Showing posts with label Government debt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government debt. Show all posts

There Is No Wealth but From Men: Why Immigration Is Good for the Economy

Thousands gather in favor of immigrants rights...Image via Wikipedia
2010 has been rife with anti-immigrant rhetoric and action on both sides of the Atlantic. There were the atrocious anti-migrant riots in Italy and the passing of controversial Arizona law SB 1070. France has taken a demagogic turn, which some commentators dub xenophobic. Even Canada, which is celebrated for its progressive immigration policies, has experienced unprecedented immigrant-bashing rhetoric around the arrival of a boat carrying Sri Lankan self-proclaimed refugees.
There is an emerging conventional wisdom across the Atlantic that increasingly characterizes immigrants as a prime source of the ills of our societies. But do economic studies back this up? In short, no.
Immigration has an undisputed effect on economic growth. Migration reduces imbalance in the labor market without imposing a significant impact on public finances. Indeed, without immigration, the population of several European countries, particularly Germany, Spain and Italy, would have declined long ago. In Canada, over 70% of the growth in the labor force during the 1990's is attributable to immigration, a figure that could someday reach 100%. Given the overrepresentation of young people among immigrants, immigration also brings down the age of the population, relieving pressure on the pensions systems. Moreover, migrants help grow a host country's market access by creating valuable business networks with their countries of origin. The benefits continue. In most member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), the proportion of immigrants with university degrees is greater than that recorded for the native population. A recent study demonstrates that immigration fuels innovation, an economic boon. From a historical point of view, the example of the great transatlantic migration, from Europe to the Americas of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century has amply demonstrated the salutary effect of immigration on growth.
Conventional wisdom is also wrong in linking immigration and native unemployment. The notion that immigrants cause natives to lose their jobs is simply not supported by empirical results. There is not a fixed number of jobs in an economy, and immigrants often do not compete directly with native workers in the labor market.
Migrants are first and foremost consumers who help expand the economy even before stimulating the labor supply. Their demand stimulates the supply of goods and services which in turn lead to job creation. Except in very special cases, immigrant inflows are extremely low compared to the workforce already available in a country. As such, the absorption of newly arrived migrant on the labor market generally proves to be relatively easy. In fact, when the economy is in a recession, migrants are the first to lose their jobs.
Most studies in fact demonstrate the existence of a positive relationship between immigrant and native labor forces. In fact, people coming from earlier waves of migrants are most directly in competition with newly arrived immigrants rather than the natives. In time of expansion, workers tend to raise their expectations and to shy away from activities that are most painful and least valued, thus generating the need for the recruitment of low-skilled immigrants. Consequently, the idea that immigrants take the jobs of the natives seems to be simply xenophobic political posturing.
Regarding the impact of immigration on wages, a recent meta-analysis of the available data concluded that the impact of immigration on the earnings of the native born population is statistically insignificant. Migrants are not responsible for alleged decrease of salaries or social dumping. Migrants are convenient scapegoats.
In countries with limited sectoral and geographical mobility, foreign labor can alleviate the shortages. The foreign workforce, being more mobile than the native one -- since migrants have relatively less material and family ties in their host country -- helps diffuse tensions in the labor market and helps reinvigorate certain regions. Some shortages are already apparent on the labor markets of most OECD countries, particularly for specialties related to new technologies and health.

Immigration has no significant impact on public spending. Indeed, the great majority of immigrants do pay taxes and add public revenue, particularly high-skilled immigrants. The consequences are positive for some public services, such as defense and interest on the national debt, for which immigrants do not impose costs. The bolstering effect of immigration on the U.S Social Security's finances is particularly compelling.
Economic data provide us with two certainties. First, immigration has positive effects on the overall prosperity of a nation. Second, with the ailing economy, migrants are used as scapegoats by uninspired politicians to scare up votes. Indeed, isn't the United States, a country completely made up of immigrants, the boldest example of the benefits of immigration for a nation?

 
Follow Rabah Ghezali on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabahGhezali
Enhanced by Zemanta

How Canada can cash in on the U.S. economic malaise.

The Winspear Business Reference Library buildi...Image via Wikipedia
By Harvey Enchin and Fazil Mihlar, Vancouver Sun
"Sometimes we stare so long at a door that is closing that we see too late the one that is open."
-Alexander Graham Bell
---
Canada has the opportunity of a lifetime waiting to be seized.
Non-financial institutions in the United States have almost $2 trillion US in cash on their balance sheets but have no desire to invest there. Luring some of that money to Canada will help further modernize our economy, create jobs, generate more tax revenue and raise our standard of living.
This window of opportunity won't be open for long, so Ottawa and the provinces should launch a major marketing effort now to turn American apprehension into economic gain for Canada.
What does Canada have to sell to those holding the $2-trillion US purse strings? A comparative advertising strategy would focus the minds of American investors on the advantages Canada offers, including some of the following:
- Lower corporate income tax rates. The U.S. statutory federal corporate income tax rate is 35 per cent, a number that is more likely to go up than down given the country's debt burden. Canada's is 18 per cent, down from 19 per cent in 2009. Scheduled tax cuts will bring Canada's rate to 16.5 per cent in 2011 and to 15 per cent in 2012, giving Canada the lowest statutory tax rate in the G7.
- Competitive personal income tax rates. It may comes as surprise for Americans to learn that Canada's federal personal income tax rates are lower than those in the U.S. The U.S. rate on income between $34,000 US and $82,400, US for example is 25 per cent. In Canada the rate on income between $40,970 and $81,941 is 22 per cent. On income from $171,850 US to $373,650 US the U.S. rate is 33 per cent. Canada's rate reaches a maximum of 29 per cent for all income over $127,021.
Of course, most of Canada's provinces and territories impose personal income tax as well, but so too do many U.S. states and some municipalities. It is true that Canada obtains slightly more personal tax revenue per capita than the U.S. does -$5,800 US vs. $4,700 US -but this difference is easily offset by the cost of health care that Americans incur privately and Canadians cover through taxation. It's worth noting that the U.S. has inheritance taxes and Canada does not.
- Lower capital gains tax rates. Canadians pay tax on 50 per cent of their capital gains at their marginal rate. On a gain of $1,000, for instance, only $500 would be subject to tax. At a combined federal-provincial rate of, say, 35 per cent, the tax payable would be $175. Americans pay tax on the net total of capital gains. More importantly, the reduced rates introduced in 2003 by then president George W. Bush, initially due to expire in 2008 and extended until 2011, will finally sunset, raising the discounted rate of 15 per cent to 28 per cent. So, on that same $1,000 capital gain, an American investor would pay $280.
- Canada can maintain low tax rates: Because Canada is in better fiscal shape than the U.S., Ottawa can keep taxes low while Washington will have little choice but to raise them. The U.S. national debt is $13.6 trillion US, or $42,942 US per capita. Canada's is $534.7 billion, or $15,715 per capita.
The ratio of debt to gross domestic product stands at about 93 per cent in the U.S., and the U.S. Treasury Department sees it rising to 102 per cent when debt is expected to reach $19.2 trillion US in 2015. Canada debt-to-GDP ratio is 33 per cent.
Government spending as a percentage of GDP has declined in Canada since hitting a peak of 53 per cent in 1992 and recently slipped below 40 per cent. In the U.S., it has turned sharply higher, rising to 42.7 per cent in 2009 from 39 per cent in 2008. It is expected to reach 45 per cent next year.
The White House has forecast the U.S. deficit for 2010 to be $1.6 trillion US or 10.6. per cent of gross domestic product, the highest level since the Second World War. Canada's deficit is seen at $49.2 billion, or 3.7 per cent of GDP. Canada should be able to manage its debt and still lower taxes. The U.S. clearly cannot.
- Canada's universal health care system is good for business. In Canada, health care is paid for mainly by employees through their income taxes. In the U.S., most companies pay for health benefits for their full-time employees. In 2002, automotive companies confirmed that Canada's health care system saved labour costs.
About 70 per cent of all health-related spending is financed by the Canadian government, while the U.S. government covers about 46 per cent. Yet the U.S. government spends more on health care than the Canadian government does -- 14.6 per cent of GDP in the U.S. compared with 10 per cent in Canada. And that translates into higher health care spending per capita -- $6,714 US in the U.S. vs. $3,678 US in Canada.
A number of studies have concluded health outcomes are better in Canada, particularly on life expectancy and infant mortality measures, but these findings are controversial.
Canada can offer the stability of a universal health care system that has been in place for many years while the U.S. faces the uncertainty of new health care legislation passed this spring that will not be fully implemented until 2014 and carries a price tag estimated at $940 billion US.
- Canada's banking system is sound. The credit crisis and recession that ravaged U.S. financial institutions caused barely a ripple at Canada's banks. A cautious business culture and tough regulation steered them away from the toxic derivatives and lax lending practices that brought down major Wall St. investment firms and countless small banks across the U.S. Moody's scores Canadian banks at the top of its ranking of the world's banks and Global Finance magazine lists them among the safest banks of the 500 it reviews. The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report ranked Canada's banking system No. 1 in the world, ahead of Switzerland's and Hong Kong's.
The number of bank failures in Canadian history can be counted on one hand, while many thousands have collapsed in the U.S. Bank regulation in the U.S. is highly fragmented with as many as half a dozen federal and 50 state regulatory authorities involved, depending on a bank's charter. In Canada, the regulatory responsibility rests with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
- Regulation is similarly stable and streamlined in other sectors of the Canadian economy, resulting in less uncertainty, better planning and a lower cost of capital.
- Canada is a safe country. The homicide rate in the U.S. is three times higher than Canada's, the rate of aggravated assault is double and the incidence of robberies is 65 per cent higher. Seventy per cent of murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, compared with 30 per cent in Canada.
Canada has first-class infrastructure. Road, rail and air, power grids, pipelines, fibre optic and wireless networks are all the equal of any in the world. Put it all together and, in the final analysis, the unit cost of doing business is lower in Canada than the U.S.
Some studies attribute Canada's low -- and falling -- crime rate to social cohesion; a multifactor measure that gauges trust in people, confidence in institutions, respect for diversity, and a sense of belonging, along with more common indicators of poverty, income distribution, employment, health, mobility, literacy, education and housing.
- Canada has an educated workforce. In fact, it boasts the highest proportion of postsecondary graduates (46 per cent) in the 25-to-64 age group among member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the G-7.
- Arguably, Canada is more welcoming to immigrants than the U.S. and newcomers to Canada have higher levels of education attainment than native Canadians. By comparison, the quality of the U.S. workforce may suffer, given the desperate budget problems many states face. If these fiscal challenges result in cutbacks and layoffs, school performance may suffer.
- Canada has abundant resources. The availability of affordable energy, rich mineral deposits, fresh water, arable land and thousands of kilometres of forests offers benefits to any company, whether a producer or consumer of commodities.
- Canada has first-class infrastructure. Road, rail and air, power grids, pipelines, fibreoptic and wireless networks are all the equal of any in the world.
Put it all together and, in the final analysis, the unit cost of doing business is lower in Canada than the U.S.
The 2010 KPMG study of 95 cities across 10 countries concluded that Canada was the best place to invest, with a five-percent cost advantage over the U.S. Out of the 35 major cities with populations of more than two million, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto ranked in the top 10 in terms of cost of doing business.
We could provide further inducements by setting up processes that put out the red carpet for businesses -- not wrap them in red tape -- by having one number to call or an e-mail address that would deal with any problems firms encounter at the federal, provincial or local levels of governments.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Canada+cash+economic+malaise/3340011/story.html#ixzz0vDShCeV9
Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave us a message

Check our online courses now

Check our online courses now
Click Here now!!!!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Vcita