Tag: taxes

Categories
National politics

Politics vs Economics

I was interested in the idea of six economic policies that economists across the spectrum support and politicians across the spectrum oppose. It’s not that I am surprised that there are big ideas that make perfect sense from an economic perspective which are politically unpopular – after all, doing what has been deemed to be politically possible has led us to a dire economic position. Once I read the six policies I found my reactions to be interesting.

  1. Eliminate the mortgage tax deduction, which lets homeowners deduct the interest they pay on their mortgages. I have to admit that is one deduction that I have always wanted to keep but the fact is that it is not economically beneficial overall. The people who benefit the most are those who least need the deduction.
  2. End the tax deduction companies get for providing health-care to employees. This is one that I have long felt should be enacted. Many people are unaware of this deduction but I think if they understood how it works and what effect it has on our health care costs they could realize that it should be eliminated.
  3. Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. I can easily see why this one is politically unpopular but, like the deduction for providing health care for employees the net effect is to remove capital that would otherwise be used to create jobs or increase wages.
  4. Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. I can easily see why this is politically unpopular but the logic is the same as eliminating corporate taxes. I especially liked their explanation on this one: “Taxes discourage whatever you’re taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs.” For those who are squeamish about this they go on to encourage the creation of a progressive consumption tax to replace it – this isn’t simply a starve the government proposal.
  5. Tax carbon emissions. This is the first of their proposals that I am not sure I support. I recognize their justification for the policy but I’m not sold yet. This is really just a new version of a tobacco tax and I’m not sure that taxing tobacco has really accomplished what proponents might have hoped. Also, I consider that such a tax might distort the market in adverse ways that we have not yet considered.
  6. Legalize marijuana. I’m not a fan of the war on drugs but like the carbon tax I am not prepared to jump on board with this idea yet. I have heard the arguments and I recognize a certain amount of logic behind it but I am dragging my feet for now. I figure that to be intellectually consistent anyone pushing such a proposal should at least include taxing marijuana like we tax tobacco and like they are proposing to tax carbon.

So there they are. Six proposals and I really like at least four of them. The other two would take some convincing.

Categories
politics

Incentives to Get Off Welfare

Another spinoff from the discussion about Equality Under the Law clicked a switch in my brain. Nothing that Anti-PC Infidel says in his post should surprise anyone who has seen the discussion already, but for some reason the following statement made a connection to another issue that I have struggled to resolve for a long time:

This is often combined with the sin of destroying the recipients of {welfare} by encouraging them to be lazy and unproductive, irresponsible and greedy, by putting them on the dole.

I have long wished for some way to make it more difficult to vote for those who do not care to take the time to become informed. The thought struck me that we could make the right to vote contingent on paying at least as much in taxes as we receive in government handouts. This does not directly solve my original conundrum, but it would give incentive to those receiving welfare to find a way to become independent from government handouts if they desire to vote. Essentially, in addition to current requirements for voting, the payment of taxes equal to or in excess of any money received as welfare, food stamps, social security, unemployment benefits, rental assistance, etc. would give each person the right – like a shareholder – to vote in elections. This same rule should probably apply to board members of corporations that receive subsidies from the federal government as well.

I recognize that some will complain that such a plan would favor Republicans since poor people are statistically more likely to vote Democratic, but I would appreciate it if arguments for and against were framed in a way that was independent of party politics.

Categories
National politics

Federalist Nos. 11 – 12

Federalist Nos. 11 – 12 follow the same overarching argument that many of their predecessors followed. It can be boiled down to the truths concerning economies of scale. A larger union has great advantages over a smaller nation in many aspects of government. Number 12, which deals with government revenue, reminded me of a few issues related to taxes that I had not remembered and a few that I had never considered.

One of the things that has always been a pet peeve of mine is the incessant focus on the necessity of an ever expanding economy. I was reminded of why that would be when I read:

The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity (speed) with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury.

Money is only valuable because of the fact that it acts as a lubricant in the mechanisms of commerce. Because of our ever expanding demands for government services and intervention the government has an ever increasing need to generate more and more revenue through taxation and that is best done by faster and faster monetary circulation – although they are not above inserting more otherwise worthless paper into the system to increase their revenue when they feel it is necessary.

What I had never considered was the following:

It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation. Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty. . . . No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance. In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises.

It is that understanding about the difficulty of collecting direct taxes (such as income tax) that led our founders to codify in the constitution that the federal government should not have the power to levy an income tax. Indeed, reading that statement makes the FairTax proposal look all the more enticing since it rests on indirect taxation.

If anyone doubts the reality of the assertion that direct taxes are harder to collect consider the amount of money and time that Americans spend each year in tax preparation in an effort to pay as little income tax as they can and then combine that with the amount of money and time the IRS spends trying to ensure that nobody failed to pay their allotted share of income tax. Now compare that vast sum with the amount of time and money that people spend trying to avoid indirect taxes like a sales tax.

That explains why the only patriotic thing to do with our stimulus checks is to spend them the day we get them if not before.

Categories
National politics State

Messed Up and Out of Touch

Okay, so the “messed up” and “out of touch” refer to two different things, but I think they both point to the kind of systemic problems that exist in our political system. In response to a post about the Bush tax cuts an anonymous comment reveals this:

I made about $47,000 and I paid $1700 in taxes so I effectively made $45,300. If I had made $45,000 in your scenario I would have effectively made $47,400. So if I had made $2000 less I would have come out with $2100 more money in my pocket for the year.

I can vouch for the fact that this is true because last tax year I did make $45,000 and I got a huge return (everything I had paid in plus about $2400).

That’s what I call messed up.

Not long after I ran into that post I saw one from Kip Meacham that five days after sending in his perspective as a party delegate on the delegate email list policy of the Utah Republican Party he still has not received so much as an acknowledgment. This just reinforces the image that party leaders don’t feel the need to respond to regular citizens -or even grass-roots party members.

I can’t imagine a more effective way to be viewed as out of touch.

A messed up system is easy to find at many levels of both parties as well as the current party system as a whole. It is also too easy to find counter-intuitive (sometimes even destructive) practices being perpetrated at all levels of our government. The perception that the leaders of our parties and our elected representatives are out of touch with all but the most short-sighted needs of our nation is easy to maintain when everything they do is either because the party said so, or because the latest poll said so. We are almost devoid of principled leadership in the political arena.

Categories
politics

Block Grants

When I read The Coming Crisis of Big Government I gained a measure of hope that there might be some possibility left for averting the crisis of our soon-to-balloon costs for social security and Medicare. One of the central examples in the article relate to the use of block grants to restructure some of the programs.

Ferrara emphasizes the shocking success of the 1996 reforms of the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) welfare program. Based on concepts developed by my long-time friend and Reagan welfare guru, the late Robert Carleson, AFDC was “block granted” back to the states. This means the share of Federal spending on the program was sent back to each state to be used for a new welfare program designed by each state based upon required work for the able bodied.

The key is that the Federal block grant for each state is finite and does not vary depending on how much the state spends. If the state welfare program costs more the state must pay for the extra expense. If the state welfare program costs less then the state keeps the savings.

The required work for the able bodied has been powerful in moving people off the welfare rolls. But even more powerful have been the new incentives for state bureaucrats resulting from the finite block grants. Under the old system, where Federal funds were increased to match whatever the state spent, signing up new welfare recipients at the state level meant bringing more Federal funds to the state. But with the state itself paying for any extra expenses, or keeping any savings, state bureaucrats moved aggressively to get welfare recipients into jobs.

I agree that matching funds methods of financing federal programs only encourages program growth – the states have great incentive to stretch their budgets by putting everything they can think of toward 2 for 1 programs (for every state dollar they spend they have two dollars to spend because of federal matching – at least for 1 to 1 matching programs). The block grant method was apparently useful for welfare, but states are naturally going to balk at the idea of having their budgets limited when their needs feel unlimited.

I also wonder how well block grants will work with other programs such as transportation funding? Here in the Wasatch front we are keenly aware of the need for more funding for roads and transit. Would block grants encourage the state to spend their money on the best solutions, or would they simply shortchange our burgeoning needs?

So here’s the question – do you think that block grants are a widely applicable tool to control the growth of government spending, or do we need to come up with more tools in order to close the lid again on this Pandora’s box?

Categories
politics State

Proud To Pay My Share

I liked the sentiments expressed by Chad at UtahOpinions about paying a fair share for government. It’s easy to accuse those who advocate for smaller government of being stingy, selfish, or just not wanting to work for the best good of society, but many people feel like this:

Believe it or not I am proud to pay taxes to support our national interests (i.e. national security, immigration, roads, airports, etc.). But my pride ends there. . .

It is also a reminder to me why I joined the Republican party in the first place. As part of the Republican platform are these statements:

    • I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.
    • I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.
    • I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

Huh? You mean Republicans stand for these principles? Well, at least I know I do and I thought Republicans did.

Chad does a nice job of breaking down how much he’s paying in taxes for various government programs. Like Chad I’m proud to pay my fair share for government. I won’t go to any lengths to minimize my tax burden, I just take whatever deductions are simplest and that makes it easy for me to forget why most people find tax season such a headache – I do my taxes in a matter of two hours because I don’t do any financial contortions to reduce my tax burden.

