Quotulatiousness

July 18, 2011

It won’t hurt just the “rich”

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:00

Michael Boskin illustrates just what the current levels of US government spending will mean when translated into personal tax rates:

Many Democrats demand no changes to Social Security and Medicare spending. But these programs are projected to run ever-growing deficits totaling tens of trillions of dollars in coming decades, primarily from rising real benefits per beneficiary. To cover these projected deficits would require continually higher income and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare on all taxpayers that would drive the combined marginal tax rate on labor income to more than 70% by 2035 and 80% by 2050. And that’s before accounting for the Laffer effect, likely future interest costs, state deficits and the rising ratio of voters receiving government payments to those paying income taxes.

It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the cumulative, cascading burden of many tax rates on the same income will leave the middle class untouched. Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the CBO’s projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%. Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner in their own labor.

Nobody — rich, middle-income or poor — can afford to have the economy so burdened. Higher tax rates are the major reason why European per-capita income, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is about 30% lower than in the United States — a permanent difference many times the temporary decline in the recent recession and anemic recovery.

While policy makers may shrug off the impact of higher tax rates, it has a significant effect on individual choices when it comes to part-time jobs, overtime, and even raises. Even if in reality working a few hours of overtime won’t make a difference, psychologically, the higher tax burden can act as a deterrent: “why put in the effort if the government gets more out of my effort than I do?”

July 15, 2011

Why a budget deal won’t work

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:11

Sheldon Richman provides a few reasons to doubt that any deal worked out between congress and the President will actually solve anything:

Whether President Obama and congressional Republicans can work out a deal to let the government to borrow even more (!) money seems to hang on whether the latter will go for increased in tax revenues.

Following the zigzagging negotiations isn’t easy. First the aim was a short-term deal. Then both sides decided to go for a big package: $4 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. That broke down when Obama said a quarter or a third of that amount should come from new revenues.

When I hear about ten-year budget deals, I first divide the aggregate number by ten so I see how little is at stake each year. I also want to know if the spending reduction is real or phony. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute says most cuts are likely to be accounting tricks. For example, Edwards shows how the rulers could easily “reduce” the Afghanistan/Iraq war budget by $1 trillion without really cutting a penny. (Hint: pretend the wars will go on forever.)

I also remind myself that no Congress can bind a future Congress. Would you bet a substantial sum on a congressional promise to reduce the deficit over ten years? I didn’t think so. Even if Obama is reelected, he wouldn’t be in office for the last four years of the period.

Skepticism is justified. In the 1980s another deal was struck that supposedly would deliver $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in new revenue. Know what happened? That’s right.

Oh, and the various polls showing that either a majority or a significant minority of voters are willing to see increased taxes in order to get a budget deal? Remember that nearly 50% of Americans do not pay income tax — it’d literally be no skin off their noses if the other half have their taxes raised.

June 29, 2011

The real reason for the Greek bailout

Filed under: Economics, Europe, Government, Greece — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 15:03

Eric S. Raymond explains why all the politicians and apparatchiks of the world’s bureaucracies are lining up to pump for a Greek bailout:

Lost in the eye-glazing babble about maturity extensions, haircuts, and which acronymic organization is going to funnel the money into place is the real magnitude of the stakes here. It’s not just the Greeks’ opera-bouffé parody of the modern redistributionist state that is circling the structural-insolvency drain; what really terrifies our political class is the prospect that, very soon, the investors simply won’t buy government bonds anymore — and massive borrowing through bond issues is the only thing keeping the redistributionist state afloat.

As I have documented many times on this blog, the entitlement-spending commitments of the U.S. Federal government, most U.S. state governments, most European governments, and indeed most national governments everywhere exceed the capacity of their economies to generate wealth. And demographic trends are making the imbalance worse over time, not better.

This is why raising taxes won’t help. The amount of private wealth available to be taxed is insufficient, even if taxation could be raised to 100% without suppressing all economic activity. In practice, raising taxes leads to increases in spending which more than consume the increased revenue (by a ratio of 1.17:1 in the U.S. since the 1940s).

[. . .]

