A
friend who’s opinion I respect sent me this article yesterday. I must agree
with the ideas contained that a humongous tax raise won’t cut the mustard, but
I find the idea of simply cutting spending…….well……simplistic. I can clam no
solutions and would not be arrogant to profess that I can even understand all
the complex intracasies…….but Hey, opinions, that I do have! What follows are
the article and my brilliant observations.
Last
week, Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez published an Op-Ed in the Wall Street
Journal titled “High Tax Rates Won’t Slow Growth.” They argue that when it
comes to tax revenue, the US is not close to the top of the Laffer Curve, and
raising tax rates to 50%, or even 70%, would boost revenue and reduce the
deficit.
Even
if they are right, why on earth would the U.S. do that? Why would a nation
confiscate 70% of what its most productive citizens make and redirect those
resources toward a government-chosen objective? Why would a nation discriminate
against those who most fruitfully multiply their talents?
The
only way to possibly justify such a confiscatory, 70%, tax rate is if the
income that is to be taken is immorally or illegally earned, if high incomes
are damaging to others, or if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that
government investment is more productive than private sector investment.
None
of these arguments holds water.
Almost
all income earned by high-income individuals is earned in a competitive market,
by serving other people. Football players work their tails off to be the top
draft pick. Executives live on the knife edge, trying to make decisions that
bring value. Small-business owners twist themselves into knots attempting to
deliver quality products at attractive prices to customers who could shop
elsewhere. Surgeons go to school forever to perfect their craft. Programmers
live on Twinkies and Red Bull and don’t sleep. These heroic efforts to become a
better athlete, doctor, executive, small-business owner, or inventor would not
be undertaken if the rewards were limited.
Moreover,
rapid changes in technology always concentrate wealth. Just as Carnegie,
Rockefeller, Ford, and Walton have demonstrated, new industry reaps widespread
rewards. Bill Gates earned about $10 from every person in the world as
Microsoft software enhanced the lives of six billion people. Name any
cutting-edge technology company of the past three decades and you will find
among its founders and executives vast wealth. Why? Because their products help
other people, not because they rip people off.
According
to data aggregated by the Tax Foundation, total adjusted gross income (taxable
income using IRS definitions) was $1.63 trillion in 1980 and $7.83 trillion in
2009. Yes the top 1% saw its share of that income rise from 8.5% to 16.9%. And,
yes, the bottom 50% saw its share fall from 17.7% to 13.5%, but that smaller
share in 2009 was $1.05 trillion, a 265% increase from the $288 billion earned
by the bottom 50% in 1980. The bottom 50% also saw its share of total taxes
fall from 7.1% to 2.25%.
In
other words, it is true that incomes at the top have risen faster than average
incomes, but it is not true that any group has been made worse off. Incomes and
living standards for all Americans, including those in lower-income brackets, are
up. At the same time, tax burdens for those in lower-income groups have fallen
substantially.
Diamond
and Saez argue that per-capita real GDP growth was higher (2.23% annually)
between 1950 and 1980 when top marginal tax rates were high, than it was between
1980 and 2010 (1.68% annually) when top tax rates were lower. But saying that
tax rates were the dominant factor in these 30-year periods is unnervingly
simplistic.
First,
very, very few people actually paid the top tax rates. Second, state and local
tax rates were much lower than they are today. Third, most foreign countries
had similar high tax rates, which meant moving was not a benefit. Fourth, the
U.S. was alone at the top, economically, in the post WWII world — our
competitors had to rebuild. Fifth, government was significantly smaller.
Non-defense federal spending averaged just 10.6% of GDP between 1950 and 1980,
but 16.6% between 1980 and 2010. In 2011, non-defense federal spending was
19.4% of GDP — a record high.
The
reason the U.S. has a large deficit these days is not because tax rates are too
low; it is because spending is too high. The last year in which the U.S. had a
surplus in its budget was 2001 — federal spending in that year was 18.2% of
GDP. Since then, total federal spending has never been lower than 19% of GDP
and last year it was 24.1%. The U.S. has never balanced its budget when
spending was greater than 19.5% of GDP. Raising tax rates won’t do it. Spending
cuts are the only way.
Finally,
Diamond and Saez argue that high tax rates are justified if government can earn
higher returns from investment than the private sector. Every once in a while
government gets lucky, but over time, no government planned or controlled
economy has proven that it could outgrow a system of free market capitalism.
Europe tried and failed. The Soviet Union tried and failed. Diamond and Saez,
if allowed, would try and fail as well. Raising tax rates to 70% cannot
possibly create wealth. The Growth Grade for this proposal is a solid, and
well-earned, F.
