Doing Tax Reform Right: Think Big, Think Bold

Posted on October 16, 2010
Filed Under >Salahuddin Khan, Disasters, Economy & Development
38 Comments
Total Views: 64076

Salahuddin Khan

On Pakistan’s already beleaguered economy, the added pressures of the recent floods are estimated to have created $10 billion of additional damage-related burden. It will likely cost double that amount if we’re to see more than simple replacement of the old buildings, farmlands and infrastructure and use the opportunity to rebuild the country leveraging all that we can in modern, cost effective technology. The disaster could thus be seen at least with some silver lining.

To be sure the international community has promised much, though much of what’s been promised has also to be delivered. Nonetheless that figure, if collected, would be barely 5% of what’s needed, given the truly vast scale of the devastation.

For these and other reasons, Pakistan has proceeded cap-in-hand to the IMF for additional assistance and as usual, IMF money comes with harsh strings including the abolition of energy subsidies and reform of the General Sales Tax.

But with barely three percent of its population paying taxes and its most wealthy escaping taxes more than in most countries around the world, Pakistan has to be close to the head of the pack in needing significant revenue reform. The recent floods simply serve to highlight the unacceptability of this situation and glowing with empty pride about being the “Land of the Pure” while over half the population is doing everything in its power to ignore or pay off the taxman with bribes, is hardly the way forward. We have no basis for national pride in the face of such behavior.

So what can be done to advance the state of affairs, and more particularly, how can we leverage the new momentum of national unity to repair our ravaged country?

Here’s a potential thought, with apologies for not recognizing anyone else who may have offered the same opinion either here or in other public media. What if we were to abolish all income tax and in its place introduce a gradually increasing property tax on real estate owned?

Here’s how it might be put into effect.

We would start phasing out personal income tax (“personal” here would include partnerships and sole proprietorships) over say, three or five years. All those people in the black economy, hiding their cash or income (which isn’t too hard to do), often with the collusion of corrupt tax inspectors and collectors, would be incentivized to bring it out of hiding. Much of it might have been hoarded in the past, where hoarding is to be distinguished from “savings” in its unavailability to the economy in a hoarded state. If this were to happen then we might get a useful bump in circulation before this new supply is soaked up in inflation.

Second, we would re-survey the land for all real-property (which is extraordinarily difficult to hide) and systematically establish ratable values based entirely on acreage and type of land, such as agricultural, residential, industrial or commercial. Rated to that value would be a progressively increasing tax rate (updated annually during the transition) whose level would be pegged to managing a smooth transition from income-tax based revenues to property tax based revenue. We could probably go the same three to five years to phase in the property tax before it stabilizes to its long term level.

Third, we would begin phasing out sales taxes on low level products and services and focus them on larger, hard to hide luxury goods. Consider just some of the interesting consequences of such a change.

As noted already, land and buildings are difficult to hide. I couldn’t stash my (hypothetical!) Pakistani farm in a Swiss bank. Sure, some of the wealthy might prefer to shift their assets into say, gold or diamonds but the land remains the land. Someone’s got to own it and it can’t be exported. If we design the land/property tax in a graduated fashion, then we can also make it disproportionately expensive to own above certain thresholds of land. For example, something below one acre might attract zero tax. (Even large homes in Pakistan don’t generally sit on a whole acre of land). One to five acres might attract 1% for land and 1% for dwellings. Above five and below twenty five might be 2%. Above twenty five but below a hundred might be 4% etc. The concept here is more important than the actual numbers which would clearly require some research to fine tune them to the country’s socio-economic circumstances.

A natural incentive would spring from such a provision. People would subdivide and sell parcels of land into separate ownership. Sure, at some level, merely handing out parcels to one’s own family members will be effective but this will soon dissipate and spread into the general population. Others will bear the cost and prefer to hold on to their land and dwellings, but the property tax could at least be a highly auditable and natural check-and-balance on extravagance.

Another consequence will be that people will prefer to focus on income generation instead of amassing land, which as a dynamic in the economy would drive the country to greater industrialization. The focus will shift to generating tax free income from the land if it is to be owned at all. This beats simple speculation in land value, while keeping the land in disuse. Satellite imagery would be fairly effective in detecting land use and support any ground-based monitoring for non-usage. Certain sophisticated software algorithms can even be imagined which would automate land use detection—see below.

An emerging middle class would be very income focused and that would be good for the economy, leaning it more in the direction of modern knowledge-based economic models. Gone would be the bribing of tax inspectors and collectors to fend them off from examining complicated income statements, along with the back-end infrastructure for tax collection that presently exists.

Home ownership patterns for the middle class might evolve more to resemble those of Japan than of the USA, with most property optimized as income properties using economies of housing scale, such as multiple floor-plate buildings, though we would need to be intelligent about codes and regulations to avoid the worst excesses of multi-family living.

For lower middle-class people, there would be little, if any tax burden. This would encourage them to step up to the next rung in the social ladder as relatively unfettered income would be available to meet both subsistence needs and savings (with appropriate incentives on savings) or investment in small/medium businesses. In such cases, there would be virtually no need to deal with tax inspectors and collectors. This might even attract foreign investment.

The poorest people might get the opportunity to earn out the land under their feet if they are agrarian, supported by the incentives for land owners to shed some land to escape graduated property taxes.

