The so-called "Buffett-Rule," which would impose a minimum tax on incomes above $ 1 million, would guarantee lower tax revenues for the US Treasury. Folks with high income would simply choose to lower their taxable income. That is a fairly simple thing to do and always happens when you raise tax rates on wealthy citizens. Short of confiscating folk's wealth, something Obama may get around to eventually, raising tax rates just encourages tax lawyers and leverage (the wealthy borrow more to live and let their assets grow unrealized...that solves the problem of lowering your taxable income without affecting your lifestyle).
Meanwhile, as tax revenues collapse, the Obama folks will find a way to tack on a tax increase for the middle class to offset the revenue loss from rich folks. This is always the route that tax rate increase advocates end up taking. The result: the middle class gets soaked with more taxation, while the no-nothings revel in the irrelevant higher rate structure that wealthy folks face, but do not pay. This is the kind of absurdity that Obama's class warfare will lead to. No wonderrich people support higher tax rates. Buffett knows he will pay less under Obama's soak-the-rich tax than he does now, so why worry? (Once the new rates are passed, Buffett will lob a call into his high priced tax attorney and get the advice he needs to pay less taxes under the Obama plan than he pays now. Don't think he won't make that call. He will).
Meanwhile, higher marginal rates will mean that money that would have flowed into the capital markets to create new businesses and new jobs will lie dormant in frozen assets. High levels of unemployment, economic stagnation and increasing misery for the poor, minorities and old folks will be the Obama legacy. This is what happens when economic policy is an outgrowth of coffee-house conversations at Harvard by people who have never held a real job.
Kamis, 26 Januari 2012
Rabu, 25 Januari 2012
More Politics from Obama
The state of the union speech revealed a complete lack of interest in the absence of growth in the US economy on the part of the President. This means that lower income folks can expect their misery to continue as long as this President remains in office.
Instead the President launched a variety of attacks against his coffee-house enemies -- "the rich." As Buffett knows, apparently better than Obama, the tax rate is completely irrelevant to the truly wealthy. The truly wealthy can arrange things so that they have zero income for tax purposes, so who cares whether the tax rate is 30 percent or 100 percent. 30 percent of zero is zero. That's math that the President and his crew don't seem to understand.
But, it all sounds good I guess, to the uninformed. There is no question that this is class warfare and shows a President of the United States several shades to the left of the most socialist leaders in Europe. Whether Obama gets his way on all of this economic nonsense is yet to be seen.
The rich have nothing to fear from this President and they know it. That's why most of the truly wealthy support Obama now and will continue to support him throughout his political career. Those with modest incomes and those among the youth, the aged and the minorities, whose futures are blighted by the economic mess that the Administration has created, have little to look forward to.
America's economic stagnation will continue and it's dwindling world economic stature will continue with the kind of policies advocated by President Obama. Only free markets and capitalism can provide a rebirth to the American economy. Overbearing government will simply lead to more and more economic decline for what once was the most vibrant economy in the world.
Instead the President launched a variety of attacks against his coffee-house enemies -- "the rich." As Buffett knows, apparently better than Obama, the tax rate is completely irrelevant to the truly wealthy. The truly wealthy can arrange things so that they have zero income for tax purposes, so who cares whether the tax rate is 30 percent or 100 percent. 30 percent of zero is zero. That's math that the President and his crew don't seem to understand.
But, it all sounds good I guess, to the uninformed. There is no question that this is class warfare and shows a President of the United States several shades to the left of the most socialist leaders in Europe. Whether Obama gets his way on all of this economic nonsense is yet to be seen.
The rich have nothing to fear from this President and they know it. That's why most of the truly wealthy support Obama now and will continue to support him throughout his political career. Those with modest incomes and those among the youth, the aged and the minorities, whose futures are blighted by the economic mess that the Administration has created, have little to look forward to.
America's economic stagnation will continue and it's dwindling world economic stature will continue with the kind of policies advocated by President Obama. Only free markets and capitalism can provide a rebirth to the American economy. Overbearing government will simply lead to more and more economic decline for what once was the most vibrant economy in the world.
Selasa, 24 Januari 2012
Podesta Needs a Reality Check
The op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal co-authored by John Podesta, life long Democratic Party strategist, suggests that the "clean energy" industry is soon to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. That is so absurd as to be laughable.
One supposes that this article was trotted out to defend the indefensible -- the Obama decision not to give the go-ahead to the Keystone pipeline project that would have permitted the US to tap Canada as an oil source instead of Syria.
There is no "clean energy" industry out there, either in the US or China, that has any potential to reduce America's or anyone else' dependence on fossil fuels. To pretend that there is, is irresponsible.
Whatever there may or may not be to a "clean energy" industry is far into the distant future and will only come into existence when the free market wills it so. Governments will just continue to waste taxpayer money. Does anyone really think wasting money on the Solyndras of the world will be a substitute for entrepreneurship and the free market?
Podesta should be ashamed of this article.
One supposes that this article was trotted out to defend the indefensible -- the Obama decision not to give the go-ahead to the Keystone pipeline project that would have permitted the US to tap Canada as an oil source instead of Syria.
