.3, followed by Sydney (9.1), Melbourne (8.0), Adelaide (7.4), London (7.1), New York (7.0) and San Francisco (7.0). As in the past, all of these markets were characterized by more prescriptive land use regulation (such as “compact city,” “urban consolidation,” “growth management” or “smart growth” policies), which materially increase the price of land, which makes housing unaffordable."

This is interesting, for it really does suggest that some other means - other than direct regulation/rationing of land - must be used to cool the markets at the times of excess demand. Not a restriction on supply, but, perhaps, a reduced incentive to speculatively invest in land? Indeed - bring on land (or site) value tax...

Economic 20/07/2009: Property Tax

And by request from one of you, an earlier Sunday Times article (July 12, 2009) on property tax:

A specter of a new tax is haunting Ireland. Since last October, the Government has been pre-occupied with finding increasingly less subtle ways to raise revenue out of the shrinking economy. The latest Department of Finance estimates put new ‘committed’ tax measures envisioned for 2010-2011 at €4.6bn – one and a half times more than is planned in expenditure cuts.

Per latest rumours from the Commission for Taxation, the most favoured new scheme being discussed in the corridors of power is a property tax. A source close to the Commission has indicated to me last week that this month’s report will recommend replacing the stamp duty with a levy on residential and commercial properties. Another source – this time from the Upper Merrion Street – voiced a serious concern that the Government is leaning in favour of “a quick and regressive property tax grab”. When civil servants start labelling a new tax prospect as a “regressive” policy”, one has to be concerned.

The problem is that a property tax is an economically inefficient way for addressing our long-term tax reforms objectives. To see this, consider the reasons as to why our existent structure of taxation in Ireland has to be overhauled.


To date, our taxation system has relied excessively on pro-cyclical tax sources: stamp and excise duties, VAT and assets-linked levies. This has contributed (alongside with gross over-expansion of the public sector) to a full-blown crisis of insolvency in this state.

In H1 2009 total returns from capital gains and acquisition taxes (CGT and CAT) were 74% down on their peak in H1 2007. Stamps fell 80%, VAT - 23.5%, while excise duties were off 26%. Of the €5bn shortfall in total tax revenue in the first six months of 2009 relative to the peak year of 2007, €4.7bn was accounted for by the property, capital and consumption taxes.

Assuming the property tax replaces the two-three year average revenue from stamps – in order to compensate the Exchequer at least in part for some revenue declines – the amount of tax to be raised would equal to €2.4-2.9bn against the current revenue of €680-700mln. In other words, property taxes simply cannot resolve the problem of financing the Exchequer deficit until at least there is a dramatic improvement in the economy.

What is more problematic, however, is that our tax system yields are highly volatile and unpredictable. This is linked to stamps and consumption taxes, with the former having by far the largest impact on revenue deviations from the long-term trend. Stamps are transaction taxes that normally act to reduce overall variance of asset prices and thus dampen down market bubbles – the so-called Tobin tax effect. Normally is the operative word here, for when the underlying assets is infrequently traded, like housing, transactions taxes have the exactly opposite effect, contributing to bubble inflation, rampant speculation and producing extreme peak-to-trough deviations in revenue. This makes future changes in tax receipts less predictable and thus hinders expenditure planning.

A property tax will only partially address the issues of predictability and volatility as it will be directly linked to collapsing property prices. And it will not reduce the propensity for speculative investment in real estate, thereby doing nothing to prevent bubbles in property markets. International experience shows this to be the case, as are the simulations for a property tax in Ireland.

Instead, a site value tax can be used more efficiently to smooth real estate price cycles and to introduce a system of revenue falloff warnings, because land values tend to move change slower over time in functional real estate markets than property prices. For example a simple site value tax, along the lines of the one used in Denmark and Hong Kong, can provide up to 10-12 months delay in decline in revenue relative to other tax heads in a recessionary cycle. Such a tax would apply to all land, including residential property, and can be set at rates that would encourage more efficient and environmentally and spatially more sustainable development in the long run.