That is the assumption that is now under threat. Greece must be bailed out in order to preserve the illusion that the borrowing can continue indefinitely, that the bill will somehow never come due. When the political class speaks of “contagion”, what they’re really worried about isn’t the solvency of German banks holding Greek paper, it’s a general flight of investors from the sovereign-debt markets.

June 25, 2011

Taxes must rise to maintain “the overall size of government programs”

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 11:59

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was being as honest as he knows how in talking to the House Small Business Committee this week. Reducing the size of government is literally unthinkable:

[T]he Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to “shrink the overall size of government programs.”

The administration’s plan to raise the tax rate on small businesses is part of its plan to raise taxes on all Americans who make more than $250,000 per year — including businesses that file taxes the same way individuals and families do.

[. . .]

Geithner, continuing, argued that if the administration did not extract a trillion dollars in new revenue from its plan to increase taxes on people earning more than $250,000, including small businesses, the government would in effect “finance” what he called a “tax benefit” for those people.

“We’re not doing it because we want to do it, we’re doing it because if we don’t do it, then, again, I have to go out and borrow a trillion dollars over the next 10 years to finance those tax benefits for the top 2 percent, and I don’t think I can justify doing that,” said Geithner.

Not only that, he argued, but cutting spending by as much as the “modest change in revenue” (i.e. $1 trillion) the administration expects from raising taxes on small business would likely have more of a “negative economic impact” than the tax increases themselves would.

June 22, 2011

QotD: Who’s more smug than Bono? The “Bono Pay Up” protesters

Filed under: Africa, Media, Quotations — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:00

[T]he Bono Pay Up lobby, far from challenging Bono’s gobsmackingly paternalistic attitude towards Africa, is encouraging him to put his money where his mouth is. Its message is effectively: Stop talking about saving Africa and go out and actually save it! The campaign group claims that it is because of individuals like Bono, who export bits of their business overseas in order to avoid paying high taxes at home, that Africa is a mess. Some of that tax could be used for the foreign aid budget, you see. Not only is this a spectacularly naïve view of the massive structural problems facing underdeveloped nations in the Third World — as if their woes could be magically fixed by Bono and others stumping up a bit more tax — but it also suggests, explicitly, that it is up to rich white men to save downtrodden Africa.

According to Bono Pay Up, if Bono paid his taxes in a more “ethical” fashion, he could help to alleviate “suffering in the developing world”. Unless the protesters succeed in shifting Bono’s personal habits, “the poor will always be with us”, they claim. In short, all it takes for the poor to be lifted up from their empty-stomached, teary-eyed existences is for a few good men — white ones, naturally — to behave more ethically and caringly. It’s the White Tax Man’s Burden. In focusing on Bono’s alleged hypocrisy, the protesters are actually trying to bridge the gap between the Bono persona (saviour of Africa) and the Bono reality (he pays his taxes in a weird way). That is, they want him to become what he claims to be — the Moral Viceroy of Africa — and to show the Dark Continent how to reach the light. A plague on both their houses. If there are any African bands playing at Glastonbury I hope they lay into the Bono Pay Up lobby, and then use its silly placards to wallop Bono.

Brendan O’Neill, “The ‘Bono Pay Up’ protesters have achieved the remarkable feat of being even more smug than Bono”, The Telegraph, 2011-06-22

June 8, 2011

Ontario’s (pathetic) choices in the next election

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:04

Read ’em and weep:

Dalton’s McGuinty’s record is so well known it barely justifies repeating: the health tax he promised not to introduce, but did. The HST. The eco tax. The soaring power bills. The epic borrowing. The multiple boondoggles. The “wage freeze” that turns out not to apply to police, nurses, civil servants or anyone who actually gets paid by the government. The big bonus for eHealth workers for overseeing a billion dollars in wasted spending. Stop me before I break into tears.

Tim Hudak says he’ll end the agony, but can’t be believed. Sorry Tim, but it’s true. If the campaign platform recently released by the Tories was handed in as a project in a first-year finance class, it would be returned with suggestions that the author find another line of interest. Like line dancing; something that doesn’t involve numbers, or adding and subtracting. Mr. Hudak says he’ll raise spending on all the important programs, but make up for it by finding “waste”. We all know that isn’t going to happen. Politicians never find waste. What they find is that if they keep spending money, their chances of re-election improve. The federal Tories have been promising to find waste for five years now, and have jacked up spending every year.

