France discourages Job Creation with a Short Workweek, Confiscatory Tax Rates and Banning Emails after 6 PM

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 12th, 2014

Week in Review

For socialism to work you need businesses to provide jobs.  Because without people working the government can’t have confiscatory tax rates to fund a massive socialist state.  You’ve got to have jobs.  Which confiscatory tax rates tend to discourage.  For business and rich investors don’t want to pay confiscatory tax rates.  François Hollande ran on a socialist platform in France.  Promising to raise taxes to bring down the deficit.  Which he did.  Raise taxes.  But it didn’t lower an unemployment rate stubbornly staying above 10%.

High taxes and a poor economy caused the socialists to lose elections.  So Hollande is putting together a tax-cutting package.  To reverse their electoral losses.  You’d think the socialists would have learned their lessons that the people want jobs.  And to have jobs you need a business-friendly environment.  Which something like this is not going to help (see France bans work e-mail after 6 p.m. by John Johnson, Newser, posted 4/11/2014 on USA Today).

France already has a 35-hour work week, and a new rule is designed to make sure that it doesn’t start shading toward 40 hours because of work-related e-mail.

The Guardian reports that the rule forbids workers from checking their phones or computers for work stuff after 6 p.m., and it forbids employers from pressuring them to do so.

The move apparently doesn’t affect all workers in France, but it does cover about 1 million workers in the tech industry — including French employees of Google and Facebook…

At Fox Business, a U.S. labor expert finds it hard to believe the IT industry can manage such a draconian shut-off time.

“There’s always something going wrong off the clock — when a computer goes down, it doesn’t go down between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.”

It’s yet another thing to discourage business.  Things happen after hours.  Can you imagine a business wanting to open themselves to that kind of liability?  Having someone in the company send out an email without checking the clock first?  Or someone working late into the evening to catch up on a project.  Sending out a bunch of emails so people could read them first thing in the morning.  If someone else is working late do they read this email?  Perhaps this person was waiting for this email and would like to address it that evening to reduce his or her workload the following day.  Would this worker have been pressured into reading the email knowing his or her boss would have appreciated the extra effort?

There’s a reason why General Motors (GM) went bankrupt.  Well, there are a few of them.  But one of them was costly workplace rules.  Such as only allowing an electrician to change a light bulb at a work station.  Even if the person at that workstation could have changed that bulb in a couple of minutes.  Instead of waiting an hour or so for skilled trades to come around to unscrew the burnt out lamp and screw in a new lamp.

These little workplace rules add up.  And though seemingly harmless when you look at them one at a time in the aggregate they increase the cost of business.  A lot.  Just ask GM.  Something businesses look at when they are considering the location of a new factory.  Whether to expand production at an existing factory.  Or whether to shut down a factory and move production out of the country to a more business-friendly environment.  Thus killing job creation.  Jobs the socialists need for people to have so they can pay confiscatory taxes on their earnings.

A business unfriendly environment will never lower the unemployment rate.  As the socialists in France have proven.  And left-leaning governments everywhere have proven.  Confiscatory tax rates do not attract businesses.  Or rich investors.  They discourage them.  And encourage them to take their money and invest it elsewhere.  And create jobs elsewhere.  In another country that is a little kinder to business.  And job creation.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Progressive and Regressive Taxes and Marginal Tax rates

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 6th, 2014

Economics 101

(Originally published July 9th, 2012)

The Beatles fled Britain to Escape a Confiscatory Top Marginal Tax Rate of 95%

George Harrison wrote Taxman.  The song appeared on the 1966 Beatles album Revolver.  It was an angry protest song.  For George Harrison was furious when he learned what exactly the progressive tax system was in Britain.  In the song the British taxman is laying down the tax law.

Let me tell you how it will be
There’s one for you, nineteen for me
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don’t take it all
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah I’m the taxman

That’s one for you, Mr. Harrison.  And nineteen for us.  The government.  Meaning that for every £20 the Beatles earned they got to keep only £1.  This is a 95% top marginal tax rate.  A supertax on the super rich imposed by Harold Wilson’s Labour government.  So if the Beatles earned £1 million because of their incredible talent and hard work touring in concert, working on new albums in the studio and making movies, of that £1 million they got to keep only about £50,000.  While the government got £950,000.  If they earned £10 million they got to keep about £500,000.  While the government got £9,500,000.  As you can see 5% is a very small percentage.  Which is why George Harrison got so angry.  The harder they worked the less of their earnings they were able to keep.