In the case of Ireland, my simulations show that a land value tax, raising equivalent of the stamp duties revenue at the peak of the growth cycle in 2006-2007, would have reduced Government revenue shortfall by approximately 35-40% until roughly the end of Q4 2008 – delaying the onset of the fiscal crisis by some 9-10 months. The same tax would have fully smoothed out tax revenue volatility in previous two downturns.

In the long run, our reliance on income and consumption-related taxation is starting to adversely impact Ireland’s ability to attract highly educated and young labour force. This imperils our ambitions to develop a knowledge-intensive high value-added trading economy. In H1 2007, income tax and VAT accounted for 64% of all revenue. By 2009 this figure stood at 70%. Property and capital taxes have seen their share of overall tax burden collapse from 14% to 4% over the same period of time. In other words, thanks to our economically illiterate system of taxation, we are now subsidising property speculators while destroying more productive households. Some 83% of all taxes collected since the beginning of the current downturn accounted for by income tax, excise duties and VAT (up from 76% in 2007).

Shifting more tax burden from physical capital stock onto our incomes and consumption – as a property tax would do relative to the site value tax – will lead to two long-term damaging developments. An increased tax burden will disproportionately befall those amongst us who possess greater human capital and destroy the savings and investment capacity of our younger generations.

A property tax, applicable to the value of one’s residence or office will also act to increase the cost of more efficiently used facilities, putting further pressures on income of the more productive segments of our population. A land value tax, in contrast, will raise more funds out of the under-utilized speculative land and property holdings, increasing relative returns to more efficient, sustainable and demand-driven development, thus in the long run improving housing and commercial real estate markets and costs.

A property tax will hinder any realistic chances of us transitioning to a more environmentally and economically sustainable development model, incentivise further sub-urban sprawl and destruction of community social capital. It will also reward, in relative terms, those who let their property fall into disuse or disrepair. For example, for two neighbours residing in otherwise identical residences, higher taxation will apply to the one who adds an extension to her dwelling or improves insulation on the house, thus allowing for a more efficient use of our housing stock resources.

Should the city or a local authority provide new infrastructure to the neighbourhood, thus increasing the value of the land in the area, once again a property tax will hit the hardest those of the neighbours who put most effort into their property, leaving brown sites and underutilised property owners largely unaffected.

A comprehensive research study into the optimal infrastructure-financing tax systems, published this week by the University of Minnesota found conclusively that a land value tax is a unique measure for directly linking private returns to public investment and the Exchequer tax revenue. A property tax, in contrast, will yield higher private gains to less economically and environmentally sustainable forms of development and property ownership, preventing proper payment for the private benefits of public investment by property owners.

In short, introducing a property tax in place of a more progressive land value tax will be an opportunity lost to create a more equitable, economically sustainable and efficient system of taxation in Ireland.



Box-out: In response to my note on June 14 here, a recent editorial in the Irish Times (Friday, July 3) by Cathal O’Loughlin claimed that if the €10 per passenger travel tax passed into Budget in April were to induce some Irish households to stay away from vacationing abroad, there will be net gains for Irish economy.

Mr O’Loughlin’s arguments fail in terms of simple data analysis. Current data shows that in Q1 2009 relative to Q1 2008, Irish economy has lost 148,000 visitors travelling here from abroad for more than one day, it might have gained some share of the 231,000 Irish residents who decided not undertake a trip abroad. Given seasonality in travel demand, the split between business and other travellers, the latter share is likely to be in the range of 30-40%, as at least some of our potential travellers would opt to take discretionary breaks in their second homes or staying with friends and relatives instead of surrendering to the rip-off prices in our hospitality sector. Do the math: 140,000 foreigners gone, about 70-90,000 domestic travellers holidaying at home. Net gains for the travel sector?

Mr O’Loughlin further confuses the effects of imports and exports of services on the domestic economy, when he simplisticly claims that any Euro ‘saved’ from travelling out of Ireland is a Euro spent in Ireland and when he asserts that such a spending turn-about has the identical net economic effect to every Euro in spending by the foreign visitors here.


The sheer economic illiteracy of Mr O’Loughlin’s argument in favour of a tariff protection of an internationally traded domestic sector is stunning and has been refuted by the entire body of international trade literature. Not surprisingly, every developed country in the world has resisted raising such charges on travel in the current downturn, and many have lowered them.