It’s been widely understood that this election was the Tories’ to lose . . . and they’re determined to do exactly that. This is how the NDP might finally get another chance to form a government . . . perhaps the misery of the Rae experiment has finally been forgotten. Between McGuinty and Hudak, the NDP could run a cardboard cut-out of Jack Layton and be (significantly) more appealing to the average Ontario voter.

June 3, 2011

June 6 is Tax Freedom Day in Canada

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Government, Liberty — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 13:27

You can find your personal tax freedom day (if you live in Canada) by visiting the Fraser Institute’s Tax Freedom Day Calculator.

May 20, 2011

Only one high speed rail line in the world is profitable

Filed under: Economics, Government, Japan, Technology, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:39

Babbage looks at the economics of the various high speed railway lines both in service and planned:

Of all the high-speed train services around the world, only one really makes economic sense — the 550km (350-mile) Shinkansen route that connects the 30m people in greater Tokyo to the 20m residents of the Kansai cluster of cities comprising Osaka, Kobe, Kyoto and Nara. At peak times, up to 16 bullet trains an hour travel each way along the densely populated coastal plain that is home to over half of Japan’s 128m people.

Having worked for many years in Tokyo, with family in Osaka, your correspondent has made the two-and-a-half hour journey on the Tokaido bullet-train many times. It is clean, fast and highly civilised, though far from cheap. It beats flying, which is unbearably cramped by comparison, just as pricey, and dumps you an hour from downtown at either end.

The sole reason why Shinkansen plying the Tokaido route make money is the sheer density — and affluence — of the customers they serve. All the other Shinkansen routes in Japan lose cart-loads of cash, as high-speed trains do elsewhere in the world. Only indirect subsidies, creative accounting, political patronage and national chest-thumping keep them rolling.

California’s planned 800-mile high speed rail route cannot possibly earn a profit, for many reasons (not least of which is that the first segment of the network won’t even run high speed trains until the entire system is built). It’s going to cost an eye-watering amount of money even to build that first section:

Between them, the federal government, municipals along the proposed route and an assortment of private investors are being asked to chip in $30 billion. A further $10 billion is to be raised by a bond issue that Californian voters approved in 2008. Anything left unfunded will have to be met by taxpayers. They could be dunned for a lot. A study carried out in 2008 by the Reason Foundation and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association put the final cost of the complete 800-mile network at $81 billion.That is probably not far off the mark. Last week, the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office came out with a damning indictment of the project’s unrealistic cost estimates and poor management. The bill this legislative watchdog put on the first phase of the high-speed rail project alone is $67 billion — and higher still if the project runs into trouble gaining route approval in urban areas.

If the latter number is correct, then the first phase of the system is clocking in at nearly $1 billion per mile. And this is the “cheap” section running through mostly thinly populated farming areas. If, somehow, the more expensive sections of the planned network don’t cost much more, the total construction bill will top $800 billion. The original plan had the entire system costing $43 billion.

Cost overruns are an expected part of major government construction projects, but that’s insane.

April 28, 2011

Kevin Milligan: Corporations are not really people

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Law, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:02

The notion that corporations are “legal persons” is useful for legal purposes, but terribly misleading when politicians are trying to formulate tax policies:

Pretending that corporations are people leads to tax policies with perverse consequences; some can even produce the opposite of what the policy is intended to do.

[. . .]

Some people want to tax corporations heavily because the corporations are ‘rich.’ But, if corporations are not people, they can’t be rich. The owners or employees of the corporation can be rich, but not an artificial legal entity. As my Economy Lab colleague Stephen Gordon wrote, “Claiming that ‘wealthy corporations’ pay [corporate taxes] makes about as much sense as claiming that ‘rich buildings’ pay property taxes.”

This is not an obscure debate. The owners of corporations do not all wear top hats and monocles like the fellow from the Monopoly game. In reality, Bay Street IPO-mongers quake in fear of two large stockholders. One is the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. The other is the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. These two pension plans are the largest holders of corporate equity in Canada, and their stakeholders are broadly middle income. Tax policy that hurts the dividends of Canadian corporations has a direct impact on the vast Canadian middle that hold pensions through these two, and similar, pension entities. Of course, many high-income Canadians also own corporate equities. But, if we desire to change the tax burden on high income individuals, though, it is best to do so directly through the personal income tax rather than taxing things high income people may or may not own.

