Remember John Kerry, the former Secretary of State and
Massachusetts Senator, the guy who routinely advocated higher taxes but then
made sure to protect his own wealth? Not only did he protect much of his
fortune in so-called tax havens, he even went through the trouble of domiciling
his yacht outside of his home state to minimize his tax burden.
I did not object to Kerry’s tax avoidance, but I was irked
by his hypocrisy. If taxes are supposed to be so wonderful, should not he have
led by example?
At the risk of understatement, folks on the left are not
very good about practicing what they preach.
And, as is so often the case, France is an example of the
policies to avoid. As the Tom Sykes reports on The Daily Beast, “Talk to locals
involved in the multibillion-euro yachting sector — and in the south of France
that’s nearly everyone, in some trickle-down shape or form, as yachting is by
some measures the biggest earner in the region after hotels and wine — and you
detect a sinking feeling …. More and more yachting money is draining away …
washing up in other European countries such as Spain, Italy, Greece, and
Turkey.”But let’s not dwell on John Kerry. Instead, let’s focus on other yacht
owners so we can learn an important lesson about tax policy.
Having once paid the equivalent of $11 for a diet Coke in
Monaco, I can confirm that it is a painfully expensive region.
But let’s focus on the more important issue: Why are the big
yachts staying away from the French Riviera? Apparently they are avoiding
France for the same reason that entrepreneurs are avoiding France. The tax
burden is excessive.
Here is Sykes again: “The core reason for the superyacht
exodus is financial; France has tightened … tax regulations for the captains
and crew members of yachts who officially reside in France, and often have
families on the mainland, but traditionally have evaded all tax by claiming
they were earning their salary offshore. The country has also taken a hard line
on imposing 20 percent VAT on yacht fuel sales, which often used to be dodged.
Given that a typical fill can be around €100,000, it is understandable that
many captains are simply sailing around the corner.”
I do not share this story because I feel sorry for wealthy
people. Instead, the real lesson to be learned is that when politicians aim at
the rich, it’s the rest of us that get victimized.
Ordinary workers, whether at marinas or on board the yachts,
are the ones who are losing out.
Per Sykes: “Revenue at the iconic marina in Saint-Tropez
has, according to a worried letter sent to President Emmanuel Macron by three
of the Riviera’s most prominent politicians … fallen by 30 percent since the
beginning of the year, while Toulon, a less glamorous destination, has suffered
a 40 percent decline …. They stated that refueling a 42-meter yacht in Italy (instead
of France) ‘gives a saving of nearly €21,000 a week because of the difference
in tax.’ Sales by the four largest marine fuel vendors has fallen by 50 percent
this summer, the letter said, adding that French “yachties” — an inexperienced
19-year-old deckhand makes around €2,000 per month and a good Captain can
command €300,000 — were being laid off in droves, as, due to the new tax rules,
national insurance, health and other compulsory contributions which boat owners
pay for crew members have increased from 15 to 55 percent of their wages. The
letter stated that ‘the additional cost of maintaining a seven-person crew in
France is €300,000 (£268,000) a year.’”
All of this is — or should have been — totally predictable.
But let’s zoom out and make a broader point about public finance and tax
Harsh taxes on yachts backfire because the people being
targeted have considerable ability to escape the tax by simply choosing to buy
yachts, staff yachts, and sail yachts where taxes aren’t so onerous.
Let’s now apply this insight to something far more important
Investment is a key for long-run growth and higher living
standards. All economic theories — even Marxism and socialism — agree that
capital formation is necessary to increase productivity and thus boost wages.
Yet people do not have to save and invest. They can choose
to immediately enjoy their earnings, especially if there are harsh taxes on income
that is saved and invested.
Or they can choose to (mis)allocate capital in ways that
make sense from a tax perspective, but might not be very beneficial for the
And upper-income taxpayers have a lot of latitude over how
much of their money is saved and invested, as well as how it is saved and
invested. So when politicians impose high taxes on income that is saved and
invested, they can expect big supply side responses, just as there are big
responses when they impose punitive taxes on yachts.
But here’s the bottom line. When they over-tax yachts, the
damage is not that great. Yes, some local workers are out of jobs, but that
tends to be offset by more job creation in other jurisdictions that now have
more business from big boats.
Over-taxing saving and investment, by contrast, can
permanently lower a nation’s prosperity by reducing capital formation.
And to the extent that this policy is imposed on the entire
world (which is basically what the OECD is seeking), then there’s no additional
growth in other jurisdictions to offset the suffering caused by bad tax policy
in one jurisdiction.
Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato
Institute, who specializes in tax reform. This article first appeared in Cayman Compass.
Breaking Views brings you expert commentary on topical political and policy issues. The views expressed are those of the author alone. The blog is administered by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, an independent public policy think tank at NZCPR.com - register for the free weekly NZCPR newsletterHERE.