1. A 70% INCOME TAX RATE on ANYBODY WOULD BE NEGATIVE.
2. This is especially true if it applies to ME, therefore I would not
support such measures.
3. Agreed, that government spending, Federal, State, and municipal will need
to see a reduction, in much the same way a household cannot live beyond it's
means. At least not after the credit implosion we have experienced and and
the delivering process we are still in. The American public did however
pull it off for 40 years till the fun house collapsed.
4. The caveat is that, it's just not that fucking simple........or easy.
Most, if not all, bureaucracies (government that is) are founded of a sense
of benevolence. Somebody gets something. Value is added to society in a
billion different ways, and of course the bureaucracy grows and evolves and
takes on a life on its own.
5. This often goes unnoticed and undisturbed because value is being added to
someone. Darwin failed to catalog this particular evolution in Origin of the
Species so how the hell am I supposed to recognize it. Problem is it is a
zero sum game and for someone to realize value, someone else has to lose
it....right?
6. Biggest problem is.... it is really, really hard to TAKE SOMETHING AWAY.
We used to call people Indian givers (politically incorrect I know) for
giving something and taking it back. The term is derogatory and that person
is generally thought of as a scum bag.
7. So while this article correctly points out that an overzealous tax
policy that exerts onerous tax liability on all and draconian measures on
the top producers will not necessarily produce a more vibrant economy, it
neglects to recognize the complexities and difficulties in "spending
reduction".
8. In my simple humble opinion a compromise approach with a multi point plan
with a 20+ year horizon is what is needed and would include (but not limited
to) the following:
a. Total tax reform......gut the fuc*&*^&^$ker and start over. Flat tax at say
15-20 with very little loop holeism. Leave the charitable donation
deduction. You could even keep it progressive, but with maybe 2-3 rates and
only 5% difference. Lower Corp. but take our all the “Government decides
who win and loses" type shit. If we remove tax incentives and have a fair
equitable low corp. rate that's the same across the board, we will have
significantly fewer paid lobbyists and significantly fewer legislators' who
are bought and paid for by industry. Gee we might accomplish something for
the greater good of mankind without a billion special interests plying the
halls of congress lobbying for tax breaks, and actually spur innovation and
economic growth because we will know what to expect and know the Federal
Government is not betting against me if I want to build a Wind Farm by
supplementing the oil and gas industry.
b. Coordinated long range plan for deficit and debt reduction. Set
targets for Deficit to GDP, Fed budget to GDP whatever..... Just stick to
them......but what do you cut.....as indicated above, therein lies the
problem.
c. If it was up to ME, I would say, cut defiance by 20% over 5 years.
Will we still be safe, fuck yes. Nobody, I mean nobody can even come
remotely close to standing toe to toe with the US military. Even if China,
Turkey, Brazil, and Russia go full court press and we spend 10 years going
backward it still won’t mean dick. Of course we actually increase funding for
the SEALs, they are bad ass awesome.
d. ENTITLEMENTS....Well now we come to the eight hundred gorilla in the
room don't we. This is the ultimate example if a highly evolved
sophisticated, well meaning bureaucracy that has gone from an eight hundred
pound gorilla to a true king Kong. Totally out of control, and pretty hard
to screw over all the guys like our dad's who paid in all their lives and
totally deserve that SS check and for Medicare to pick up their medical
bills. Even the hard core supply side economics guys admit that the social
safety net is a total requisite to a free market system to survive over the
long haul, if only to allow the common guy the ability to survive the normal
and expected ups and down of the naturally flowing market. That's not
socialism; in fact I would argue that it's the antidote to socialism. I
guess we just have to slowly transition to as much of a private system as we
can get away with but it sure is sticky. I don't intend on any retirement
help from Uncle Sam, but then I don't NEED to.....but what if I did?
e. I would keep or increase federal government spending of EDUCATION at
all levels and NIH & FDA. Because I know for an absolute fact that
investment in all those areas (with the possible addition of basic
infrastructure) will pay huge in short order and be the biggest positive
influence on the US economy over the long haul.
f. Of course all the other shit including enough (but not tooooo much)
oversight. You know what I mean. The legislature tends to react to crisis
vi-as-vi Dodd-Frank rather than produce well thought practical solution
based policy. Balanced energy policy that's forward looking and accepts
that: I. we need alternatives to fossil fuels because there IS a finite
amount and wars will be waged between whoever is stuck w/o a chair when the
music stops....much better to not need it when that happens. II. We need to
maximize our own resources, but not at the detriment to the ecology because
we as a Race are total pigs and we have already messed up the planet enough
and we don't want to deny our kids the joys of nature, and, III. We realize
that the empirical evidence we DO HAVE is that there are double the
molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere as were there 150 years ago. Considering
that the change in the history of civilized man (that is if you consider us
civilized today) has never been more that 10% in ten thousand years and it's
100% in one hundred and fifty changes are pretty good that we had something
to do with it. So, any policy going forward must take climate change into
the picture.