April 25, 2011

Rational debate on tax policy MIA in this election

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 10:33

Stephen Gordon wishes there was a way to disentangle sensible tax policy discussions from politics:

The Conservatives implemented two major tax cuts in the past five years: the two-point reduction in the GST, and the three-point reduction in the corporate income tax (CIT) rate. The GST cut was almost certainly a mistake, but no opposition party has challenged this decision in the election campaign.

On the other hand, every opposition party has promised to increase the CIT — the tax that is most harmful to economic growth. What is going on?

I see two answers to that question, and both are based on the presumption — possibly well-founded — that voters do not understand the concept of tax incidence. If you don’t understand how corporate taxes are passed onto workers, then the idea of taxing ‘wealthy corporations’ has a certain appeal: “I’m not a wealthy corporation, so it’s no skin off my nose.”

But of course, it is. So the only question is whether or not the opposition parties campaigning on increasing corporate tax rates understand who actually pays the CIT. If they do not understand that higher CIT rates reduce wages, then their competence as a government-in-waiting leaves something to be desired. If they do understand, then they are being less than honest about what the effects of their proposals will be.

The most efficient tax is broad-based and as close to non-distorting as possible. That is also the most hated form: the Goods and Services Tax. The Tory cut in the GST was terrible economics, but great politics. There, in a nutshell, is why stupid tax policies are the only ones on offer in the election campaign — because sensible policies require people to actually face up to the costs of the government they want. People much prefer the illusion that “someone else” is paying for the goodies.

April 11, 2011

Budget was over-optimistic, but promises based on that budget are fantasies

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 10:36

Over at the consistently interesting Economy Lab blog at the Globe and Mail, Stephen Gordon casts scorn equally on Liberal, Conservative, and NDP campaign promises:

All parties are using the March 22 budget as a baseline for their scenarios; their platforms enumerate tax and spending plans in terms of deviations from the budget scenario. So the first problem to point out is that the budget’s scenario of freezing nominal expenditures for five years without cutting services or programs is at best implausibly optimistic.

The Liberal platform [. . .] builds on that implausible baseline by overestimating anticipated revenues from an increase in the corporate income tax (CIT) by a factor of 2.5.

The Conservative platform’s variation on its own budget is a promise to identify and implement savings worth $4-billion a year within the next three years without cutting programs or reducing services. No other explanation is offered, but then again, neither do they seem to be able to explain the cuts that were announced in the budget.

But the prize for budgetary opacity must surely go to the New Democrats’ “costing document”. Firstly, their estimate of $9-billion a year from increasing the CIT rate is even more implausible than that of the Liberals: an overestimate by a factor of at least three. The next largest source of revenue — “Tax Haven Crackdown” — is supposed to produce more than $3-billion in 2014-15. I cannot offer you any more in the way of explanation behind that number, because the NDP platform is completely silent on the matter. No measures are announced, no reasoning is offered to explain why those measures might be sensible, and no research is offered to justify the $3-billion estimate. The same goes for the “Ending Fossil Fuel Subsidies” entry: $2-billion a year in extra revenues, again with no explanation, discussion or research.

April 3, 2011

QotD: The reason not to anticipate a simpler tax system

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Politics, Quotations — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:54

But boutique credits are smart politics. First, they appeal to people’s sense that they deserve a break, validate their choices, and reaffirm their sense of self-worth. The Children’s Art Tax Credit goes to good parents, ones who enroll their children in Suzuki violin lessons, not bad parents who spend their money on beer and popcorn. Second, they give people a sense of control. Tax liabilities stop being something outside of an individual’s control. Instead, the plethora of credits available mean that taxes can be reduced through planning and wise choices.

Policies are smart politics for a reason: they appeal to voters. If economists want to have a positive influence on the policy debate, they have to understand voter psychology: why do voters like special tax credits so much? “Smart politics” isn’t a criticism. Sometimes it’s a way of saying “I don’t understand why people like this policy.” At other times, it’s a way of saying, “I understand why this policy appeals to people, but if they were well-informed, they would think otherwise.”

