by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Obama has consistently talked about how he is for “tax reform” all during his presidency. But clearly, he has no idea what that even means. True tax reform is a mechanism that produces a cleaner and clearer tax code. A great example of this was the 1986 IRC reform, where Reagan set the highest rate at 28% in exchange for eliminating massive amounts of tax shelters and gimmicks.
Obama’s cluelessness on the topic was evident during the State of the Union, where, instead of the simplification that Obama likes to espouse, we got a myriad of proposals that will further clutter the tax code. You can’t say you are for tax reform and then present a speech filled with the very items that true tax reform would remove, such expanded child care tax credits and new community college initiatives.
It is these very type of policies that have made the tax code so byzantine. Essentially the government uses the tax code to pick winners and losers favoring some but not others such as married vs non-married, children vs non-children, education vs non-education. This is the essence of crony capitalism, where politicians trade favors and barters to support certain initiatives or restrict others via new taxes or credits. They’re basically all gimmicks to aid in reelection or pander to a portion of the electorate — and then we never get rid of all the tacked-on programs and policies because no one wants to give up their special initiatives. The code is immensely complex because of it.
The tax code should never be used in this manner. It’s either a proper tax or not — but you don’t put an item into the tax code and then restrict it to certain people and not others. If someone is making more money, they are subjected to higher tax margins. Fine. But you don’t then add on more crony restrictions or surtaxes to try to squeeze out extra revenue. If a policy is good for the middle guy, it ought to also be good for the wealthier guy — who is already getting dinged accordingly (“paying his fair share”) by paying higher tax rates.
Obama’s version of “tax reform” is unrealistic and firmly rooted in his vision of “middle class economics”. This means using the tax code to promote “fairness” by targeting the wealthy to pay for new spending programs and credits for others. That is not tax reform — that is wealth redistribution.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
President Obama just told the country during his State of the Union address that he is going to increase the capital gains rate again in order to raise revenue for new spending programs. Given that Obama already knows that raising the capital gains rate actually REDUCES revenue, we are left with a President who believes that we can pay for increased spending by reducing revenue. He acknowledged this in 2008 during a televised debate against Hillary Clinton, but went on to state that rates should be hiked – despite its effect of reducing revenue – because it was more “fair” taxation (ludicrous, but a subject for another day).
Extraordinarily and equally disappointing about this fundamental economic error is that no one in the major press outlets, on the day after the State of the Union speech, pointed out the President’s gaffe. Do we really have a President who pushes for paying for increased spending projects with policies that reduce revenue? Or do we have a President who puts forth an initiative that he knows has very little chance of realization, but chooses to do so anyway so he can characterize the Republicans as protecting the wealthy while he can claim to protect the middle class? And did he believe that the press was so clueless that they would not laugh at him the following day?
Capital gains are unusual in that the taxpayer has the ultimate decision as to whether and when to sell his asset (stock, his business, a work of art, etc.) The higher the tax rate, the LESS likely he is to sell, seeing as he will only be able to enjoy or reinvest what is left of the proceeds AFTER TAX. History has borne this out – capital gains tax collections go down in the periods after increases, and go up in the years after decreases.
The actual impact of raising the capital gains rate is also devastating to the economy. By discouraging the sale of assets, there is reduced capital available for new projects and opportunities, reducing job creation and wages, and resulting in lower revenue collection.
Furthermore, with higher capital gain rates, the expected after tax rate of return on new projects will go down, assuring that fewer of them will go forward.
Additionally, there are a number of localities, like the state of California and New York City, which have tax rates of 12% or more and also a large concentration of wealthy people and high performing businesses. Couple that with the proposed increase to the federal capital gains rate and you could see total capital gains rates of more than 44%, A capital gains rate this high would virtually bring elective capital to a standstill. This would amount to a rate more than twice the rate during the Bush Administration (15%) – when growth and the economy were very strong..
Raising the capital gains rate will put a stranglehold on risk taking and available capital. Why sell an asset to fund further investment and opportunity when the government takes a large share of the gain with the loss remaining all yours. It makes virtually no economic sense to do so, and the result means an already anemic economy will continue to struggle.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Back in 2008 when Obama was debating Hillary Clinton on national TV, Obama discussed with the moderator how raising the capital gains rate would likely reduce federal revenue collections, but he insisted it was good policy anyway — because it was a policy of “fairness”.
Why would raising the capital gains tax be a revenue loss? The effect of higher taxes slows the economy because those paying the higher capital gains have less money to invest. Unfortunately, such a policy was implemented in 2013 when capital gains went from 15-20% and was coupled with the new 3.8% surtax on investment income to pay for Obamacare, making the rate 23.8%.
Now he wants to tax, yet again, the very type of taxpayers who have money to create jobs and/or invest, by raising the capital gains rate up to 28%. This is essentially about an 18% tax hike on high income earners — two years after the last capital gains rate increase. That’s practically doubling the rate in just a few short years. And during this time, the economy has remained sluggish.
It’s a shame that Obama continues to push for policies that would have a negative effect on jobs and the economy in an effort to promote “fairness through taxation” and pay for his pet projects (such as free community college!). The concept of an American President continuing to go after people making a lot of money it is particularly loathsome; it also displays an absolute lack of familiarity with and respect for how people get wealthy — he just wants their hard-earned money.
Back in 2008 during that same debate, Obama claimed, “What I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can’t do that for free.”
But with Obama, you can do it by wealth transfer.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The question of raising the minimum wage keeps getting pushed at the federal level, as well as across many states. If we are to educate the populace on the pitfalls of arbitrary “minimum wage” hikes, we must be sure to argue the inherent flaws of suggestion that minimum wage hikes help some people and therefore are good for everyone.
This was illustrated recently on an episode of CNBC’s “On the Money” with Becky Quick. On one side was Dan Mitchell of CATO, who has done admirable work on fiscal policy and economics over there for many years. Opposite him was Jared Bernstein, a former Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Vice President Joseph Biden. Mitchell’s appearance on the show, however, was a bit of a disappointment on the issue of minimum wage.
There were two major points he seemed to miss. The first was in regard to the effect of a minimum wage hike on workers. Mitchell pointed out, correctly, that 500,000 people would lose their jobs, to which his opponent, Jared Bernstein, countered that 24 million people would gain more money (“get out of poverty” per the CBO), and therefore, quantitatively, people would benefit in a 50-1 ratio. But that is wrong!
Those 24 million, though they may benefit from a raise, will really one see a few cents more an hour. Those that lose their jobs, will lose not only $7.50 an hour in comparison, but also the opportunity to learn working skills and actually have a job from which they can advance in the workforce. Even if Bernstein’s figures were perfectly accurate – which they were not – having 24 million people earn a few more cents per hour versus the entire loss of jobs and livelihood do not make raising the minimum wage worthwhile.
But that point is secondary. The primary issue – and the one that Mitchell (as well as all of us who understand the economics of minimum wage) seem to be unable counter to the Jared Bernsteins of the world – relates to the economic cost of a minimum wage. He needed to explain to Mr. Bernstein that the apparent extra money going to those getting the higher minimum wage is, in fact, detrimental to the economy as a whole, and therefore ultimately to even those people it was intended to help.
Economics 1a would explain (looking for “what is unseen” ) that the extra money going to those benefiting must be coming from somewhere (though providing no extra result). It is coming from either a) lower wages paid to other employees, b) lower profits to the business, which lowers rate of return directly reducing new investments in that business and reducing the likelihood that new businesses will be started, or c) higher prices to the consumer, which (Economics 1a again) shows will reduce total sales volume, and therefore GDP as a whole..
Though Mitchell did successfully argue the merits of how minimum wages certainly shouldn’t be a federal law, but rather a state consideration, he missed entirely the ability to counter the false argument concerning the minimum wage altogether. If we don’t oppose and expose the core flaws, we will certainly continue to lose in the public square on the issue of minimum wage.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
If you plan to tune in tonight to the State of the Union, I’ll be running an Open Thread over at Bearing Drift, Virginia’s premier conservative media group. Join me over there at 8:45 to discuss Obama’s proposals.
The main theme of the evening is “middle class economics”. These include:
–raising “$320 billion over the next 10 years in new taxes targeting wealthy individuals and big financial institutions to pay for new programs designed to help lower- and middle-income families”.
–raising the capital gains and dividend tax rates to 28% on some higher earners
–creating a “fee on the liabilities of about 100 big financial institutions”
–tax credits to small businesses to help “cover costs” of requiring “employers without 401(k) plans to make it easier for full-time and part-time workers to save in individual retirement accounts”
–expanding tax credits for child child care
—expanding paid sick leave and “to fund Labor Department feasibility studies on paid leave”
—providing two years free of community college tuition for up to 9 million students
You can join in tonight as I comment and engage with other like-minded folks. See you there!
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Last week, the Washington Examiner did a nice job covering the growing Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) crisis, and Congress’s recent response to it. The issue at stake is the 2016 benefit adjustment, which would cut 20% of benefits for more than 10 million SSDI recipients:
“Many Democrats want to sweep the problem under the rug with an accounting gimmick that would merge the disability trust fund with the general Social Security trust fund, which, on paper, isn’t expected to be depleted until 2034. But House Republicans passed a rule [Tuesday] to protect the broader Social Security program from being raided.
In 1994, the payroll tax rate was reallocated between Social Security’s two trust funds to avoid depletion of the disability insurance fund, but another reallocation would ignore Social Security’s long-term funding issues.”
The idea for reallocation came from the bleak 2014 Social Security Trustees report, which described, “Lawmakers may consider responding to the impending [Disability Insurance] Trust Fund reserve depletion, as they did in 1994, solely by reallocating the payroll tax rate between [Old-Age and Survivors Insurance] and DI. Such a response might serve to delay DI reforms and much needed financial corrections for OASDI as a whole. However, enactment of a more permanent solution could include a tax reallocation in the short run.”
The reallocation response would be merely a bandaid, ignoring the overall Social Security funding crisis, which is why the House passed a rule prohibiting reallocation unless it is combined with “benefit cuts or tax increases that improve the solvency of the combined trust funds”. That is to say, there must be some act of long-term reform.
Apparently, the Left was having none of that; responses were swift and sharp. The LA Times headline screamed, “On Day One, the new Congress launches an attack on Social Security”. The paper further described how,
“The rule hampers an otherwise routine reallocation of Social Security payroll tax income from the old-age program to the disability program. Such a reallocation, in either direction, has taken place 11 times since 1968, according to Kathy Ruffing of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
But it’s especially urgent now, because the disability program’s trust fund is expected to run dry as early as next year. At that point, disability benefits for 11 million beneficiaries would have to be cut 20%. Reallocating the income, however, would keep both the old-age and disability programs solvent until at least 2033, giving Congress plenty of time to assess the programs’ needs and work out a long-term fix.”
Clearly, Democrats doesn’t see the irony of having to reallocate 11 times already as an major fiscal problem. I’m betting that every time there was a reallocation, it was to give Congress “plenty of time to assess the programs’ needs and work out a long-term fix.” In other words, kick the can again because the issue is politically unpalatable.
The Washington Examiner spoke to Charles Blahous, a Trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, about the Social Security situation. Blahous described how “the problem is not that disability needs a bigger share of the overall payroll tax than it now has, but that Social Security as a whole faces a financing imbalance that needs to be corrected. The single most irresponsible response to the pending [disability insurance] trust fund depletion would be to do nothing other than paper it over with a reallocation of funds, delaying meaningful corrective action as long as possible.”
You can be sure the Dems will use this issue as a way to stir up the base between now and 2016. Kudos to the new Congress for being willing to discuss and tackle the insolvency problem instead of moving funds around automatically.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
As a CPA, it is frustrating to hear Social Security repeatedly being described as a pay-as-you-go (“PAYGO”) system, which gives credence to something that is terribly incorrect. PAYGO is not a system at all; rather it is a method of reporting that hides earned realities, making it totally unacceptable to accounting professions, the SEC, and virtually everybody outside the government.
The fallacy of calling it PAYGO is that, in reality, the cash includes everything we are getting in, while the cash out doesn’t include the responsibilities due to come. The cash out formula specifically excludes the trillions promised to existing workers in the future, (while their Social Security tax is being collected today). It doesn’t really describe, as part of the expenses being incurred this year, the amount of future retirement benefits being earned and promised.
In contrast, if you give an insurance company today $100,000 to pay you a retirement pension beginning when you retired at the age of 65, the insurance company (logically and legally), the insurance company would report this as an asset offset by a liability to provide $100,000 of payments in the future. The Social Security system, however, reports that as $100,000 of profits in the year received, while the obligation to account for and provide future benefits is incredibly ignored.
When the cash in is received, that money egregiously goes into the government’s general tax revenue account and not in any Social Security Fund (anymore). The Social Security Administration merely collects and records the gross Social Security tax receipts, while the net amount, after deductions, is sent to the IRS. Yet the gross amount recorded is the amount spent by the government, resulting in the staggering deficit we face today. Therefore, it is outrageous for anyone to say that accounting for the system can be done simply by looking at the cash in-cash out.
The biggest problem with this arrangement is that it puts the burden on the wrong people. We have a growing population of retiring taxpayers and the current generation is paying off the obligation the older generation never paid for. It is a Ponzi scheme in which, depending on how you play it, you manipulate who is paying whose obligation. Therefore, the PAYGO method doesn’t work because the government takes 100% of the money they receive and they do not put away; they need it to pay today’s debt to another taxpayer, while today’s payee is stuck holding the bag.
For several years now, the Social Security trustees reports have noted Social Securities unfunded liabilities – those promises made to individuals solely in exchange for amounts they have already paid for – to be trillions in deficit. Social Security in its present form is unsustainable.
The term PAYGO is used for the lay person; cute semantics – but misleading at best, willfully dishonest at worst. It mischaracterizes the program for the political purpose of allowing politicians to declare that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit, and therefore, should not be overhauled in any major way. But until we agree to start recording Social Security (and Medicare) in budgets in actuarially sound way, we will never be able to honestly and effectively deal with their fiscal crises.
How we talk about and understand Social Security and its funds needs acute attention because we face another looming crisis of funding: Social Security’s Disability Insurance (SSDI). SSDI benefits are slated to be cut by 20 percent near the end of 2016, at the same time that SSDI has seen a massive increase of recipients in the last few years. This is certain to be a major issue for the Presidential elections.
Already the Democrats are stirring up the base on this issue. Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren claimed that “The GOP is inventing a Social Security crisis that will threaten benefits for millions & put our most vulnerable at risk”. Obviously this is patently false. The entire Social Security program needs massive reform instead of incrementally kicking the can further down the road to avoid making difficult, but necessary changes for the long haul.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Obama increasingly keeps blathering about the Keystone pipeline in an increasingly negative way, such as how it isn’t economically sound or how it won’t do much for the US soil industry, and so forth. But does he have any idea how ridiculous his protests are, especially considering how both the House, and now the Senate, have given bipartisan approval for the pipeline?
The most egregious aspect of this whole situation is that Obama makes it sound like Keystone is some sort of government project or a part of some government infrastructure or action and therefore needs his blessing. Remember folks; this is private. There are exceedingly high hurdles to cross when it come to private sector projects — and Obama knows this. Keystone has met them. And yet, for six years, Obama has been “reviewing” the project; even the latest cautionary “pause” in the review process was just given a green light a few days ago by the courts (probably much to Obama’s chagrin).
Everyone recently seems to have lost sight of the fact that this isn’t a government project and no government funds will be spent to build it (except those currently being spent to carry out the six year “review”). Obama just needs to get out of the way, and let the private sector project — supported by Congress and 60% of the people — bring some much needed prosperity and opportunity.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, OBAMA, POLITICS
Is it any wonder why it’s so difficult to stay in business in New York? In exchange for eliminating one onerous compliance requirement with regard to wages, a new law simultaneously created more liability and penalties for businesses to actually stay in compliance with wage and labor law.
First, the positive. The new law terminates the yearly requirement for New York employers to provide annual wage notices to their employees each January. This burdensome paperwork is no longer a mandatory filing for all current employees; new employees, however, will still be expected to receive their notice.
The relaxation on the notice requirement, however, is in appearance only. The law sharply increases associated penalties for failing to provide the requisite wage notices to applicable employees. The penalty jump from a mere $50/week to $50 per day per employee and doubles the cap from $2500 to $5000. What’s more, for businesses failing to provide sufficient wage statements per law (different from wage notices), businesses will be docked $250/day, up from $100/per week, with the cap on that penalty also doubling to $5000 per employee.
The Department of Labor (DOL) certainly can’t be left out of their cut either. The new law allows the DOL to issue excessive civil penalties for wage and hour violations — doubling the amount from $10,000 to $20,000. The penalty increases help fund a new honey pot for the DOL called the “Wage Theft Prevention Enforcement Account”, created to help the DOL examine a full 6 years worth of time prior to the alleged violation.
However, the most egregious portion of the new law is the concept of ‘successor liability”, which essentially allows the possibility of a business being held liable for the wage of hour violations of its business predecessor. The law describes a business successor to be the “same employee” under these conditions: “if the employees of the new employer are engaged in substantially the same work in substantially the same working conditions under substantially the same supervisors” of the previous employer and has “substantially the same production process, produces substantially the same products and has substantially the same body of customers.” Thus, a business faces being penalized for violations committed by a prior business entity.
Finally, the law extends the scope of culpability for wage and hour violations. Previously, the top ten shareholders of corporations faced liability; now the top ten members of ownership (percentage-wise) in an LLC can also be found in violation.
In sum, while the new law reduced one burdensome regulation for business owners, it was replaced with more stringent rules of compliance, coupled with stiffer penalties to be meted out to violators of wage and labor laws. The increased threat of non-compliance and fines is just another example of the suffocating, anti-business environment that plagues New York.
For more details on the law and its affects, go here.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Thank goodness for CNS News. They continuously number crunch federal numbers so that we can keep apace with the ever-growing national debt. The bottom line? Debt has increased $7.5 trillion since Obama took office.
“The federal government drove $789,473,350,613.20 deeper into debt in calendar year 2014, an increase that equaled $6,875 per household, $7,458 per full-time year-round worker, and $8,853 per full-time year-round private-sector worker.
According to the Treasury, the debt started calendar year 2014 at $17,351,970,784,950.10 and ended it at $18,141,444,135,563.30.
When Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. Since then, it has increased $7,514,567,086,650.22–which is $65,443 per household, $70,985 per full-time worker and $84,266 per full-time private-sector worker.
In 2013, according to the Census Bureau there were 105,862,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States. The $789,473,350,613.20 increase in the federal debt during 2014 worked out to $7,457.57 for each of those full-time year-round workers.
Those 105,862,000 full-time year-round workers included 16,685,000 federal, state and local government workers and 89,177,000 private-sector workers.
The $789,473,350,613.20 in new federal debt in 2014 equaled $8,852.88 for each of the 89,177,000 full-time private-sector workers in the country.
As of December 2013, there were 114,826,000 households in the country, according to the Census Bureau. The $789,473,350,613.20 in new debt equaled $6,875.39 per household.
Ten years ago, at the end of 2004, the federal debt was $7,596,142,802,424.14. Since then, it has grown by $10,545,301,333,139.16—an average pace of $1,054,530,133,313.92 per year.”