Is this fair?  George didn’t think so.  Nor did his fellow Beatles.  For they fled Britain.  Moved to another country.  Becoming tax exiles.  For they were little more than court minstrels.  Who the government forced to entertain them.  Earning a lot of money so they could take it away.  To help pay for an explosion in social spending Harold Wilson unleashed on Britain.  Socializing the UK like never before.  And all those social benefits required a lot of taxes.  Hence the progressive tax system.  And marginal tax rates.  Where the super rich, like the Beatles, paid confiscatory tax rates of 95%.

The Top Marginal Tax Rate was around 70% under President Carter and around 28% under President Reagan

As social spending took off in the Sixties and Seventies governments thought they could just increase tax rates to generate greater amounts of tax revenue.  For governments looked at the economy as being static.  That whatever they did would result in their desired outcome without influencing the behavior of those paying these higher tax rates.  But the economy is not static.  It’s dynamic.  And changes in the tax rates do influence taxpayer behavior.  Just ask the Beatles.  And every other tax exile escaping the confiscatory tax rates of their government.  Because of this dynamic behavior of the taxpayers excessively high tax rates rarely brings in the tax revenue governments expect them to.

Even when it comes to sin taxes government still believes that the economy is static.  Even though they publicly state that taxes on alcohol and tobacco are to dissuade people from consuming alcohol and tobacco.  (The U.S. funded children’s health care with cigarette taxes clearly showing the government did not believe these taxes would stop people from smoking).  Perhaps some in government look at sin taxes as a way to discourage harmful habits.  But the taxman sees something altogether different when they look at sin taxes.  Addiction.  Knowing that few people will give up these items no matter how much they tax them.  And that means tax revenue.  But unlike the progressive income tax this tax is a regressive tax.  Those who can least afford to pay higher taxes pay a higher percentage of their income to pay these taxes.  For sin taxes increase prices.  And higher prices make smaller paychecks buy less.  Leaving less money for groceries and other essentials.

Most income taxes, on the other hand, are progressive.  Your income is broken up into brackets.  The lowest bracket has the lowest income tax rate.  Often times the lowest income bracket pays no income taxes.  The next bracket up has a small income tax rate.  The next bracket up has a larger income tax rate.  And so on.  Until you get to the high income threshold.  Where all income at and above this rate has the highest income tax rate.  This top marginal tax rate was around 70% under President Carter.  Around 28% under President Reagan.  And 95% under Harold Wilson’s Labour government in Britain.  An exceptionally high rate that led to great efforts to avoid paying income taxes.  Or simply encouraged people to renounce their citizenship and move to a more tax-friendly country.

When the Critical Mass of People turn from Taxpayers to Benefit Recipients it will Herald the End of the Republic

Progressive taxes are supposed to be fair.  By transferring the tax burden onto those who can most afford to pay these taxes.  But the more progressive the tax rates are the less tax revenue they generate.  What typically happens is you have a growing amount of low-income earners paying no income taxes but consuming the lion’s share of government benefits.  The super rich shelter their higher incomes and pay far less in taxes than those high marginal tax rates call for.  They still pay a lot, paying the majority of income taxes.  But it’s still not enough.  So the middle class gets soaked, too.  They pay less than the rich but the tax bite out of their paychecks hurts a lot more than it does for the rich.  Because the middle class has to make sacrifices in their lives whenever their tax rates go up.

As social spending increases governments will use class warfare to increase taxes on the rich.  And they will redefine the rich to include parts of the middle class.  To make ‘the rich’ pay their ‘fair’ share.  And they will increase their tax rates.  But it won’t generate much tax revenue.  For no matter how much they tax the rich governments with high levels of spending on social programs all run deficits.  Because there just aren’t enough rich people to tax.  Which is why the government taxes everything under the sun to help pay for their excessive spending.

If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.

Don’t ask me what I want it for
If you don’t want to pay some more
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
And you’re working for no one but me.

This is where excessive government spending leads to.  Excessive taxation.  And confiscatory tax rates.  Taking as much from the wealth creators as possible to fund the welfare state.  And as progressive tax systems fail to generate the desired tax revenue they will turn to every other tax they can.  Until there is no more wealth to tax.  Or to confiscate.  When the wealth creators finally say enough is enough.  And refuse to create any more wealth for the government to tax or to confiscate.  Leaving the government unable to meet their spending obligations.  As the critical mass of people turn from taxpayers to benefit recipients.  Heralding the end of the republic.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The High Taxes of French Governing Socialists are driving French Tax Exiles to London

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

The Left says over and over again people aren’t going to move to escape high tax rates.  Well, as it turns out, they will.  The socialists recently took back the presidency of France.  Basically running on the platform of raising taxes to confiscatory rates.  Assuming that the rich will just smile and say, “Merci.  J’aime être taxés.  Il me fait sentir patriotique.  Vive la France.”  Which translates to “Thank you.  I like to be taxed.  It makes me feel patriotic.  Long live France.”  Which is how governing officials believe rich people should feel about paying higher taxes.  And get righteously peeved when they don’t.  Such as when Gérard Depardieu moved out of France, renounced his French citizenship and became a Russian citizen to avoid paying those confiscatory tax rates.  Becoming a tax exile.  And he wasn’t the only French national to leave France for more friendly tax shores.  As a net migration from Paris to London followed the socialists return to power in France (see Paris mayoral candidate Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet: I want to lure the French back from London posted 3/1/2013 on The Telegraph).