There’s no point in telling politicians that a particular policy is “smart politics, bad economics.” They’ll take it as a compliment, and keep on making the same kind of policy choices.

Frances Woolley, “Economy Lab: Why politicians love boutique tax credits”, Globe and Mail, 2011-04-03

March 31, 2011

Corcoran: Harper’s family tax plan full of “shabby contradictions”

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:28

I think it’d be fair to say that Terence Corcoran is not a fan of Stephen Harper’s proposed “family tax plan”:

By calling this a “family tax cut,” and playing it as a matter of tax fairness, the Conservatives have managed to gloss over the shabby contradictions it introduces into Canadian tax policy. The Tory announcement said that the United States, France and other countries allow some form of income splitting. They do, but that’s not saying much about taxation or fairness.

France has a full-blown family tax regime, in which the incomes of both spouses are blended at a tax rate that is based on a formula that includes the number of children. But so what? France has one of the highest marginal tax rates in the world, and a notoriously dysfunctional tax burden that distorts behaviour and incentives. The U.S. income-splitting regime isn’t exactly revered for its soundness, in part because it clearly discriminates against single earners or anyone not part of a married couple. Nor are children a requirement to be part of the U.S. splitting regime.

[. . .]

The Harper family tax cut, based on the debatable tax policy ideal of taxing families instead of individuals, is a misguided income-splitting scheme that demonstrates once again that the Conservatives will never, ever get around to cutting personal income tax rates. The cost of the family tax cut will come at the expense of across-the-board income tax cuts for other Canadians. To pay for the family cut, other Canadians will have to continue to pay marginal tax rates that are too high.

The family tax cut, in some ways, is just another tax expenditure, a special tax treatment aimed at fulfilling some social-policy objective. The major beneficiaries are likely to be higher-income single-earner couples with children. Everybody else is out of luck.

To pull out the old saying, “that’s a feature, not a bug” to the Conservative party faithful.

Calculating “Tax Freedom Day” for each state

Filed under: Cancon, Government, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:25

The least-taxed five states have already celebrated their Tax Freedom Days: Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, and South Dakota. Other states may wait as long as May 2:

Americans will spend an average of 28% of their income to pay federal, state and local taxes this year, the Tax Foundation said Wednesday.

That means you will need to work 102 days — more than three months — just to earn enough to pay your tax bill. So on April 12 you will be free of your 2011 tax burden.

This year’s “Tax Freedom Day,” as the Tax Foundation calls it, comes three days later than last year. Rising incomes — resulting in more income tax owed — are largely to blame for its late arrival, the organization said.

For Canadians, you can calculate your own personal Tax Freedom Day using the Fraser Institute’s customized web tool. If I lived in Alberta, for example, my Tax Freedom day would be May 13, but as I live in Ontario it’s actually May 27.

March 25, 2011

CNN: US government finance requires both spending cuts and tax increases

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 09:26

Jeanne Sahadi at CNN Money insists that the government can’t control the ballooning debt situation by spending cuts alone:

If lawmakers wanted to permanently freeze the debt held by the public at the today’s level — 62% of GDP — they would need to immediately cut spending by 35% or about $1.2 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office. And those cuts would need to be permanent from hereon out.

How hard would that be?

Consider that in 2010, all of discretionary spending — including defense — totaled $1.35 trillion. In other words, to do deficit reduction all on the spending side means “you have to cut into the real meat,” said Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Consider, too, how much fun lawmakers are having right now trying to negotiate spending cuts for this year alone. Their working range: Between $10 billion and $61 billion.

And here’s the kicker: Even permanently cutting $1.2 trillion today wouldn’t be the end of the story. Deficit hawks note that public debt at 60% is still well above the country’s historical average — which is below 40%. So more cutting would need to occur in subsequent decades.

The joker in the pack is that interest rates at the moment are incredibly low by historical standards. This is an aberration, not the “new normal”, and won’t last. If the government fails to take serious steps to reduce the debt now, it’s vanishingly unlikely that they’ll be able to avoid a default. It’s like running up a huge debt on a credit card with a low introductory interest rate: once the low interest period is over, the debt becomes payable at the higher interest rate. Pretending that tomorrow will never come is never a good planning strategy.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress