The U.S. Starting to Chase the Wealthy and Job Creators out of the Country like the French

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 13th, 2012

Week in Review

It’s just not the Socialist Hollande in France scaring the wealthy and job creators out of their country.  It’s happening in America, too (see Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin Joins Americans Renouncing Citizenship by Enjoli Francis posted 5/11/2012 on ABC News).

In 2011, billionaire Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin relinquished his U.S. citizenship and joined nearly 1,800 other Americans to do it last year — up from 235 in 2008…

Those in the expatriate community said that although Saverin’s move was likely a financial one — he paid an exit tax on the capital gains from his Facebook stock but the stock is now tax-free — they said expatriates who gave up their citizenship were driven by other factors.

Phil Hodgen, an international tax lawyer in Pasadena, Calif., said that since 2009, when more than 150 U.S. customers of Swiss banking giant UBS were investigated for alleged tax evasion, the IRS had been going after Americans abroad with foreign bank accounts with a vengeance.

He said that in the last three years, new and old rules had created an enormous amount of resentment — and paperwork expenses — for expatriates…

Peter Dunn, a popular blogger who gave up his U.S. citizenship, said the expatriates he spoke to were mostly standard middle-class U.S. citizens who were ready to retire or who had retired abroad. He said because of these “invasive” rules, they now feared substantial penalties from not reporting their finances correctly.

In an expanding welfare state your wealth isn’t yours.  It belongs to the people.  At least that’s the way governments look at it.  With ever expanding deficits and debt they’re trying to take as much wealth away from the wealthy as possible.  Despite the great things they create for us.  Such as Facebook.  For if it wasn’t for Saverin’s wealth he invested in Facebook we wouldn’t have it today.  But he believed in it.  And took a risk.  With his own money.  The way entrepreneurs do.  Something a lot of people do.  But few ever experience the success Saverin has.  And few will ever take these risks again if they are going to be hounded for the rest of their life by the tax authorities.

Of course those who want to tax the rich will look as these expatriates as the lowest of scoundrels.  Running away with their wealth instead of paying their ‘fair’ share of taxes.  Even though the amount in dollars they pay in one year is greater than most people will pay in taxes in a lifetime.  But these expatriates are the greedy ones.  For not letting us take all of their wealth. 

Of course should someone win the lotto it’ll be a different story.  For though we attack the rich we all want to be rich.  If not we wouldn’t be buying those lotto tickets, would we?  So, yeah, we hate the rich.  Right up until we become rich.  Then all this antagonism against the rich is just a silly misunderstanding.  And those taxes on the wealthy really are too high.  But until we become rich we’ll hate pretty much anyone who has more than us.  Be jealous of them.  And covet what they have.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Hollande’s Win in France sends a Message to the Wealthy and Job Creators – You are Not Welcomed Here

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 13th, 2012

Week in Review

The French elections are over.  Hollande is in.  Sarkozy is out.  As are the job creators.  The wealthy.  Who are looking to leave France with their talent and skills.  Because they got the message.  Hollande doesn’t like them.  And he’s coming after their wealth (see France Entrepreneurs Flee From Hollande Wealth Rejection by Anne-Sylvaine Chassany and Jacqueline Simmons posted 5/10/2012 on Bloomberg).

France, the fifth-richest country and home to some of the world’s wealthiest people, including LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA Chief Executive Officer Bernard Arnault, doesn’t celebrate its affluent. Hollande, a Socialist who once said “I don’t like the rich,” and who plans to slap a 75 percent tax on income of more than 1 million euros ($1.29 million), reinforces the sentiment that in France to be rich is not glorious…

Hollande’s rhetoric against wealth and finance is prompting some in France to consider leaving, and European rivals are welcoming them. “Bienvenue a Londres,” or welcome to London, Mayor Boris Johnson quipped in January. Switzerland and Belgium have been just as warm…

“Seen from abroad, France is the last country where an entrepreneur wants to go,” Marc Simoncini, the founder of French dating site Meetic.com, said in an interview on BFM TV yesterday. “I don’t know of any British person who’s come to set up a business in France. But I know plenty of young French people who’ve gone to London to do that…”

The attitude toward business and wealth creators is driving people away, said Diane Segalen, founder of Segalen & Associes, an executive search firm specializing in top management and board members.