The French Right’s brightest hope to reclaim Paris after a dozen years of Socialist rule wants to woo back London’s burgeoning Gallic population by making the City of Light Europe’s cutting-edge, family-friendly “place to be”.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, 39, warned that Paris must reclaim its “historical role of leading the way” if it wants to stop the “gap widening” with London.

A third French lycée is due to open in London to cope with the rising demand from the city’s French population – estimated at 400,000 as a growing number flee the Socialist government’s tax rises.

This led Boris Johnson to exclaim: “Bienvenue à Londres. If your own president does not want the jobs, the opportunities and the economic growth that you generate, we do…”

After 10 years of Socialist rule in Paris, NKM hopes to seduce both the city’s conservatives and a chunk of “bobos” (bourgeois bohemians), pointing to Boris Johnson as proof that the Right can win major cities.

“I don’t buy the prevailing theory that capitals are becoming increasingly Left-wing,” she said…

Paris was not business-friendly enough, she claimed, as the city was “not an early adopter” in providing new solutions to help them develop.

So many French are becoming British that they had to open a third French school in London to handle the burgeoning Gallic population.  In fact, the British are welcoming the French invasion.  Any student of history will find the irony in that.  (Here’s a hint. The French and the British were at war with each other for much of their history.)  Swelling the French population in London to about 400,000.  Because of those high socialist tax rates.

Not only are they working and paying taxes in Britain now but they are also doing something else.  They are NOT paying taxes in France.  So raising tax rates in France did what?  It chased jobs out of the country.  As well as taxpayers.  Ultimately reducing tax revenue.  The exact opposite of the intended outcome of their new tax policy.  For when it comes to confiscatory tax rates people will not say, “Merci.  J’aime être taxés.  Il me fait sentir patriotique.  Vive la France.”  But, instead, they’ll simply say, “Au revoir.”

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT154: “If you have wealth these days you better act like a liberal on the outside of the voting booth even if you don’t on the inside.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 25th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Narcissistic Celebrities enjoy the Adoration but they still want the Obscene Wealth

Being rich.  It’s what everyone wants to be.  To be rich.  From the women that go to Hollywood to become rich actresses.  And the men who try to become rich actors.  To the musicians who try to make it big and become rich musicians.  It’s why people become a better athlete than anyone else.  To get a fat paycheck.  And endorsements.  So they can be rich.  And why women want to break the glass ceiling in corporations.  And get their face on the cover of Forbes.  So they can become richer.  Everyone wants to be rich.  For the expression is ‘rich and famous’.  Not just famous.  It’s the reason why ordinary people buy lotto tickets.  So they, too, can be rich.  For apparently being rich is where it’s at.  As everyone is trying to get there.

Being famous is one thing.  Having everyone know who they are and shower them with adoration is nice.  It’s why celebrities take to Twitter.  So everyone can read their pearls of wisdom.  For it strokes their narcissistic egos.  But they still want the Hollywood mansions, vacation homes throughout the country, the luxury cars, luxury yachts and the private jets.  In short they want to be able to afford anything that tickles their fancy.  So they can live lives better than the average schmuck out there.  They want to live like royalty.  And they want to be treated as royalty.

That said there is a war on the rich in the country.  The Democrats have demonized the so-called 1%.  Which would include all of the above.  In an effort to raise tax rates on those who can afford to pay more.  To make the 1% pay their ‘fair share’.  And the people are so in favor of this that they reelected President Obama.  So he can continue to right past wrongs.  And make the rich pay their fair share.  So they gather in support of their president.  With their torches and pitchforks.  Figuratively, of course.  And woe to anyone with a lot of money.

The First Rule about being Rich is Don’t Complain about your Taxes even if you pay Confiscatory Tax Rates

And they will do that right up until the day they come into money.  Then it’s, “Guess I didn’t hate the rich as much as I thought I did.  I mean, here I am.  I’m rich.  And I’m a pretty nice guy.  Nothing to hate here.  So let’s leave these good people alone.  At least, let’s leave me alone.  Put down those torches and pitchforks.  And let me enjoy my obscene wealth.  Because being filthy stinking rich is awesome.  My only regret is that I wasn’t filthy stinking rich sooner.”

Ah, yes, here’s the quandary.  How do I enjoy being everything that’s wrong with this country?  Being someone who is filthy stinking rich?  While not having people attack me for enjoying it?  For being filthy stinking rich?  How do I enjoy such great wealth inequality while being all for equality?  In theory at least.  Not in reality.  For equality is okay for the poor people.  But not for us filthy stinking rich actresses, actors, musicians and athletes.  I mean, one of the reasons of becoming so rich was to get away from the poor people.  Because who wants to live next door to one of them?

Well, first of all here’s what you don’t do.  You don’t complain about the taxes you pay.  Phil Mickelson (professional golfer) learned that lesson quickly.  After expressing a certain discontent that he can only keep about 37 cents of every dollar he earns he quickly issued an apology.  Because the sports media went ballistic when this rich guy complained.  So the first rule about being rich?  Don’t complain about your taxes.  Even if you pay confiscatory tax rates.  Because that will only invite people to get out the torches and pitchforks.  Figuratively, of course.

Celebrities are Openly Devout Liberals so they are Free to Enjoy their Filthy Stinking Wealth

That may be enough for some.  But if you want to be really rich as in filthy stinking rich you have to do more.  Not only do you NOT complain about your high tax rates you campaign to raise them even higher.  All while hiring some good tax accountants to figure out how not to pay your taxes.  Because you want to keep what’s yours.  Warren Buffet is one of the richest men in the world and yet no one picks on him.  Why?  Because he says we should raise taxes on rich people like him.  People like rich people that attack rich people.  So they will give this rich person a pass.  And reserve their hate for other rich people.

But if you really want to enjoy conspicuous levels of wealth you have to do more.  If you want to show off your mansions.  Your cars.  If you want to go to the finest restaurants and eat the finest foods.  Drink the finest wine.  The finest liquors.  Smoke the finest Cuban cigars.  Hang out with the most beautiful people in the world.  At the most beautiful resorts.  On the most beautiful yachts.  If you want to gamble at the big boy tables and get the red carpet treatment from the casinos.  If you really want to flaunt your wealth you have to do more than just support high tax rates.  You have to go all the way.  And be a liberal.  And support all the liberal causes.  And campaign for them in public.  Even campaign for liberal Democrats.  You do this and no one will attack you for your conspicuous displays of wealth.  Even while they’re attacking other rich people for their conspicuous displays of wealth.

So if you’ve ever wondered why so many rich actresses, actors, musicians and athletes are such devout liberals this is part of the reason why.  They just want to be left alone.  So they can enjoy their filthy stinking wealth.  And even though they’re richer than most we leave them alone.  Because they support liberal causes.  Even if they don’t believe in them.  Even if they’re Republicans.  Or closet-conservatives.  Even if they vote Republican once they enter the voting booth.  For as long as they act like a liberal on the outside of the voting booth people will leave them alone.  And they will be free to enjoy their filthy stinking wealth.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Multinationals choose to Pay their Income Taxes in Countries with less Confiscatory Tax Rates

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 2nd, 2012

Week in Review

Do tax rates matter?  Do businesses make decisions based on income tax rates?  Yes.  They do (see MPs call for tax crackdown on multinationals by Tom Bergin posted 12/3/2012 on Reuters).

A committee of MPs has called on government to crack down on multinational companies that make substantial sales in Britain but pay little tax here, echoing demands from leaders across Europe for measures to tackle corporate tax avoidance…

“Global companies with huge operations in the UK generating significant amounts of income are getting away with paying little or no corporation tax here. This is outrageous and an insult to British businesses and individuals who pay their fair share,” said Margaret Hodge, who chairs the PAC…

Amazon pays little income tax in the UK because it channels UK sales through Luxembourg, which offers some of the lowest effective tax rates in Europe…

The French government said last month that it was discussing new measures to tax internet companies such as Amazon and Google, which minimises its tax bill by booking sales through an Irish subsidiary.

These high tax rate countries look at these multinationals as tax cheats.  The domestic businesses look at them as getting an unfair tax advantage.  The multinationals simply choose to pay their income taxes in low-tax countries.  They’re not avoiding paying their income taxes.  They’re just paying them in countries with less confiscatory tax rates.

These countries aren’t getting away without paying any local taxes.  Most of these countries have a sales tax.  A VAT tax.  And other taxes and fees.  For every cup of coffee Starbucks sells a percentage of that sale goes to the state.  Just not as much as the state would like.  Who would prefer something closer to all of it.  But the more they raise their tax rates the less tax revenue they collect.  Because businesses and rich people avoid high-tax states.  And take their income to countries with less confiscatory tax rates.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Sixteenth Amendment, Revenue Act of 1913, Progressive Tax, Marginal Tax Rate, Tax Shelter, Tax Cuts and Decade of Greed

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 10th, 2012

History 101

Americans find Taxes Repugnant and have a Long History of Making this Repugnance Known

American independence began with a tax revolt.  The ratification of the U.S. Constitution happened only with safeguards against the new federal government from growing too powerful.  And great efforts went to limiting the amount of money it could spend.  For a long time all federal tax revenue came from import tariffs.  Then from sales of federal lands as the population moved west.  It took a civil war for us to impose an income tax.  Our first income tax was 3% on incomes over $800 (or about $20,000 today).  The first income tax was a flat tax.  They passed this income tax to pay for the war.  They repealed the income tax following the war.  Americans wouldn’t see another federal income tax until 1913 when we ratified the Sixteenth Amendment.  And President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Revenue Act of 1913.

Woodrow Wilson was a progressive.  The precursor to today’s liberals.  Who thought beyond the limited government of our Founding Fathers.  They wanted to expand government.  To make it a part of our everyday life.  Where the brilliant progressive politicians would make better decisions for us than we ever could.  And their changing of society included the funding of the federal government.  For their income tax was a progressive tax.  Everyone paid a flat tax of 1% on income of $3,000 or more.  About $66,100 today.  Then the progressive taxes came into play.   Adding another percentage to the income tax rate for increasing amounts of income.  The thresholds for these increases were as follows: $20,000 (roughly $440,400 today), $50,000 ($1,101,000 today), $75,000 ($1,651,600), $100,000 ($2,202,100), $250,000 ($5,505,300) and $500,000 ($11,010,700).  The top marginal tax rate on the super rich (earning $11,010,700) was 7%.

Our second income tax was quite controversial.  A lot of people hated it.  For Americans find taxes repugnant.  And have a long history of making this repugnance well known.  But thanks to the American Civil War a generation of men was lost.  And a generation of boys grew up without fathers.  Tended on by doting mothers.  Smothering them with love and affection.  And these boys grew up without knowing the manly hardships of life.  And they entered politics.  Becoming those early progressives.  Who wanted to change the government into a great doting mother.  And now they could.  For they had their income tax.

Few paid the Confiscatory Tax Rates of the Seventies by Hiding their Income in Tax Shelters

The rich paid our first federal income taxes after the Revenue Act of 1913.  And these were very small percentages we had them pay.  Back then the top marginal tax rate was lower than our lowest income tax rate today.  Think about that.  The richest of the rich paid only 7% of their income ($11,010,700 or more today) in federal income taxes.  While today single people earning the lowest bracket of taxable income (from $0 to $8,700) pay 10% of their income in federal income taxes.  Clearly the growth of government exploded thanks to the Sixteenth Amendment.  Much as our Founding Fathers feared it would if they had too much money to spend.

Of course, this is ancient history.  Few know about this today.  For few could even tell you why we fought for our independence.  Or even who we fought for our independence from.  (We fought for our independence from Great Britain because of their policies to tax us despite our having no representation in Parliament.  That’s where the phrase taxation without representation came from).  Today high taxes are sadly just an accepted part of life.  In fact, we have referred to our paychecks as take-home pay.  Our net pay.  Because gross pay is a myth.  No one sees their gross pay.  About a third or more of that disappears in withholding taxes.  So gross pay is a meaningless expression for us today.  (It wasn’t before the Sixteenth Amendment or before the progressives came to power).  Something that we sadly accept.  And we now fund our lives on the take-home pay the government allows us to keep.  All the while accepting these high tax rates.

Government spending took off in the Sixties and the Seventies.  As did our taxes.  If we had once thought that a 7% tax on incomes of $11,010,700 or more was an outrage, we didn’t see anything yet.  In 1978 the top marginal tax rate was 70% on incomes of $351,712 or more.  And there were 25 marginal tax rates.  As shown here adjusted for inflation (sources: Tax Rates, Tax Receipts, and Celebrity Incomes).

 In this example we calculated the average of some top celebrities.  And the top celebrities on average earned about $30,000,000 in 2010.  Using the 1978 tax brackets they would have owed $20,936,506 in federal income taxes.  Or approximately 69.8% of their total income.  Which is pretty much equal to the top marginal tax rate.  Of course, few paid these confiscatory tax rates.  They hid their income as best as they could in the Seventies.  In tax shelters.  And you know they did because despite these confiscatory tax rates the federal government still ran budget deficits.  Having to print money to pay for their explosion in government spending. 

The Low Tax Rates of the Eighties created so much Economic Activity the Opposition called it the Decade of Greed

The heyday of Keynesian economics was in the Seventies.  After Richard Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold the Keynesians were free to print money to stimulate the economy.  Which was their answer to ending a recession.  Stimulus spending.  Have the government print money to create economic activity that wasn’t happening in the private sector.  Their policy tool to end a recession was inflation.  By pouring money into the economy people would borrow it and buy cars and houses and furniture.  And everything else under the sun.  Creating a surge of economic activity.  And creating jobs in the process as businesses must hire new workers to meet that government stimulated demand.  With the dollar decoupled from the ‘cross of gold’ the Keynesians were finally able to prove their mettle.  And solve all the country’s economic problems.  It was the dawn of a brave new world.

And that world sucked.  For the implementation of Keynesian economic policy proved those policies did not work.  Instead of replacing high unemployment with inflation they just added high inflation to the high unemployment.  Something that was impossible to happen in Keynesian textbooks.  But it happened.  Stagnant economic activity.  And inflation.  What we called stagflation.  We added the unemployment rate to the inflation rate to come up with a new economic indicator.  The misery index.  The economy was so miserable during Jimmy Carter’s 4 years in office that he lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan.  Who was a proponent not of Keynesian economics but of the Austrian school.  Or supply side economics.   And the Austrians believed in low tax rates.  For low tax rates would stimulate economic activity.  And the greater amount of economic activity would generate a greater amount of tax revenue even at lower tax rates.  Let’s look at that same celebrity paying taxes a decade later under Ronald Reagan.

 Much simpler.  And more in keeping with the Founding Fathers.  Instead of paying 70% of their earnings in federal income taxes they will only pay 28% (again, equal to the top marginal tax rate.  Which is pretty much the only tax rate the rich pay).  That’s still a lot of money to give to the federal government.  But it’s so much smaller that in many cases it was cheaper and easier to pay Uncle Sam than trying to hide that income.  So economic activity took off in the Eighties.  It was so great that the opposition called it the Decade of Greed.  Out of sour grapes because their policies could never produce anything like it.  But what about tax revenue?  Those on the Left say this economic activity came at a price.  Exploding deficits.  Well, the deficits did grow.  But it wasn’t because of the cuts in the tax rates.

Higher Tax Rates do not Necessarily Increase Tax Revenue 

In 1978 total tax revenue was $1,113.6 billion.  In 1988 total tax revenue was $1,421.1 billion.  So Reagan’s cuts in the tax rates produced $307.5 billion more in tax revenue.  An increase of about 27.6%.  Dropping the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28% actually increased tax revenue.  So the cut in tax rates did not cause the deficits.  It wasn’t a revenue problem.  Revenue went up.  Spending just increased more.  And it was this excessive government spending that caused the deficits.  Not the tax cuts. 

The lesson here is that higher tax rates do not necessarily increase tax revenue.  Because changes in tax rates changes behavior.  Higher tax rates discourage people from investing in businesses.  They discourage businesses from expanding.  Or hiring new workers.  Higher tax rates may decrease the opportunity costs for hiding income.  The cost and inconvenience of hiding income in tax shelters and offshore accounts may become less that the cost of paying higher taxes.  Like it was during the Seventies.  Where despite confiscatory tax rates the government could not generate enough tax revenue to meet their spending obligations.

Income tax rates grew from a very small percentage on only the largest of incomes to high tax rates on very modest incomes.  And yet our deficits have never been larger.  Proving that our tax rates are either too high and dampen economic activity (as well as encouraging people to avoid paying their taxes).  Or that government spending has just grown too large.  More than likely it’s a combination of the two.  A fact that would shock and dismay the Founding Fathers were they alive to see what we did with the republic they gave us.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Progressive and Regressive Taxes and Marginal Tax rates

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 9th, 2012

Economics 101

The Beatles fled Britain to Escape a Confiscatory Top Marginal Tax Rate of 95%

George Harrison wrote Taxman.  The song appeared on the 1966 Beatles album Revolver.  It was an angry protest song.  For George Harrison was furious when he learned what exactly the progressive tax system was in Britain.  In the song the British taxman is laying down the tax law.