There is no "clean energy" industry out there, either in the US or China, that has any potential to reduce America's or anyone else' dependence on fossil fuels. To pretend that there is, is irresponsible.
Whatever there may or may not be to a "clean energy" industry is far into the distant future and will only come into existence when the free market wills it so. Governments will just continue to waste taxpayer money. Does anyone really think wasting money on the Solyndras of the world will be a substitute for entrepreneurship and the free market?
Podesta should be ashamed of this article.
Senin, 23 Januari 2012
Republicans In the Mud
It is hard to see either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich emerging with much of a claim to lead a major political party campaign after the absurd performance in Tampa tonight. Instead of discussing the economy and the important campaign issues, the main spotlight was on who was the biggest devil in the room. The President must have enjoyed this debate.
Minggu, 22 Januari 2012
State and Local Pension Reform
As everyone by now must know, state and local defined benefit pension funds are broke and are not sustainable in their present form. So, what should be done?
Most states are creating Rube Goldberg machines to "reform" their state pension systems. Virginia is a good example. The proposals by the McDonnell Administration recently unveiled have the potential to make a bad system even worse.
What should state pension funds look like?
If you lump defined benefit pension funds in with social security, it is easy to see the overall problem -- the absence of saving. Social security is a net dis-saver (that's really the meaning of the "social security trust fund") and defined benefit systems have the effect of encouraging state workers to dramatically reduce their personal savings because of the expectation of future benefits. The result is that the national savings rate plummets effectively to zero (except for the savings done by the wealthy and by the corporate sector).
If savings are negligible, then there are no assets to support retirees (or to support young folks either). That's the problem in the US. Our assets are declining (Mostly by being purchased by non-US entities). It is as if the squirrels quit gathering acorns to prepare for the winter. When the winter comes, there are no acorns. For a while, you might be able to borrow acorns from the squirrels down the road, but that will only postpone the inevitable disaster.
Retirement plans should be about accumulating savings. The rationale behind defined benefit plans was that states would do the accumulating (ditto with social security), but we know that didn't work. States, all of them, use various accounting tricks and political excuses to avoid providing the necessary accumulation of assets to support future retirees. Early retirees win, but later retirees have no hope of winning.
Here is what a state retirement system for employees should look like: Employees should be required to put away five percent of compensation. The state can kick in another 2 1/2 percent. The total 7 1/2 percent should be exempt from current taxation so that it would essentially be structured like an IRA. Individuals should not be permitted to withdraw anything until age 65. Period. Individuals should be permitted to invest the money however they choose.
On top of the 7 1/2 percent the state could provide a 1 for 3 match up to some maximum. For example, if the employee chooses they could save another three percent of income and the state would match that with an addition one percent contribution. Imagine that you capped this at 9 percent (with a 3 percent kick-in by the state). Adding it all up, an employee could potentially end up saving 7 1/2 plus 9 plus 3 for nearly 20 percent annual, tax-deferred saving.
Notice that system would cost the state, at most 5 1/2% (or a mere 2 1/2 % if no one opts to go for the match) of total payroll. The employee would end up with annual savings of between 7 1/2 percent and 19 1/2 percent depending upon how much they choose to take advantage of the "free-money" match).
People could then choose the lifestyle they want in retirement: minimal or maximal. The state could lock in its liability to current contributions. Unfunded liability would be impossible in this system.
Best of all, aggregate savings would increase without question. Thus, the acorns would be available when winter comes as opposed to the almost complete absence of acorns that the current system promises.
The only objection to this is the old and tired excuse that employees cannot competently invest their own money. TIAA-CREF is the largest pension fund in
America and the most successful. The employees choose their own investments in TIAA-CREF and I doubt that any participant has ever voiced any real complaint about this system. So, individual investing works, contrary to popular myth. People do learn.
A similar structure could be used for social security. Together these reforms would create adequate savings for comfortable retirements for all Americans and get government out of the "unfunded liability" business.
These are the reforms needed, not the half-baked measures that are currently under review.
Most states are creating Rube Goldberg machines to "reform" their state pension systems. Virginia is a good example. The proposals by the McDonnell Administration recently unveiled have the potential to make a bad system even worse.
What should state pension funds look like?
If you lump defined benefit pension funds in with social security, it is easy to see the overall problem -- the absence of saving. Social security is a net dis-saver (that's really the meaning of the "social security trust fund") and defined benefit systems have the effect of encouraging state workers to dramatically reduce their personal savings because of the expectation of future benefits. The result is that the national savings rate plummets effectively to zero (except for the savings done by the wealthy and by the corporate sector).
If savings are negligible, then there are no assets to support retirees (or to support young folks either). That's the problem in the US. Our assets are declining (Mostly by being purchased by non-US entities). It is as if the squirrels quit gathering acorns to prepare for the winter. When the winter comes, there are no acorns. For a while, you might be able to borrow acorns from the squirrels down the road, but that will only postpone the inevitable disaster.