Talent and skills will go where they are welcome, she said…

On the other side of the Channel, Conservative London Mayor Johnson laid out the welcome carpet.

“This is the global capital of finance,” he said. “It’s on your doorstep and if your own president does not want the jobs, the opportunities and the economic growth that you generate, we do.”

Here’s another reason for those who aren’t rich to hate those who are.  Because they won’t just sit there and take it.  These selfish bastards won’t stay in France and continue to use their talent and skill to make great wealth so the state can take it away from them.  You just can’t depend on the rich, can you?  Only those who aren’t rich are caring and decent.  With other people’s money, of course.  For if they won a fortune in a lottery they’d want to pack up their wealth and leave just like everyone else that has wealth.  Because it’s an entirely different picture when it’s YOUR wealth.  Taking wealth from others, why, that’s okay.  But it just isn’t fair to take YOUR wealth.

People need jobs.  And government needs people to have jobs.  So they can pay the taxes that fund their welfare state.  And to create jobs you need people with talent and skills.  To create wealth by investing wealth.  Because that’s the only way you can create jobs.  And tax revenue.  For only someone with a job can pay an income tax.  So it all starts with jobs.  You gotta have them.  And they just don’t spontaneously appear.  If they did France wouldn’t be in the economic mess they’re in requiring a 75% tax rate on millionaires.

This is the future of the welfare state.  High taxation that encourages all those with talent and skill to leave your country.  Leaving only those consuming the benefits of the welfare state.  Without anyone left to pay for it.  Which leads to more government borrowing.  Greater deficits.  Higher debt.  And, well, you can look to Greece to see where it goes from there.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Keynesian Economics and Job Creation just don’t go Together

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 12th, 2011

It’s Competition between Intel and AMD pushing Chip Technology to New Heights, not Government Investment

With Solyndra going belly up after that half billion dollar government investment people have been asking questions.  One of which is how government should invest into the private economy.  Well, here’s one example (see AMD’s Bulldozer Fails To Meet Expectations by Devin Coldewey posted 10/12/2011 on TechCrunch).

The Intel-AMD war has been going on a long time, and I hope it will be going on longer. The last few years have been hard on the underdog, however, with huge growth by Intel in both the low-power and high-performance sectors. The Core 2 Duos excelled, as did the Core i* series, and its most recent consumer series, the Sandy Bridge update to the i*s, is a monster. AMD has consistently lagged behind, though from the other side of the table you might say they’ve been nipping at Intel’s heels quite effectively for years…

Unfortunately, despite the new architecture and insane transistor count (the 8-core 8150 has around 2 billion), performance and efficiency per core just plain isn’t that good. There are a few tests on which Bulldozer takes on Sandy Bridge well, such as those truly optimized for high core counts, but on single-core tasks it gets destroyed.

In other words, government shouldn’t invest in the private economy.  Because, when they don’t, the private economy does very well.

Does any of that techno-speak make sense to you?  If you’re not in the hi-tech industry, or a kid, the answer is probably ‘no’.  But the beautiful thing is that we can enjoy the end product of putting 2 billion transistors on a chip.  That we can understand.  And that it is competition between Intel and AMD pushing chip technology to incredible new heights.  Not government investments.

Obama wants to Raise Taxes on Small Business Owners, the Number One Job Creators in the Country

The most successful companies out there making the things we all want and must have need help from government.  The kind of help only government can give.  That thing only government can do.  Cut tax rates (see Business groups push for business-friendly tax reform by Bernie Becker posted 10/12/2011 on The Hill).

The National Federation of Independent Business, the Independent Community Bankers of America and more than 40 other groups are calling on key policymakers to tackle both the individual and the corporate tax codes together and to end double taxation on corporations.

