BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Economics & the Economy Archive

Monday

20

September 2010

0

COMMENTS

Democratic Senator Compares Tax Cutters To Terrorists

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

But remember, it’s those dirty tea baggers who need to watch their mouths and stop using divisive rhetoric:

Republicans are fighting to extend tax cuts for high earners with the intensity of a “holy jihad,” a Democratic senator charged Monday.

Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) said he didn’t see any room for compromise with Republicans on the extension of income tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year, blaming the GOP for being unflinching on tax rates.

“We talk about bending — it’s incredible. There’s no bending! Pick up your morning Washington Post and find out what Republicans are willing to bend on,” Kaufman said during an appearance on CNBC. “This is like a holy jihad to keep the tax cuts going.”

While I’m sure Sen. Kaufman might wish Republicans were blowing themselves up in the name the great supply-side god, that is not the case. Pointing out the facts about tax cuts is not “holy jihad,” it’s just winning the argument.

Wednesday

8

September 2010

0

COMMENTS

How Far They've Come

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

This video by the Winston Group contrasting JFK’s rather sound economic understanding with President Obama’s sophomoric demagoguery really highlights just how far the Democratic party has lurched to the left.  All the old 60’s radicals and democratic socialists have worked their way up through the party structure, and now have control of the Democratic agenda.

Monday

30

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

Economists Call for Tax Cut Extension

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

The Wall Street Journal blog Real Time Economics is reporting that a 60% majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics say the current rates for capital gains and dividends should not be raised to expire at the end of the year as currently scheduled.  A further 22% think the rates should be extended for middle-income payers, but not the wealthy.

At least 60% of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics said lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends should not be allowed to expire as provided under current law. Another 22% said the lower rate on capital gains and dividends should be preserved for middle-income taxpayers, but not for the wealthy.

The findings point to increasing nervousness about the impact the expiration of tax cuts could have on the struggling recovery, as Congress gears up for a fall debate on how to deal with the tax cuts.

…Opinion among economists was a little more evenly divided with regard to the expiration of individual income tax rates. Fifty-four percent of those surveyed by NABE favored extending the current rates, while 33% favor Obama’s plan to let rates rise on the wealthy.

In order to provide the most economic impact, tax rates on capital gains and dividends should remain low – or better yet, be eliminated – for all Americans.  As this recent Wall Street Journal correctly points out, “rich people are the most responsive to changes in tax rates.” Thus, it would be a mistake to succumb to class-warfare and narrowly target tax relief.

Thursday

12

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

Tuesday

10

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

When Soaking The Rich Doesn’t Sell, Soak The Super-Rich Instead

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

With the public unconvinced of the wisdom of soaking the rich, the latest hot idea floating around in statist circles is not to soak the rich, but rather the really, super-duper, ultra rich.

In a class-warfare filled screed, James Surowiecki wrote in the New Yorker on the need to “Soak the Very, Very Rich.”

A better tax system would have more brackets, so that the super-rich pay higher rates. (The most obvious bracket to add would be a higher rate at a million dollars a year, but there’s no reason to stop there.) This would make the system fairer, since it would reflect the real stratification among high-income earners…

Ezra Klein then blogged at the Washington Post that he is “very sympathetic to the idea that there should be more tax brackets,” reasoning that  “It would be a lot easier to fight the super-rich than to fight the super-rich, the really rich, the pretty rich, and well-off.” If there was a bracket just for the super-duper-really rich, you see, it could be more easily raised to unconscionable and economy killing levels without public objection.

Adding more tax brackets would complicate an already inexcusably incomprehensible tax code, resulting in increased economic waste and compliance costs, more expenditures on lobbying and even greater uncertainty than is currently holding down economic growth.

Furthermore, tax policy should not be decided based on which group is easiest to demagogue and demonize. Nor is it the purpose of the tax code to enshrine into law a particular view of economic fairness, which in the case of Surowiecki and Klein, means redistribution.

There is one legitimate reason and one legitimate reason only for taxes, and that’s to raise the funds necessary for the limited functions of constitutional government and rule of law. There is no honest assessment of those functions as enshrined in the US Constitution which can find that the present revenues received by the state are insufficient to provide for those functions.

I’m sure it’s too much to ask, but rather than ruminate on which of its citizens the government and its statist boosters should declare war on next, the Ezra Klein’s of the world should think about how government spending can be reduced, and our federal government brought back into the bounds of legitimate, constitutional governance.

Wednesday

4

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

A Simple Choice

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

Sometimes economic battles are fought by theorists without any strong empirical evidence existing on either side.  Today’s battle, with Obama administration tax-and-spend Keynesians on one side, and supply-side economists on the other, is not such a case.  As Richard Rahn shows in his Washington Times column, the evidence is really quite clear.  Reagan’s supply-side cuts produced a strong recovery by the same point in time where Obama’s Keynesian “stimulating” has not.

Our choice now is simple.  We can follow an economic model which has no empirical evidence suggesting it will work by allowing the taxes on capital gains, dividends and death to rise as planned at the end of the year. Or, we can keep those rates low – better yet still, we can reduce them – and get the results for which supply-side economics has already proven capable.

Cross-posted at Double Taxed.

Tuesday

3

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

Tuesday

20

July 2010

0

COMMENTS

Wherein I Agree With The Statists: Don't Let BP Win

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Energy and the Environment, Free Markets

Iain Murray writes at the Washington Examiner that advocacy groups Change.org and the Alliance for Climate Protection are arguing – in an email entitled, “Don’t Let BP Win!” – that “Stalling climate and energy legislation would be a big win for oil companies like BP, but a huge loss for the rest of us.”  Someone must have forgot to tell the lobbyists at BP, because as I previously noted, they have endorsed the Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill.  BP and other big corporations understand what the statists that routinely push for government intervention in the market do not: big government policy ultimately benefits big business the most.

The first responsibility of a corporation is to their shareholders, and contrary to popular belief, they are not dependable advocates of capitalism.  Given half a chance, they will gladly use the power of government to their own benefit by restricting competition.  They always have the greater means and motivation to capture federal regulator agencies, and deploy the force of government to benefit their special interest, than do the high-minded reform groups that often called for intervention in the first place.  If Change.org really wanted to ensure that BP does not “win,” they would fight against big government interventionism, thus denying BP and other corporations the ability to manipulate government force for their own benefit.

Tuesday

13

July 2010

1

COMMENTS

“Price Gouging” Laws Compound Natural Disasters with Political Disaster

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Energy and the Environment, Government Meddling, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Florida Senator Bill Nelson is seizing on the BP oil spill as an excuse to pass federal “price-gouging” legislation.  It’s certainly nothing new to see anti-market politicians stirring up populist rage with these so-called “price gouging” laws.  Many states already have them on the books, and politicians are quick to warn greedy capitalists against “exploiting” disasters by raising prices.  But these laws are really nothing more than price controls and, like all price controls, they distort markets and harm consumers.

“Price-gouging” laws generally prohibit “excessive” or “unconscionable” prices – both unconstitutionally vague concepts –   immediately following disaster declarations.  Prosecutions typically follow hurricanes, floods or other major events that knock out power and stress the availability of goods like ice and power generators.

Under normal circumstances, sudden increases in demand result in similarly sudden spikes in prices.  As prices go up, entrepreneurs in nearby areas are motivated to buy goods at their cheaper local prices, transport them into the disaster area, and then sell them for a handsome profit.  This is how price signals work to indicate where goods are most needed.  The entrepreneurs make enough money to justify their efforts, and people in the disaster area are able to get the extra supplies they need.  Yet despite the fact that everyone wins, many politicians have criminalized this behavior.  Rather than cheering the entrepreneurs for bringing relief  supplies that would not otherwise arrive to post-disaster areas, state government officials often prosecute, fine and even jail them.

Not satisfied with the fact that a majority of states already have these misguided price controls on the books, federal politicians have repeatedly tried to have them enacted nationally.  A bill that would have criminalized charging market prices for needed goods passed the House in 2007, but failed to get the 2/3rd votes necessary to override President Bush’s threatened veto.  Now, with a more sympathetic President Obama in office, such legislation could potentially return, and pass.

Bill Nelson’s state of Florida already unnecessarily perpetuates shortages after hurricanes and other disasters with misguided price controls.  He shouldn’t force similar pain on the 20 or so states without price gouging laws.

Monday

12

July 2010

2

COMMENTS

LeBron's Migration Mirrors That Of The Broader Public

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

Basketball is not my sport of choice, so I had no vested interest in the outcome of the recent drama surrounding LeBron James.  Even though I still consider Florida my home state, I don’t care that he’s chosen to play in Miami.  I am, however, struck by the degree to which LeBron’s decision mirrors that of so many ordinary Americans and businesses.  Namely, I note that he’s spurned high tax jurisdictions for income-tax free Florida.

Obviously, LeBron made his decision on more than just economic factors, though it’s fair to say that pay and other monetary factors mattered to some degree.  Although the sports community narrative involves James joining basketball super stars Wayne and Bosh – as well as some cries about the fairness of this team construction – the fact that all came together in Florida shouldn’t come as any surprise.  From 1999-2008, more Americans have migrated to the zero-income-tax-having Sunshine State than any other.  Meanwhile, the other states involved in the LeBron saga – Ohio, Illinois and New York – are 3 of the bottom 6 in net migration, with more Americans fleeing New York than any other state in the union.

These patterns should not come as any surprise when you contrast Florida’s lack of an income tax with the top marginal rates of Ohio (7.93%), Illinois (3.0%) and New York (12.62%).  But perhaps more importantly is the degree to which businesses are motivated by the same considerations.  Corporate taxes and regulatory environments shape corporate decisions every day, with states like New York and California increasingly driving businesses away as they look for more favorable environments.  This kind of tax competition is an important check on bad government policy, but it can be painful when you’re in one of the states being driven into the ground by short-sighted politicians.  While LeBron James just might have considered these factors in his decision, that ordinary Americans and businesses do is without question – and the consequences for high tax jurisdictions are as clear as Cleveland’s outrage.