That does not stop me from doing anything I can to remind my representatives that I’m looking for government to do as little for me as possible – I’d rather be responsible for my own success or failure without paying for a government safety net (with all it’s inflations of inefficiency) for everyone regardless of the legitimacy of their need.

Categories
culture National politics

Income vs Consumption

I found it fascinating to read You Are What You Spend to see how different the economic picture is depending on the way we measure economic position.

. . . renewed attention is being given to the gap between the haves and have-nots in America. Most of this debate, however, is focused on the wrong measurement of financial well-being.

It’s true that the share of national income going to the richest 20 percent of households rose . . . while, families in the lowest fifth saw their piece of the pie fall . . .

Income statistics, however, don’t tell the whole story of Americans’ living standards. Looking at a far more direct measure of American families’ economic status — household consumption — indicates that the gap between rich and poor is far less than most assume, and that the abstract, income-based way in which we measure the so-called poverty rate no longer applies to our society.

Comparing the richest 1/5 of society with the poorest 1/5 using different metrics leads to widely different conclusions on the gap between those two groups.

  • Income ratio – 15 : 1
  • Income per person – 8.2 : 1
  • Consumption ratio – 3.8 : 1
  • Consumption per person – 2.1 : 1

Simply adding in the per person statistic cuts the gap in half and moving from an income base to a consumption base (which largely indicates standard of living) makes the gap 1/4 of what it might appear on the surface.

I’d love to see how this has changed over time. We know that the income gap has increased, but I’ll bet that the statistics would show that the consumption gap has decreased between the top and bottom income groups over time. If I’m right, the reason for this is that we have taught the poorest 1/5 to spend what they don’t earn and we have ingrained the expectation that they should be able to do that into our government which has adopted the same policy for itself.

Categories
National politics State

Why We Need A Tax Debate

If anyone wonders why I think we need a tax debate here’s a good example. Congress passed their omnibus spending bill and today Senator Bennett announces that he got $290 Million for Utah in the bill. The assumption underlying his announcement is that any money he brings to the state from the federal government is a good thing.

Obviously if I leave near the Moab Atlas Mill Tailing site I’m happy for the $24 Million dollars. If I work at the Space Dynamics Lab in Logan (which I used to) then I’m pleased as punch that we got nearly $400,000. On the other hand I’m not excited about the golf course in Pennsylvania that the government paid for and the people of Pennsylvania are probably not too thrilled that they have to clean up the tailings mess in Moab so we can all complain that the government is wasting money. Besides that, when the $24 Million is gone will I be satisfied with the tailings cleanup myself?

We need to make federal spending more transparent and start to talk about what we believe is the proper place for government intervention – in other words, what things are appropriate to receive government funding Is government in charge of health care? defense? border security? my retirement? education? my transportation options? the cost of my groceries? what religion I practice (or get exposed to)? the speed of my internet access?

I think that anyone who says’s yes to all of the above, or no to all of the above is extreme.

Categories
National politics

A Tax Debate Would Be Wise

Apparently the New York Times would like to have a public debate about taxes. The editorial board expresses their despair that none of the presidential candidates talk about taxes. I think that they are completely right that such a debate is necessary. Beyond that it seems that there is hardly anything that we agree about on this subject. When they turn to discussing their views as opposed to the positions and rhetoric of the candidates they start by saying:

Still, going forward, competent governance, let alone achieving great things, will require more revenue, period.

I consider it to be a very safe bet that they mean that on an perpetual basis. As a proponent of fiscal responsibility I could be sold on the idea that we need more revenue for the time being (meaning the next few decades) to help us dig ourselves out of the financial pit we are in (as a result of our spending in the last few decades). But I think that part of the solution will have to include reducing the spending on some government programs this should include increased efficiency in such programs, but wisdom dictates that it also include a reduction in some programs or services.

The editorial board suggests three opportunities that we can address in the necessary tax debate. Of those three, only one really strikes me as a real opportunity rather than empty dialog:

  • To create a system that does not disproportionately favor investment income over income from work.

I think we agree that the idea that the Democrats gave lip-service to when they gained the majority of both houses of Congress – paying for new programs with reductions elsewhere or new taxes – is a nice idea. The problem is that it really makes little difference if they do that without also making sure that they are actually paying for existing services as well, rather than allowing for deficit spending where it already exists.

The bias of the New York Times is irrefutable when they make statements such as:

. . . the exorbitant cost of the flat tax would likely be paid by cutting Medicare, Social Security and other bedrock government services.

If Medicare and Social Security are “bedrock government services” then I wonder how our nation survived its first 150 years without those services. Though I may easily be accused of being willing to punish poor people for being poor by cutting these government programs, I promise that I would happily support any such program if we did not have debts in the Trillions and if Congress were not deficit spending to implement the programs. Though I believe that these programs are not necessary for government, I am not one to believe that government can never do any good with such programs. The problem I see is in allowing our federal government to use illusory tricks such as deficit spending that even state governments (let alone private individuals) are not allowed to do. The fact is that if a business operated like the government the leaders of that business would be prosecuted and jailed in a truly just society.

More difficult than tax reform itself may be the search for a candidate with the political courage to speak frankly to the American people about the nation’s budget problems and the leadership skills to solve them.

There is a candidate with the political courage to speak frankly about our budget problems – his name is Ron Paul. They might decide to argue that he lacks the leadership skills to solve the problem but nobody can credibly argue that he lacks the political courage to speak frankly about it. I think that this is a debate we should have. Perhaps the New York Times could start it by hosting a debate or forum in which they could invite Dr. Paul to participate. They could also invite David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, who is also anything but timid in speaking about this subject. They can invite whoever they want to defend their positions where they obviously differ from these two men, but with their influence the debate would be hard to ignore once they got the ball rolling. We might even get all the candidates talking about it like they should be.

Categories
National politics

The FairTax

I began to take a closer look at the FairTax proposal because Mike Huckabee (currently the most visible supporter of the FairTax) is rising quickly in the polls and also because I have had some co-workers ask my opinion on the proposal. My immediate answer was, “I want more details.” I read two articles on the same day, one for and one against the FairTax, that helped me to clarify my position.

From Responding to still more absurd attacks on the FairTax I gathered the following:

Lambro is right in asserting that some people actually spend all of their earnings just buying the basic necessities of life. What Lambro obviously doesn’t understand is that under the FairTax every single legal household in this country would receive a check (probably in the form of a credit to a charge account or a debit card) every month equal to the amount of the FairTax which that family would be expected to pay on those necessities during the ensuing month. By way of example, using current poverty statistics the “prebate” for a household of four people would be $506.00 per month. Add that $506.00 to the fact that no household will see anything deducted from their checks for income taxes or for Social Security or Medicare taxes … and you see a substantial rise in real income for the very families that Donald Lambro was so concerned about; the poor and middle income. The president’s own tax reform commission stated that the FairTax was the only tax reform plan out there that would completely untax the poor (at the federal level). How does that square with Lambro’s dire warnings on the effect of the FairTax?

That is what immediately sounds appealing about the FairTax. There would be no taxing people and then giving money back (vouchers, credits, or deductions) based on activities we decide to subsidize. I’m not sure how it works out that, “You don’t pay any more for your toilet paper and milk than you do now,” if the government is still taking the same amount of money and we are getting more in our paycheck. I guess they expect that your toilet paper and milk type necessities will only cost as much in taxes as the prebate you receive each month.
Huck’s Daft Tax Plan made these points:

To avoid the risk of getting both a national sales tax and an income tax, FairTaxers would have to repeal the 16th Amendment. Good luck. Huckabee’s magic wand will come in handy.

Then, there’s the rate of the sales tax. FairTaxers say that a 23 percent rate would be enough to replace current revenues. What they really are talking about is a tax of 30 cents on every dollar — what most people would consider a 30 percent rate. The government would pay the tax on all its purchases, a gimmick “done solely to make revenues under the FairTax seem larger than they really are,” writes economist Bruce Bartlett. Budget trickery aside, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the rate would have to go as high as 57 percent.

The tax would apply to everything, even medical expenses, so it would amount to an incredibly regressive tax on even the most necessary purchases of low- and middle-income taxpayers. The home mortgage deduction would be gone, and instead buyers would pay a 30 percent (at least) tax on their homes. To make up for this burden, the government would send monthly “prebate” checks to all Americans based on income. (And you thought our current tax scheme was complex?)

The addition of a sales tax and an income tax would be unwanted and I agree that repealing the 16th Amendment would not be easy, but if people were willing to pass the FairTax they would probably do so by setting income tax rates to 0% across the board. If the plan were successful for a few years I would think it would be easy to convince people to repeal the 16th Amendment.

The funny think about whatever rate the taxes would be set at is that the amount of money is not changing. If we are talking about replacing current revenues with the same level of revenue then whatever rate they establish is the same rate we are paying now, either by ourselves, or through increased costs for the goods we purchase. The only difference is who pays and when. The same holds true for the mortgage argument. If I am taxed at 30% on the interest of my mortgage payment that sounds bad, but right now I get taxed on my savings instead of my debt. The current system encourages debt. It appears that the FairTax would encourage savings (which would not be taxed). That seems to be a better system to me.

I like the idea of the FairTax, but I am under no illusions that it will make me wealthy overnight.