“By embracing these broad concepts, Congress can move the taxation of business income in a direction that helps ensure that all employers, regardless of how they are organized, continue to invest and create jobs here in America,” the groups wrote to the top Democrat and Republican on both the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means panels.

The Left keep saying businesses don’t object to high taxes and costly regulations.  The Keynesian economists like to cite poll after poll that business owners’ only concern is the lack of demand.  And then interpreting that as meaning that they want government to invest and stimulate the private economy.  But these businesses are saying otherwise.  They’re saying it is the high taxes.

The Obama administration also has, so far at least, spent more time pushing for corporate tax reform, while Republicans like Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, want a more comprehensive approach.

Camp has taken that stance in large part because many small businesses, called pass-through entities, pay their taxes through the individual code and would be left behind in any corporate-only reform.

And it’s worse than that.  Obama wants to raise taxes on these ‘pass-through’ entities.  To make them pay their ‘fair share’.  Those so called rich people earning $250,000 or more.  These small business owners whose business incomes ‘pass through’ to their private tax returns.  These same people that have risked everything they own to create a business.  And create jobs.  Who are, in fact, the number one job creators in the country.  But many fail.  And lose everything.  These are the rich people that Obama wants to raise the tax rates on.

Public School Education is Bad because Dumbing Down of our Kids is Necessary to Fool our Young Voters

Which calls into question the bedrock of all their policy.  Tax and spend Keynesian economics (see SCHOLAR COMMENTARY by Matthew Mitchell posted 10/10/2011 on Mercatus Center).

Sargent and Sims’s work is particularly relevant today as it explains the way that peoples’ expectations of the future can impact their current behavior. This is reflected in every economics story today that uses the phrase “policy uncertainty.”

Their work came along at a time when Keynesian economic models were facing challenges: There were theoretical challenges by economists like Milton Friedman and Robert Lucas, both of whom have previously won Nobel Prizes, but there were also empirical challenges. Keynesian economics didn’t seem to make much sense of the 1970s when the economy experienced high unemployment and high inflation, whereas it had worked pretty well in explaining macroeconomic trends in the 1960s.

The problem with the faux science Keynesian economics (a social science not a real science) is that it tries to quantify human behavior.  Which is something many people believe we can’t do.  Those in the Austrian school of economics.  Ronald ReaganMargaret Thatcher.  And most economists not wedded to their governments.

The 1970s were the heyday of Keynesian economics.  Even Republican Richard Nixon adopted Keynesian policy and declared he was a Keynesian, too.  Then Jimmy Carter continued many of these same policies.  And how did that work?  You can ask Jimmy Carter.  Who lost to Ronald Reagan in a landslide.  By asking a simple question during a presidential debate.  Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Part of these failures had to do with the fact that these earlier Keynesian models relied on people’s naiveté. They worked so long as people could be fooled by government. For example, government-induced inflation might boost the economy if enough producers are fooled into thinking that higher prices are the result of increased demand for their products. Sargent’s work explains how people’s beliefs about the future impact their behavior. He found that if you make modest assumptions about peoples’ ability to understand how policy will affect their future, Keynesian policy prescriptions like short-term fiscal or monetary stimulus don’t work very well.

And there’s your answer to why the quality of our public school education is lagging other countries.  It’s not the money.  It’s the curriculum.  And the dumbing down of our kids.  So government can fool them.  To make them believe bad economic policies are good.  So these young voters keep voting for them.  Which is important to them.  Because once people wise up, they lose their votes.

As Long as there is a Democrat Politician Somewhere there will be a Vote to Buy

The best government policy for investing in the private sector is no policy.  Successful companies don’t need help.  They just need to be left alone.  So they can do what they do best.  Create great things.  And jobs.

Higher taxes do not create jobs.  They destroys jobs.  At least according to those who create jobs.

And the tax and spend Keynesian myth of active government participation has been debunked once again.  By real economists.  This time by the Nobel in Economics winners.  Sargent and Sims.  Thus proving once again that you can’t quantify human behavior.  And that people consider more than the interest rate before spending their money.