Of course, with modern satellite based surveying and computerization, it is quite easy to virtually automate tax assessment and with yet more incentives to pay by automatic withdrawal based on the assessment, it would eliminate much of the labor involved. This would free up resources primarily for property audits, which as mentioned previously, would be much easier than for income.

Pakistan probably doesn’t have many more years left to continue rolling from crisis to crisis with a polarization of have’s and have-not’s. If our claims to patriotism for the country are to have meaning, we must shoulder the burden of paying the price albeit with some assurance that we aren’t going to be consumed by corrupt and hungry officials.

The proposal above clearly doesn’t eliminate all corruption which can certainly continue on the other side of collections in the bureaucracy even if more taxes were to be collected. However, it would do much more to balance things out in society without stepping into socialism and it would leverage natural incentive structures to achieve land redistribution without impossible-to-pass land reform legislation. Alright, I guess it would quickly be recognized as indirect land reform but there’d be some carrots too—abolition of personal income tax?

One thing is certain. We can’t continue relying on the generosity of other nations, mirroring in ironically poetic parallel, the artful and sometimes prospering beggar we see in so many of our country’s streets.

Salahuddin Khan is an engineer, an entrepreneur and author of the recent novel Sikander.

38 responses to “Doing Tax Reform Right: Think Big, Think Bold”

  1. Salahuddin says:

    We need to understand that the non-payment of taxes IS corruption. The way it works is by taxpayers bribing inspectors and collectors and you can’t bribe officials unless they are corrupt. Since we won’t be addressing the inherent prevalence of corruption anytime soon, we need systemic solutions which bypass significant dependency on officials interacting with taxpayers.

    Property offers fewer opportunities for hiding and to that extent is amenable to a more objective and automated taxation model. When we couple this with the observation that owners of property seem only too willing to ensure their title to property is well documented (there’s been so much title fraud in the past decade alone) then we have an alignment of incentives.

    Notwithstanding this, we should be careful to avoid supposing all-or-nothing black-and-white situations exist. My proposal is intended to be less susceptible to corruption, not impervious to it. Indeed it might not work. Perhaps at the modeling level, or perhaps in implementation. But even if it does, all it will do is deliver more revenue to the country’s treasury. It will do nothing to prevent the corrupt abuse of that revenue. For that we need other answers and that’s the unfortunate truth.

    There isn’t a single “real” issue. There are innumerable real ones. Solutions need to be found and they need to span the gamut of critical foundational issues first. Inadequacy of tax receipts is such an issue and needs a different approach from incrementalism. But it is only one of the issues and repairing it won’t fix everything.

  2. Zaheer says:

    The issue is never what the rules are, the issue is how they are implemented. Make a simpler system and all you will get is even simpler ways to beat the system.

  3. Imran says:

    Great article. I agree, Tax system should be Reformed. What’s going on in Pakistan that Govt. is increasing Taxes on the very basic needs on regular basis.

    But it doesn’t seems to be happened in this country for at least next 2 years. I wish Govt. authorities could read this article.

  4. Mohammed Wasim says:

    Just like Musharraf had sold the Americans the idea that “I can’t do anything because Pakistanis are all fanatics” this current lot has sold the US the idea “we can’t do anything not because we are corrupt, but because no one pays taxes!”

    Both were really ways to divert attention from real issues.

  5. Salahuddin says:

    Vishal – I know superficially your critique seems reasonable and it might indeed be so. However, there are several things I think you’ve overlooked at the next level of depth in my proposal.

    1. All income tax does not go away – companies still pay it. Where this catches much lost taxation is where sole proprietors of businesses or small private of family partnerships seem today to work hard to avoid income taxes. They would pay something hard to escape in the form of propery taxes.

    2. All property is not taxed – just large amounts in the same owner’s name. My proposal does not apply taxes to land below certain sizes (which could of course be fine-tuned to affect the right population) and graduates the tax to accelerate to progressively large sizes.

    3. We do not need an “actual value” we need a standardized ratable value for the purposes of application of the tax. Actual values would certainly be difficult to determine and be constantly changing. Area and usage designation (which is not necessarily the same as actual usage) would determine the ratable value. Usage designation is analogous to zoning in the USA. Land can be zone for example for single-family residential, multi-family residential, light industrial, heavy industrial, office…etc, usages.The only thing required is to know the plot boundary and its usage. A further twist could be to consider the market level of the property based on the district. In all cases however, it is not important to perform valuations.

    4. As for the majority of tax payers paying at source, I think this is true for waged and salaried employees but that does not represent anything like the the necessary tax base for the country whose middle class is characteristically small. The concern is for the absence of sufficient taxes from the wealthiest few and a substantial body of family businesses who end up paying the tax man but not taxes.

    5. On the matter of compliance with rules, your observation is the entire reason for my proposal. The core objective is indeed to come up with something which is less amenable to abuse or non-compliance primarily through collusion between payers and inspectors/collectors. The more you tax impossible to hide things and avoid a dependency on human inspectors the more likely you have a chance of collecting what is due.

    Lastly, I’ve noted that one or two commentators have asserted that majority of taxpayers do pay taxes. Assuming we’re not confusing paying the taxman with paying taxes, this does not reconcile well with the numerous observations that Pakistan has an exceptionally weak revenue system beyond the few that are in salaried employment. I frankly believe those observations from what I also know about the country. We should acknowledge the problem of not collecting what we need from our own population and undertake some serious overhaul that predisposes for more likely collection and less likely hiding of wealth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*