Let me tell you how it will be
There’s one for you, nineteen for me
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don’t take it all
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah I’m the taxman

That’s one for you, Mr. Harrison.  And nineteen for us.  The government.  Meaning that for every £20 the Beatles earned they got to keep only £1.  This is a 95% top marginal tax rate.  A supertax on the super rich imposed by Harold Wilson’s Labour government.  So if the Beatles earned £1 million because of their incredible talent and hard work touring in concert, working on new albums in the studio and making movies, of that £1 million they got to keep only about £50,000.  While the government got £950,000.  If they earned £10 million they got to keep about £500,000.  While the government got £9,500,000.  As you can see 5% is a very small percentage.  Which is why George Harrison got so angry.  The harder they worked the less of their earnings they were able to keep.

Is this fair?  George didn’t think so.  Nor did his fellow Beatles.  For they fled Britain.  Moved to another country.  Becoming tax exiles.  For they were little more than court minstrels.  Who the government forced to entertain them.  Earning a lot of money so they could take it away.  To help pay for an explosion in social spending Harold Wilson unleashed on Britain.  Socializing the UK like never before.  And all those social benefits required a lot of taxes.  Hence the progressive tax system.  And marginal tax rates.  Where the super rich, like the Beatles, paid confiscatory tax rates of 95%.

The Top Marginal Tax Rate was around 70% under President Carter and around 28% under President Reagan 

As social spending took off in the Sixties and Seventies governments thought they could just increase tax rates to generate greater amounts of tax revenue.  For governments looked at the economy as being static.  That whatever they did would result in their desired outcome without influencing the behavior of those paying these higher tax rates.  But the economy is not static.  It’s dynamic.  And changes in the tax rates do influence taxpayer behavior.  Just ask the Beatles.  And every other tax exile escaping the confiscatory tax rates of their government.  Because of this dynamic behavior of the taxpayers excessively high tax rates rarely brings in the tax revenue governments expect them to.

Even when it comes to sin taxes government still believes that the economy is static.  Even though they publicly state that taxes on alcohol and tobacco are to dissuade people from consuming alcohol and tobacco.  (The U.S. funded children’s health care with cigarette taxes clearly showing the government did not believe these taxes would stop people from smoking).  Perhaps some in government look at sin taxes as a way to discourage harmful habits.  But the taxman sees something altogether different when they look at sin taxes.  Addiction.  Knowing that few people will give up these items no matter how much they tax them.  And that means tax revenue.  But unlike the progressive income tax this tax is a regressive tax.  Those who can least afford to pay higher taxes pay a higher percentage of their income to pay these taxes.  For sin taxes increase prices.  And higher prices make smaller paychecks buy less.  Leaving less money for groceries and other essentials.

Most income taxes, on the other hand, are progressive.  Your income is broken up into brackets.  The lowest bracket has the lowest income tax rate.  Often times the lowest income bracket pays no income taxes.  The next bracket up has a small income tax rate.  The next bracket up has a larger income tax rate.  And so on.  Until you get to the high income threshold.  Where all income at and above this rate has the highest income tax rate.  This top marginal tax rate was around 70% under President Carter.  Around 28% under President Reagan.  And 95% under Harold Wilson’s Labour government in Britain.  An exceptionally high rate that led to great efforts to avoid paying income taxes.  Or simply encouraged people to renounce their citizenship and move to a more tax-friendly country.

When the Critical Mass of People turn from Taxpayers to Benefit Recipients it will Herald the End of the Republic

Progressive taxes are supposed to be fair.  By transferring the tax burden onto those who can most afford to pay these taxes.  But the more progressive the tax rates are the less tax revenue they generate.  What typically happens is you have a growing amount of low-income earners paying no income taxes but consuming the lion’s share of government benefits.  The super rich shelter their higher incomes and pay far less in taxes than those high marginal tax rates call for.  They still pay a lot, paying the majority of income taxes.  But it’s still not enough.  So the middle class gets soaked, too.  They pay less than the rich but the tax bite out of their paychecks hurts a lot more than it does for the rich.  Because the middle class has to make sacrifices in their lives whenever their tax rates go up. 

As social spending increases governments will use class warfare to increase taxes on the rich.  And they will redefine the rich to include parts of the middle class.  To make ‘the rich’ pay their ‘fair’ share.  And they will increase their tax rates.  But it won’t generate much tax revenue.  For no matter how much they tax the rich governments with high levels of spending on social programs all run deficits.  Because there just aren’t enough rich people to tax.  Which is why the government taxes everything under the sun to help pay for their excessive spending. 

If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.

Don’t ask me what I want it for
If you don’t want to pay some more
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
And you’re working for no one but me.