So you’d think this would put an end to any further stimulus spending.  But no.  Because stimulus spending isn’t about stimulus.  It’s about getting votes.  And as long as there is a Democrat politician somewhere there will be a vote to buy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Occupy Wall Street Protesters don’t want Fairness, They want Privilege

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 9th, 2011

People who hate Capitalism hate America

Those on the Left keep trying to paint these Wall Street protesters as the Left’s version of the Tea Party.  Only better because they are standing up to corporate greed.  But when you step back and look at the broader picture you see some interesting things.  For one, our enemies abroad hate the Tea Party.  And love these Wall Street protestors (see Iran calls Wall Street protests ‘American Spring’ posted 10/9/2011 on The Associated Press).

An Iranian military commander said Sunday that the protests spreading from New York’s Wall Street to other U.S. cities are the beginning of an “American Spring,” likening them to the uprisings that toppled Arab autocrats in the Middle East.

Gen. Masoud Jazayeri of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said the protests against corporate greed and the gap between rich and poor are a revolution in the making that will topple what he called the Western capitalist system.

So the Occupy Wall Street people have the support of Nancy Pelosi, Hugo Chavez and this guy.  This Iranian general.  Who hates America.  And would love nothing better than to see its collapse.  There’s a lesson here.  People who hate capitalism hate America.

What strange bedfellows.  Pelosi.  Chavez.  And this Iranian general.

Class Warfare Works because Gullible People are Fed with Misinformation to Produce a Withering, Festering Hate

But they don’t see that.  These Occupy Wall Street people.  All they keep hearing is how the rich are screwing them.  And business owners are getting rich by underpaying them.  Because many of them think gross sales are also net profits.  They’re not.  And have no idea of what it costs to run a business (see Small Business, Occupy Wall Street Is Aimed at You! by T. Scott Gross posted 10/9/2011 on Forbes).

Small business owners, this protest is about money—yours. And if you want to bring a semblance of sanity to the discussion, you had better start showing the money…

So I say you had better show them the money. Gather your employees. Take a handful of coins that add up to a dollar. Swipe away your cost of goods. Take out payroll and then payroll taxes. Follow with utilities, cost of capital, training, advertising, maintenance, insurance, and the rest until you have accounted for all the overhead, leaving those few lonesome pennies of profit that you have risked everything to make.

Been there.  Done that.  The problem is they won’t believe you.  Because they’ve been so brainwashed to believe you are lying when it comes to the money.  Say all you want but someone is telling them, “Sure, they say that, but look at the car your boss drives.  The house your boss lives in.  Are they better than yours?  You bet they are.  And you know why?  Because they’re screwing you.  That’s why.”

This is why class warfare works so well.  You have people who don’t know any better.  Being fed with misinformation to produce a withering, festering hate.  Which is how people like Nancy Pelosi, Hugo Chavez and this Iranian general rise to power.  By exploiting the gullible masses.

The Obama Administration wants us to Hate People Making $250,000 or More

This kind of hate makes it easy to tax the rich.  Which is a very popular sentiment these days.  Because everyone hates the rich.  Especially those who don’t make the rich cut (see Democrats aim to tax the rich — but who are they? by Kathleen Hennessey posted 10/8/2011 on the Los Angeles Times).

President Obama and Democrats in Congress have aligned on a populist, “tax the rich” strategy for the 2012 campaign. Now they have to figure out exactly who that is…

Obama and his fellow Democrats for years have described the wealthy as couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 — 3% of U.S. households. By shifting away from that number in hopes of benefiting from the sound-bite punch of a millionaires tax, the administration may find it difficult to return to casting the broader net…

Obama’s threshold was based on broad principles, including the desire to leave the middle class untouched by higher taxes while collecting “enough” tax revenue, Bernstein said, although even he quibbles with the president’s cutoff and suggests that a broader tax increase may be needed in the future.

Going in the other direction — aiming for incomes of $1-million-plus — would yield far too little revenue to fund “a recognizable government,” Bernstein said. While the Democrats’ surtax proposal may make sense to pay for a jobs bill, “it’s actually quite important that $1 million does not become the new $250,000 when it comes to the permanent tax base,” he added.

Well, that complicates things.  Who’s rich?  People earning $1 million or more?  Or people making more $250,000 or more?  Who exactly are we to hate?

The Obama administration wants us to hate people making $250,000 or more.  Because there are a lot more of them than millionaires.  So that’s a lot more money they can spend.  But it’s also a lot of people to piss off by raising their taxes.  And with an election year coming up that’s the last thing those up for reelection in Congress want to do.

But if they only settle for $1 million now will that mean it will be harder to hate those making between $250,000 and $1 million later?  Oh me oh my.  Just who to hate?  As you can see this is quite the quandary for the hate monger.

Stimulus is Temporary whereas Tax Cuts and Deregulation are Forever

But there is a bigger issue at play.  You see, the problem with hating those earning between $250,000 and $1 million is that this income range includes our small business owners.  The job creators.  Who tend to not create jobs when things bother them.  Such as people waving their pitchforks at them crying, “Tax!  Tax!  Tax!” (see Poor Sales by Russ Roberts posted 10/9/2011 on Cafe Hayek).

Finally, I would note that while the survey that Invictus cites does indeed list “Poor Sales” as the single most important problem (25% in the September survey (scroll down to “Single Most Important Problem), taxes are listed as the single most important problem by 18% and government regulations and red tape is listed by 19%. So the two combine to 37%. They also happen to be two factors that government can actually control.

The Keynesians look at this and say we need more stimulus.   But if they’re saying this after that $800 billion stimulus in 2009 you can have but one conclusion.  Stimulus doesn’t work.  A big reason for this is that stimulus is temporary.  Like pain.  Whereas tax cuts and deregulation are like pride.  They’re forever.

Sales are complicated.  A lot of things influence people before they depart with their hard-earned money.  And there’s not a lot government can do about that.  But there’s a lot they can do about taxes and regulations.  And they do.  Unfortunately, they always choose to do the wrong thing.

The Occupy Wall Street People are Angry at Capitalism because they weren’t Born into Privilege

There are a few kinds of people in the world.  The informed.  Such as Tea Party People.  Who cite law and tradition in at their Tea Party events.  And the uninformed.  Such as the Occupy Wall Street People.  Who are an angry mob.  Angry at capitalism because they weren’t born into privilege.

And then you have people who love America.  And those who hate America.  Such as Iran.  And Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.  Enemies of freedom.  And democracy.  Who have come out to support the Wall Street protestors.  There’s another lesson here.   Actually, it’s the same lesson as before.  People who hate capitalism hate America.

Here’s a solution to solve their unhappiness.  Let’s ask these protesters which country is better than America.  Whatever nation that is we’ll generously pay for their one way airfare there.  Problem solved.  Everyone happy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #85: “The rich pay more than their fair share of income taxes to provide tax relief for the poor and middle class.” –Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 27th, 2011

The ‘Rich’ Obama wants to Tax more already Pays the Majority of all Federal Income Taxes

Some people complain that too much wealth is concentrated in too few hands.  And they say that isn’t fair.  But you know what else is concentrated into too few hands?  Federal income taxes.  That is, who pays these taxes.  The top 10 percent of income earners pay about 70% of the taxes.  That doesn’t sound fair.  This 10% paying 70% of the tax bill.  While 90% only pays 30% of the tax bill.  No, this isn’t fair.  But that’s okay.  At least that’s what the 90% think.  I mean, we don’t hear them demanding to pay their fair share of federal income taxes, do we?

Let’s look at some of the numbers.  From 2008 tax returns (see Table 2.  Returns with Modified Taxable Income [1]: Tax Generated, by Rate).

The first thing that jumps out at you is that the poor pay no income taxes.  Only the middle class and rich do.  The biggest income groups of taxpayers are those earning from $100,000 to $200,000.  And from $200,000 to $500,000.

Are these factory workers?  No.  Are these construction workers?  No.  These aren’t blue collar jobs.  These are white collar jobs.  And small business owners.  Currently in the crosshairs of the Obama administration.  Those ‘rich’ people who aren’t paying their fair share of taxes.  People who in fact pay the majority of all federal income taxes.

Those who don’t Pay Income Taxes are Dictating Tax Policy on those who Do

So why is president Obama so vilifying these most generous ‘rich’ people?  Because it’s the largest group of ‘rich’ people whose taxes he can raise.  From the same data let’s take a look at the distribution of income earners.  By looking at the number of actual tax returns filed by each group.

Interesting.  The distribution has shifted down to the lower income groups.  There are very few people earning $1 million or more and yet they pay a substantial amount of the total federal income tax.  While there are a great number of people earning less than $50 thousand who pay little to no federal income tax.

There’s another way to look at these numbers.  One person one vote.  Despite the amount of money you earn.  And the amount of taxes you pay.  Or the lack of taxes you pay.  So in essence what we have is those who don’t pay income taxes dictating tax policy on those who do.  Hence the appeal of class warfare.  Tax the rich?  Raise tax rates on high earners?  A millionaire’s tax?  Absolutely.  As long as I remain in the near 50% of those people who pay no income taxes.

Small Business Owners Earn a lot because they’re both CEO and Investor

There’s yet another way to look at these numbers.  With 70% of all taxes paid by those earning $100,000 or more let’s focus on these people.  We’ve summarized this data here (Taxable Income and Income Tax Generated are in thousands of dollars):

The sweet spot of tax revenue are the people earning from $100,000 to $200,000.  Who pay an effective tax rate of 17.91%.  And a good chunk of these are small business owners.  Who have S corporations.  Where their earnings pass directly to their private income tax return.  That’s why they earn so much.  Because they’re both CEO.  And equity investor.  But they don’t use those retained earnings to live an extravagant lifestyle.  No.  Instead, they use them to grow their business.  And create jobs.

Raising the tax rate on those retained earnings will not help grow these businesses.  In fact, it will prevent these businesses from growing.  And you don’t want to do that.  Because not only do these small business owners pay as much in federal income taxes as all the millionaires do.  They also create the majority of jobs in the American economy.

If you want Tax Policy that will Raise Tax Revenue don’t Raise Tax Rates on Job Creators

Is the purpose of tax policy to raise tax revenue?  Or politics?  When about half of the people pay no income taxes there is definitely a political aspect in taxing the rich.  But exploiting the political capital in the tax code defeats the purpose of the tax code.  Raising taxes.  Let’s look at a simple example.

Everyone agrees that lowering taxes helps businesses more than raising taxes.  That’s why even President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts to prevent a double-dip recession.  So let’s look at some numbers.  Let’s say we make it more business friendly out there.  Cut back on some onerous regulations that cost businesses.  Such as repealing Obamacare. Or some other costly legislation(s).  Not cutting taxes mind you.  Just cutting the costs on the job creators.

If we do this business-friendly deregulation let’s assume businesses respond.  They do well and grow.  And these small business owners earn more income.  So much that about 20% of them move up from the $100,000 to $200,000 income group to the $200,000 to $500,000 income group.  This group pays an effective tax rate of 23.3%.  Federal income taxes would increase approximately $100 billion with this growth in income.  Or an increase of 23.3%.  And that’s without cutting taxes.  Imagine what they could do if did cut taxes.

If you want good tax policy.  If you want tax policy that will raise tax revenue.  Don’t raise tax rates on job creators.  Instead, cut their costs.  Cut the cost of job creation.  Then watch the jobs they’ll create.  And the tax revenue they’ll pay.  Both the small business owners.  And their new employees.

 www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Obama Delivers his $447 Billion Political Stimulus Plan to Congress

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 12th, 2011

Had the $800 Billion Stimulus worked we wouldn’t need the $447 Billion Stimulus

We have a plan. Rather, Congress does. President Obama delivered it today. And he reiterated that they must pass it now. That there was no time for political games. Like he was doing. Saying basically that if the Republicans don’t pass it they don’t want to help the economy. And, by extension, they hate the American people. For only those who hate the American people could deny them jobs (see Obama urges no “political games” on jobs plan by Laura MacInnis and Matt Spetalnick posted 9/12/2011 on Reuters).

President Barack Obama called on Republicans not to play “political games” with his jobs plan as he pressed for swift passage of a $447 billion package he hopes will revive the U.S. economy and boost his re-election prospects…

He took aim at Republicans who have resisted many of his economic initiatives in the past.

“We can’t afford these same political games, not now,” Obama said.

Economic initiatives in the past? Like that $800 billion stimulus? You know, if that had worked we would not need another stimulus. But we apparently need another stimulus. So the previous stimulus must have failed. And, if so, why would this stimulus be any different?

It would appear that the only one playing a game now is the president.

Stimulus Sleight of Hand: Taking from the Private Sector to Stimulate the Private Sector

So let’s take a look at what the president calls stimulus. First of all, where is that $447 billion going to come from (see Obama proposes tax hikes on wealthy to pay for $447B jobs bill by Sam Youngman posted 9/12/2011 on The Hill)?

The White House said Monday that President Obama wants to pay for his $447 billion jobs bill by raising taxes on the wealthy and business.

Oh. He’s going to pay for his jobs bill by raising taxes on the job creators. I mean, let’s face it, poor people don’t create jobs. Rich people do. And businesses. And why aren’t they creating them now? They have no idea what cost this administration is going to levy on them next. Like a tax hike to pay for another stimulus bill.

The stimulus will be temporary. But you can bet those tax hikes won’t be. They’ll be permanent. And a disincentive for rich people and business owners alike to risk their money to create jobs.

The administration would tax the income investment fund managers make, known as “carried interest,” as regular income instead of as capital gains, which has a low 15 percent tax rate. This is another long-standing administration goal that has been resisted by Wall Street as well as some Democrats.

The administration estimates the capital gains change would provide $18 billion in revenue.

In other words, he wants to chase what investment capital we have out of the country.

A lot of people lose money in the stock market. Because it’s risky. It’s like gambling. Where there is no such thing as a sure thing. So those who take big risks often lose big. Even Donald Trump has filed for bankruptcy protection a couple of times. That’s why when they do win they need to win big. To cover all of those times they don’t win. But when you raise the tax rate on those winnings from 15% to 33% (the current top marginal income tax rate), it’s going to make investors think twice. That’s an increase of 120%. They may not just whistle a happy tune and pay it. You see, the funny thing about capital, it’s mobile. You can move it. And park it.

European investors are parking their money in U.S. banks at a negative interest rate while they wait out the European sovereign debt crisis. American investors can just as easily move their money out of the country. And wait for a more favorable investment climate before returning. Which won’t create jobs. Or provide tax revenue.

Another $3 billion would come from changing the way corporate jets depreciate. With a few other revenue raises, Lew indicated the total measures proposed by the administration would bring in $467 billion, $20 billion more than the cost of Obama’s jobs bill.

What is it with him and corporate jets? He sure hates those corporate jets.

So he will pull a half trillion dollars out of the private sector. So he can inject it back into the private sector. Less a small handling fee. And the usual gifts to his political cronies. Resulting in more debt. And very little stimulus. If any.

This is less stimulus. And more political sleight of hand. Taking from the private sector to stimulate the private sector.

The White House dug in on its refusal to say how many jobs the package would create, pointing instead to an estimate from Moody’s that said the bill would create about 1.9 million jobs.

Lew noted that he was not a part of Obama’s economic team when NEC director Christina Roemer and Vice President Biden’s former chief economist Jared Bernstein said that the original stimulus package would reduce unemployment to below 8 percent.

After months of being reminded by Republicans that the recovery act did not cut unemployment, which is now at about 9 percent, Lew said he thinks it is “dangerous to ever predict unemployment rates.”

If Moody’s prediction is accurate, that’s $ 235,263.16 per job. It would be cheaper just to give $30,000 to 1.9 million people. That would only cost $57 billion. And it would probably stimulate more. Of course, they won’t do that. Because that wouldn’t reward any political cronies.

And there’s a good reason why they’re not making any predictions. Because they know this stuff doesn’t work. They only made the unemployment rate prediction because they thought the economy would have fixed itself in short time. It usually does. That’s why they were in such a rush to pass it. They had to pass it before the economy recovered. They had no idea how bad things were. Or how their policies would make things worse. Because they have no idea of how the economy works.

And isn’t the refusal to make unemployment predictions an admission that they have no faith in what they’re doing? Vis-à-vis the economy, that is. For they have full faith and confidence in the political effects. They can predict the campaign donations this will generate. And the likely votes. But they won’t make these predictions public. For it will be admitting the truth of this political stimulus.

Stimulus that Works: Cutting Costs for Business

But someone knows how to create jobs. Not by putting more money into workers’ pockets. But buy cutting a business’ costs (see Detroit Sets Its Future on a Foundation of Two-Tier Wages by Bill Vlasic posted 9/12/2011 on The New York Times).

The newest Chrysler workers earn about $14 an hour, compared with double that amount for longtime employees on the same shift. With the economy slumping and job creation once again a pressing issue in the White House and Congress, the advent of a two-tier wage system in Detroit is spiking employment for one of the country’s most important manufacturing industries…

What was once seen as a desperate move to prop up the struggling auto industry is now considered an integral part of its future. The demand for $14-an-hour manufacturing jobs is providing Detroit’s Big Three automakers with a ready pool of eager new employees. Last year, Chrysler was flooded with inquiries about the jobs here, and it froze the list after receiving 10,000 applications.

So someone understands. American cars weren’t selling because they couldn’t compete in the market place. They couldn’t sell the cars they had. And they certainly weren’t going to expand production. But cut labor costs and look what happens. They can compete in the market place again. And create jobs.

So far, about 12 percent of Chrysler’s 23,000 union workers earn the lower wage, and over all, 4,000 or so of the 112,000 U.A.W. members are second-tier hires. Those numbers are expected to grow — and in fact can increase significantly even under the current contract. The jobs are central to the contract talks now because they are viewed as a critical element of the industry’s continued recovery.

The benefits for the lower-tier workers are scaled back as well. They get a maximum of four weeks paid time off a year, versus five for the longtime workers. And instead of the guaranteed $3,100-a-month pension a full-paid worker receives after age 60, the new hires have to build their own “personal retirement plan” based on contributions from the company of less than $2,000 a year.

This is stimulus that works. Cut costs for business. And business creates jobs. Which is the goal of stimulus.

Raising taxes on business won’t cut costs for business. So it won’t stimulate. Raising taxes on business to pay for a stimulus bill will tap the brakes on the very economy they’re trying to stimulate. And what is government spending that doesn’t stimulate? Pork. Earmarks. Rewarding political cronies.

Keynesian Stimulus Spending stimulates Politics, not Economic Activity

Let the political games begin. And the lying. The latest stimulus is no different from the first stimulus. It will fail. Only it will be less of a failure. The only good thing we can say about it.

Detroit has shown the way. If you want to create jobs. If you want to stimulate the local economy. You cut costs. You don’t raise them. And you do it in a way where there is little uncertainty. The two-tier wage system is here to stay. The automotive companies can plan on this cost certainty.

You know another name for this? Supply-side economics. That’s right. They fixed the car companies on the supply side. Not the demand side. That’s why they won’t take this model and apply it to the rest of the economy. That would go against every Keynesian fiber in their body. But they did in Detroit. Because they had to save the UAW. And things were so bad in the U.S. automotive industry that they had to drop politics this one time. But they will be damned if they’ll concede defeat and stop their Keynesian ways everywhere else. I mean, if they did, how, pray tell, would they reward their political cronies?

Keynesian stimulus spending stimulates politics. Not economic activity. Whereas supply-side economics stimulates economic activity. Not politics. So you can see why those in government are Keynesians. Because spending our money before we can is more important than our economic wellbeing.

 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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