Ok, those are my bullet points for today, one more thing...... as an
independent, I might have (probably would have) voted for Mitt Romney for
Senator of Mass in 1994 and Gov in 2004....why? because he was, and the
operative word is WAS, a moderate republican who actually registered as an
independent until his senate race against Ted Kennedy in 94 when he ran as a
moderate, pro choice, fiscally pragmatic alternative to Ted. Same when he
won the Gov seat in a Democratic state.
But that dude is gone.
Congressman Fred Upton, who I just met again for the third time today, is the
kind of guy we need more of. He is a moderate republican in his 13th term,
very popular so not threatened. He is pro ESC research, pro choice; he is
practical and thinks his tea party backed fellow members in West MI are
mostly nut cases. while he follows what you and I would call fiscal
conservatism, he supports Special diabetes program funding renewal, he
recognizes the need for public/private Co-op in R&D for the future economic
benefit of us all not just those affected by a particular disease. As chair
of Energy and Commerce which has oversight over FDA budget, he realized the
way FDA is burdened by increasing demand for drugs and devices to move
through the approval system and was no doubt being lobbied hard by Pharma.
So along with the big pharma guys they propose a user fee assessed to them
which is then allocated directly to FDA for increased resources and staff
needed to meet demand.....what a fucking genius, total win- win. So the big
pharma corps. Essentially get taxed (but not us) to pay for the very service
that benefits them, and they are willing to pay because that money is
directly allocated to benefit them via more efficient FDA process. He has 51
out of 54 votes in E&C committee and expects pretty bipartisan support in
the house. He is hoping
senate will take it up and pass by end of June. He is pretty much a rock
star and there are like minded guys on the other side....It's just that they
don't get the press and the Nancy Pelosi's and Eric Cantor’s and other
dysfunctional, ideological, pompous, loutish, loggerheads get all the
media...like reality TV in reality....what a fucking nightmare.
Thanks for the article dude....BTW I did read it!!!
2. This is especially true if it applies to ME, therefore I would not
support such measures.
3. Agreed, that government spending, Federal, State, and municipal will need
to see a reduction, in much the same way a household cannot live beyond it's
means. At least not after the credit implosion we have experienced and and
the delivering process we are still in. The American public did however
pull it off for 40 years till the fun house collapsed.
4. The caveat is that, it's just not that fucking simple........or easy.
Most, if not all, bureaucracies (government that is) are founded of a sense
of benevolence. Somebody gets something. Value is added to society in a
billion different ways, and of course the bureaucracy grows and evolves and
takes on a life on its own.
5. This often goes unnoticed and undisturbed because value is being added to
someone. Darwin failed to catalog this particular evolution in Origin of the
Species so how the hell am I supposed to recognize it. Problem is it is a
zero sum game and for someone to realize value, someone else has to lose
it....right?
6. Biggest problem is.... it is really, really hard to TAKE SOMETHING AWAY.
We used to call people Indian givers (politically incorrect I know) for
giving something and taking it back. The term is derogatory and that person
is generally thought of as a scum bag.
7. So while this article correctly points out that an overzealous tax
policy that exerts onerous tax liability on all and draconian measures on
the top producers will not necessarily produce a more vibrant economy, it
neglects to recognize the complexities and difficulties in "spending
reduction".
8. In my simple humble opinion a compromise approach with a multi point plan
with a 20+ year horizon is what is needed and would include (but not limited
to) the following:
a. Total tax reform......gut the fuc*&*^&^$ker and start over. Flat tax at say
15-20 with very little loop holeism. Leave the charitable donation
deduction. You could even keep it progressive, but with maybe 2-3 rates and
only 5% difference. Lower Corp. but take our all the “Government decides
who win and loses" type shit. If we remove tax incentives and have a fair
equitable low corp. rate that's the same across the board, we will have
significantly fewer paid lobbyists and significantly fewer legislators' who
are bought and paid for by industry. Gee we might accomplish something for
the greater good of mankind without a billion special interests plying the
halls of congress lobbying for tax breaks, and actually spur innovation and
economic growth because we will know what to expect and know the Federal
Government is not betting against me if I want to build a Wind Farm by
supplementing the oil and gas industry.
b. Coordinated long range plan for deficit and debt reduction. Set
targets for Deficit to GDP, Fed budget to GDP whatever..... Just stick to
them......but what do you cut.....as indicated above, therein lies the
problem.
c. If it was up to ME, I would say, cut defiance by 20% over 5 years.