This is where excessive government spending leads to.  Excessive taxation.  And confiscatory tax rates.  Taking as much from the wealth creators as possible to fund the welfare state.  And as progressive tax systems fail to generate the desired tax revenue they will turn to every other tax they can.  Until there is no more wealth to tax.  Or to confiscate.  When the wealth creators finally say enough is enough.  And refuse to create any more wealth for the government to tax or to confiscate.  Leaving the government unable to meet their spending obligations.  As the critical mass of people turn from taxpayers to benefit recipients.  Heralding the end of the republic.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The French Socialists to Advance Policies that will drive the Wealth Creators out of France

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 1st, 2012

Week in Review

No one likes austerity.  Even the nations who agreed to it to join the Eurozone.  Back when they were joining they all said they would keep their deficits and debt within Eurozone requirements.  But after a prolonged recession few are willing to cut back on government spending.  In fact, in France, they’re going to increase government spending by beating up on the rich (see Adieu, la France posted 6/23/2012 on The Economist).

AFTER the French Socialists last came to power in 1981, under François Mitterrand, the new government went on a spree of nationalisations, taking over 36 banks and several industrial groups, before quietly abandoning the policy and even reprivatising a few firms. Small wonder that French bosses greeted François Hollande’s election as president with more than a frisson of foreboding. What would the Socialists do this time…?

Even before the parliamentary elections on June 17th, at which the Socialists won a majority of seats, rhetoric against factory closures had been mounting…

Michel Sapin, the labour minister, has promised to make it so expensive for companies to lay off workers that it will no longer be worth their while. Firms that fire people while still paying dividends may be penalised. Another planned ruse is to force companies to sell factories, presumably along with the brands manufactured there, to competitors rather than close them down…

[The Socialist] party’s most popular campaign promises was to tax incomes of more than €1m at a marginal rate of 75%. The likely consequences will be much less admired. Some big companies will leave France or move management abroad in order to shield their executives from the tax. That will lead them to invest and hire more overseas rather than at home. Already, top foreign executives no longer want to join French firms. A new extra tax on dividends has further angered the business world…

But the most important consequence of stratospheric taxes will be less visible, at least at first. Marc Simoncini is one of France’s best-known entrepreneurs—and one of the few business leaders to denounce the new measures publicly. Why, he recently asked, would anyone want to start a business, invest and succeed in the most taxed country in the world?

Tax is not the only threat to executive pay. Last week Pierre Moscovici, the finance minister, announced that pay for bosses of companies in which the French state holds the majority of shares will be capped at a flat rate of €450,000, or roughly 20 times the wage of the lowest-paid worker… In some cases it will lead to a 70% pay cut… Measures to limit pay at fully private firms are expected before long.

Most French business leaders don’t think that the government is deliberately targeting them. They reckon that its motives are purely political—and that the Socialists are simply not aware of the damage their plans will do (most ministers have hardly any experience of business).

Behold class warfare on a grand scale.  This is socialism.  This is what being ‘fair’ is.  This is egalitarianism.  Everyone is equal.  Except the rich and successful.  Who the state enslaves.  To serve the people.  By forcing these executives to continue to do what so few people can do.  Run these big corporations profitably.  But they won’t reward them for their unique talents.  No.  Instead, they’ll enslave them.  Force them to keep producing wealth.  To keep creating jobs.  But to do so for a paycheck that’s less than most sports stars, movie stars, singers, writers, reality stars, etc., get.  Because these executives don’t earn their pay like these people who contribute so much to the world’s economies.

The Socialists believe these rich executives don’t do anything worthy for their pay.  That these corporations run themselves and only create wealth because of the workers in the trenches.  These are the important people.  Of course if they don’t need these rich executives why not just fire them?  Let these corporations spontaneously produce wealth and create jobs?  Because even the Socialists know that these rich executives are the only ones who can run these corporations and produce the wealth they so want to confiscate.  And if they fired these rich executives and tried to run these corporations themselves there would be no wealth to confiscate.  Because they have no business experience.  And they would only run these companies into the ground.  Just like the Soviet state planners did in the Soviet Union.

How did they get here?  Their social democracies.  Cradle to grave state welfare.  The people like it.  They love the free stuff.  The problem is it’s free only to them.  Someone has to pay for it.  Primarily those who work for the rich executives.  And the rich executives themselves.  Via confiscatory tax rates on the wealth they create.  But as they drive out these wealth creators from the country what will they tax?  As populations age there are more people consuming government benefits than there are paying for them.  Which means they need to raise tax rates ever higher.  Going so far as to nationalizing businesses.  Eventually there comes a point where even class warfare won’t work anymore.  Because there just won’t be enough wealth left in the country to tax.

These policies are not likely to make things better in France.  It may feel good for a little while to punish the rich.  But punishing the rich won’t reduce your taxes.  Or improve the economy so you can advance into a better and higher paying job.  But it makes good politics.  Which is why these politicians can win elections.  In Europe.  And in the United States. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,