Retirement plans should be about accumulating savings. The rationale behind defined benefit plans was that states would do the accumulating (ditto with social security), but we know that didn't work. States, all of them, use various accounting tricks and political excuses to avoid providing the necessary accumulation of assets to support future retirees. Early retirees win, but later retirees have no hope of winning.
Here is what a state retirement system for employees should look like: Employees should be required to put away five percent of compensation. The state can kick in another 2 1/2 percent. The total 7 1/2 percent should be exempt from current taxation so that it would essentially be structured like an IRA. Individuals should not be permitted to withdraw anything until age 65. Period. Individuals should be permitted to invest the money however they choose.
On top of the 7 1/2 percent the state could provide a 1 for 3 match up to some maximum. For example, if the employee chooses they could save another three percent of income and the state would match that with an addition one percent contribution. Imagine that you capped this at 9 percent (with a 3 percent kick-in by the state). Adding it all up, an employee could potentially end up saving 7 1/2 plus 9 plus 3 for nearly 20 percent annual, tax-deferred saving.
Notice that system would cost the state, at most 5 1/2% (or a mere 2 1/2 % if no one opts to go for the match) of total payroll. The employee would end up with annual savings of between 7 1/2 percent and 19 1/2 percent depending upon how much they choose to take advantage of the "free-money" match).
People could then choose the lifestyle they want in retirement: minimal or maximal. The state could lock in its liability to current contributions. Unfunded liability would be impossible in this system.
Best of all, aggregate savings would increase without question. Thus, the acorns would be available when winter comes as opposed to the almost complete absence of acorns that the current system promises.
The only objection to this is the old and tired excuse that employees cannot competently invest their own money. TIAA-CREF is the largest pension fund in
America and the most successful. The employees choose their own investments in TIAA-CREF and I doubt that any participant has ever voiced any real complaint about this system. So, individual investing works, contrary to popular myth. People do learn.
A similar structure could be used for social security. Together these reforms would create adequate savings for comfortable retirements for all Americans and get government out of the "unfunded liability" business.
These are the reforms needed, not the half-baked measures that are currently under review.
Selasa, 17 Januari 2012
Check Out Iceland
Faced with a banking system that was broke, Iceland simply let their major banks fail. This happened three years ago as the US and Western Europe were busily fashioning government rescue plans. No rescue plan for Iceland! Nope!
They just let them fail.
So, what happened? Did their civilization end? No. Iceland today is the one of the fastest growing countries on the globe. Business is booming, unemployment has cratered, and good times are back. This, in just three short years after Iceland let nature take its course. (A pattern very similar to what happened in Asia after the 1997 collapse of Asian financial institutions).
This story is laid out in detail in today's Washington Post in an article by Brady Dennis with the fetching title: "Could US and Europe Learn a Thing or Two from Iceland's Financial Collapse?"
All of those who say that the TARP and other government bailouts were essential should take note of what happened when governments stepped aside (which doesn't happen often, but it does happen occasionally). Take heed of the aftermath of the Asian crisis in 1997 and what happened in Iceland in the past three years.
Economic growth, prosperity and recovery are critically dependent upon government inaction. Activist policies just guarantee slow growth and massive economic dislocation. A generation of stagnation will be the reward for the US government activism in 2008 and 2009. Fortunately, for Iceland, they chose a rational road and are prospering mightily for their own government's inaction.
They just let them fail.
So, what happened? Did their civilization end? No. Iceland today is the one of the fastest growing countries on the globe. Business is booming, unemployment has cratered, and good times are back. This, in just three short years after Iceland let nature take its course. (A pattern very similar to what happened in Asia after the 1997 collapse of Asian financial institutions).
This story is laid out in detail in today's Washington Post in an article by Brady Dennis with the fetching title: "Could US and Europe Learn a Thing or Two from Iceland's Financial Collapse?"
All of those who say that the TARP and other government bailouts were essential should take note of what happened when governments stepped aside (which doesn't happen often, but it does happen occasionally). Take heed of the aftermath of the Asian crisis in 1997 and what happened in Iceland in the past three years.
Economic growth, prosperity and recovery are critically dependent upon government inaction. Activist policies just guarantee slow growth and massive economic dislocation. A generation of stagnation will be the reward for the US government activism in 2008 and 2009. Fortunately, for Iceland, they chose a rational road and are prospering mightily for their own government's inaction.
Romney Is The Only Adult in the Room
The debate in South Carolina last night revealed what everyone has long known and no one has been willing to say: Romney is the only truly viable candidate that the Republicans have. Gingrich and Perry have revealed themselves as attack dogs against capitalism, Santorum has a non-sensical tax plan that would create a distinction in tax law between manufacturing companies and all other companies, and Ron Paul is delightfully irrelevant. That leaves only Romney, who, admittedly from his resume, is Obama-lite.
It is interesting irony that in the day of the tea party, there is no real conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. Romney will be the Republican nominee. It is time for the other guys to admit reality and head home.
It is interesting irony that in the day of the tea party, there is no real conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. Romney will be the Republican nominee. It is time for the other guys to admit reality and head home.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)