Will we still be safe, fuck yes. Nobody, I mean nobody can even come
remotely close to standing toe to toe with the US military. Even if China,
Turkey, Brazil, and Russia go full court press and we spend 10 years going
backward it still won’t mean dick. Of course we actually increase funding for
the SEALs, they are bad ass awesome.
d. ENTITLEMENTS....Well now we come to the eight hundred gorilla in the
room don't we. This is the ultimate example if a highly evolved
sophisticated, well meaning bureaucracy that has gone from an eight hundred
pound gorilla to a true king Kong. Totally out of control, and pretty hard
to screw over all the guys like our dad's who paid in all their lives and
totally deserve that SS check and for Medicare to pick up their medical
bills. Even the hard core supply side economics guys admit that the social
safety net is a total requisite to a free market system to survive over the
long haul, if only to allow the common guy the ability to survive the normal
and expected ups and down of the naturally flowing market. That's not
socialism; in fact I would argue that it's the antidote to socialism. I
guess we just have to slowly transition to as much of a private system as we
can get away with but it sure is sticky. I don't intend on any retirement
help from Uncle Sam, but then I don't NEED to.....but what if I did?
e. I would keep or increase federal government spending of EDUCATION at
all levels and NIH & FDA. Because I know for an absolute fact that
investment in all those areas (with the possible addition of basic
infrastructure) will pay huge in short order and be the biggest positive
influence on the US economy over the long haul.
f. Of course all the other shit including enough (but not tooooo much)
oversight. You know what I mean. The legislature tends to react to crisis
vi-as-vi Dodd-Frank rather than produce well thought practical solution
based policy. Balanced energy policy that's forward looking and accepts
that: I. we need alternatives to fossil fuels because there IS a finite
amount and wars will be waged between whoever is stuck w/o a chair when the
music stops....much better to not need it when that happens. II. We need to
maximize our own resources, but not at the detriment to the ecology because
we as a Race are total pigs and we have already messed up the planet enough
and we don't want to deny our kids the joys of nature, and, III. We realize
that the empirical evidence we DO HAVE is that there are double the
molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere as were there 150 years ago. Considering
that the change in the history of civilized man (that is if you consider us
civilized today) has never been more that 10% in ten thousand years and it's
100% in one hundred and fifty changes are pretty good that we had something
to do with it. So, any policy going forward must take climate change into
the picture.
Ok, those are my bullet points for today, one more thing...... as an
independent, I might have (probably would have) voted for Mitt Romney for
Senator of Mass in 1994 and Gov in 2004....why? because he was, and the
operative word is WAS, a moderate republican who actually registered as an
independent until his senate race against Ted Kennedy in 94 when he ran as a
moderate, pro choice, fiscally pragmatic alternative to Ted. Same when he
won the Gov seat in a Democratic state.
But that dude is gone.
Congressman Fred Upton, who I just met again for the third time today, is the
kind of guy we need more of. He is a moderate republican in his 13th term,
very popular so not threatened. He is pro ESC research, pro choice; he is
practical and thinks his tea party backed fellow members in West MI are
mostly nut cases. while he follows what you and I would call fiscal
conservatism, he supports Special diabetes program funding renewal, he
recognizes the need for public/private Co-op in R&D for the future economic
benefit of us all not just those affected by a particular disease. As chair
of Energy and Commerce which has oversight over FDA budget, he realized the
way FDA is burdened by increasing demand for drugs and devices to move
through the approval system and was no doubt being lobbied hard by Pharma.
So along with the big pharma guys they propose a user fee assessed to them
which is then allocated directly to FDA for increased resources and staff
needed to meet demand.....what a fucking genius, total win- win. So the big
pharma corps. Essentially get taxed (but not us) to pay for the very service
that benefits them, and they are willing to pay because that money is
directly allocated to benefit them via more efficient FDA process. He has 51
out of 54 votes in E&C committee and expects pretty bipartisan support in
the house. He is hoping
senate will take it up and pass by end of June. He is pretty much a rock
star and there are like minded guys on the other side....It's just that they
don't get the press and the Nancy Pelosi's and Eric Cantor’s and other
dysfunctional, ideological, pompous, loutish, loggerheads get all the
media...like reality TV in reality....what a fucking nightmare.
Thanks for the article dude....BTW I did read it!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment