There would be no Green Energy Industry if there were no Green Energy Subsidies

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 15th, 2014

Week in Review

Green energy investments are a horrible investment.  The only reason why anyone is building green energy projects is because of taxpayer subsidies.  If you take away the subsidies the green energy industry is just going to stop building these bad energy projects.  Which is what’s happening now (see Here Are The 10 Best States For Clean Energy Jobs In 2013 by Aaron Tilley posted 3/12/2014 on Forbes).

Clean energy investments had it rough in 2013, and US job growth in that sector is having a bit of trouble too.

That’s at least according to evidence in a new report out today from Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2),an environmental advocacy organization for businesses. While the clean energy industry made plans to add an additional 78,000 new jobs at 260 projects in 2013, that’s a 30% dip from the 110,000 job announcements in the previous year. (E2 has only been tracking clean energy job growth for the past two years…)

The biggest reason for the 30% drop in job growth over last year is due to ongoing regulatory uncertainty around federal tax credits and state renewable energy mandates, says E2 communications director Bob Keefe. Congress let the generous tax credits the wind energy industry had enjoyed for more than two decades expire in December–and it looks unlikely they’ll be reinstated in 2014. And four major energy efficiency tax credits and initiatives expired at the end of last year too. On top of that, several states, including North Carolina and Kansas, have attempted to roll back mandates on renewable energy requirements for their utility grids.

If anyone bemoans a cut in government spending in some government program don’t blame the Republicans.  Blame the Democrats.  And their green energy cronies.  The Democrats are taking money away from other programs to pay for these white elephants just so they and their crony friends can get rich.

These projects cost a fortune to build.  And the return on investment just isn’t there.  Which is why it takes hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies to build them.  That’s a lot of money to spend when these projects accomplish nothing. They don’t allow us to shut down one coal-fired power plant.  Because we’ll need those coal-fired power plants to provide electric power when the sun doesn’t shine and when the wind doesn’t blow.  And they take up so much real estate that they’re displacing wildlife from their natural habitat.  While wind farms are hacking American Bald Eagles and other birds to death.  So they’re not helping the environment.

And they’re not improving the reliability of our electric power.  Or lowering the cost.  Every time they shut down a coal-fired power plant they increase our electric bills.  And increase the brownouts and blackouts we have to endure when we have to rely on less reliable power that costs more (we have to pay more for our electric power to pay for those subsidies) than the more reliable power.  This is our government when Democrats are in power.  And just imagine how they will run our health care.  Who do you think they’ll make rich?  And how much will they increase our health care costs?  While giving us an inferior health care system?  It’s going to happen.  Because that’s what happens when Democrats are in power.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Class Warfare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 3rd, 2013

Politics 101

Over 99.5% of all Rich People ARE paying Federal Income Taxes

President Obama won reelection by denigrating Mitt Romney.  He didn’t win by running on a successful record.  He did not win by running on a plan to pull the economy out of one of the worst recoveries in history.  No.  He won it by getting people to hate Mitt Romney.  And by getting people to hate Republicans.  Who they painted as evil rich people who want nothing more than tax cuts for the rich.  And to take away birth control and abortion so only rich people can have access to them.  As well as taking welfare benefits from the poor.  It’s called class warfare.  And it can be very effective.  For it won President Obama a second term despite a horrible first term by almost any metric you measure it.  At least based on the majority of the electorate that just believed the rich aren’t paying their fair share.  So let’s just see who is paying what (see Table 3.  Number of Individual Income Tax Returns, Income, Exemptions and Deductions, Tax, and Average Tax, by Size of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Years 2001-2010).

The above chart shows who are NOT paying any federal income tax.  Approximately 40% of all taxpayers.  Are these the evil rich people like Mitt Romney?  And those rich Republicans?  No.  Contrary to the Left, it’s not the rich.  They’re paying their taxes.  It’s the poor and the middle class not paying their fair share.  Those earning $5,000 and less pay virtually no federal income taxes.  Over 80% of those earning from $5,000 to $13,000 pay no federal income taxes.  You have to get up to those earning $25,000 or more before more than half of that income group pays any federal income taxes.

We don’t see who actually pays the majority of federal income taxes until we get into the middle class.  Where those who DON’T pay any federal income taxes rapidly drop away.  Those at the low end of the middle class taking advantage of the tax code to maximize their tax credits and deductions (mortgage interest, energy tax credit, medical and dental Expenses, child and dependent care credit, etc.) to reduce their tax bill.  While those at the higher end of the middle class are likely small business owners suffering a business loss.  Or a personal or business bankruptcy.  Approximately 0.8% of those earning $100,000 – $200,000 pay no federal income taxes.  While less than half of one percent of those earning $200,000 or more pay no federal income taxes.  Perhaps this tiny sliver of income earners are not paying their fair share.  But one thing for certain is that over 99.5% of all rich people ARE paying federal income taxes.

Those earning $1,000,000 and more account for less than 1% of Tax Exemptions and Deductions

So are the rich taking advantage of the tax code to reduce their taxable income and federal tax bill?  We hear a lot about tax loopholes.  Those perfectly legal tax credits and deductions written into law by the United States Congress.  That both those on the Left and those on the Right take advantage of.  Yet those on the Left have convinced enough of the electorate that these legal credits and deductions are tax evasion.  And that only the rich on the Right are using these to evade paying their fair share.  So who is taking the biggest advantage of the tax code to reduce their tax bill?  In 2010 this totaled about $3 trillion.  Is this why those earning $100,000 or more paid no income tax?  For those few not paying any federal income tax?  Not exactly.  (The dollar amounts in the following charts are in thousands of dollars.)

In 2010 taxpayers claimed in total about $3 trillion in exemptions and deductions.  The deficit in 2010 was about $1.3 trillion dollars.  So perhaps this is the reason why we had a deficit in 2010.  This is what the Left would have us believe.  It’s those tax loopholes that the evil rich take advantage of to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.  The only problem with this is that it’s not the rich taking advantage of these tax loopholes.  It’s the poor and middle class.

Those earning $1,000 and less account for less than 1% of these exemptions and deductions.  Those earning $1,000,000 and more also account for less than 1% of these exemptions and deductions.  It’s those earning from $1,000 to $1,000,000 that are taking advantage of these tax loopholes.  Especially those earning from $50,000 to $200,000.  The only income groups claiming 10% or more of the nearly $3 trillion in exemptions and deductions claimed.  So not only are the evil rich paying federal income taxes whatever they claim as exemptions and deductions doesn’t even come close to what the poor and middle class are claiming.

Prosperous Economic Times brought about by Tax Cuts INCREASED Tax Revenues

These numbers don’t exactly support the claim that the rich aren’t paying their fair share.  They’re paying federal income taxes.  And what tax loopholes they exploit hardly makes a dent in the amount of tax revenue the IRS collects.  Which can only mean one of two things.  Either the poor and middle class need to pay more federal income taxes.  Or the federal government is just spending too much.  Well, as we just witnessed in the fiscal cliff debate, President Obama and the Left want to raise taxes.  Blaming the record Obama deficits on the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.  Their deal includes higher income tax rates on households earning $450,000 or more.  But NO spending cuts.  Which will be a problem.

In 2010 the total adjusted gross income totaled just over $8 trillion.  Most of which came from 4 income groups.  About a trillion each from those earning from $50,000 to $75,000, from $75,000 to $100,000 and from $200,000 to $500,000.  Those earning from $100,000 to $200,000 earned in total almost $2 trillion.  Which means the new higher tax rates aren’t going to bring in much new tax revenue.  Because they aren’t taxing the people with the money.  The middle class.  And with some additional spending instead of spending cuts the deficit will only grow larger.  So this whole fiscal cliff debate was nothing but theatre.  For it wasn’t about deficit reduction.  It was about politics.

The Left wants to destroy the Republican Party.  And to do that they need to turn prosperous economic times brought about by the tax cuts of the JFK, Reagan and Bush administrations into the source of all our problems.  Yes the economy boomed, goes the argument, but at what cost?  Massive deficits.  Deficits not brought about by tax cuts.  But by spending.  For those prosperous economic times brought about by tax cuts INCREASED tax revenues.  The deficits resulted from spending increases greater than the revenue increases.  But with a successful campaign of class warfare they have revised history.  Those deficits are now the result of the rich not paying their fair share.   Which helped them increase tax rates on the rich today.  Because the Left got everyone to hate the rich.  And the Republican Party.  Even though the rich are the only ones paying their fair share.  In fact, they’re paying more than their fair share.  But the majority of the electorate doesn’t know this.  Because of that successful campaign of class warfare.

 www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

President Obama’s Green Energy Investment into Electric Cars is a Failure According to CB0

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

Saving the planet with electric cars is a costly endeavor.  Part of the problem is that no one wants these cars.  Even with fat government subsidies.  Because people would rather have big SUVs, trucks and full-size sedans.  Vehicles that are useful.  Safe.  And have big gasoline engines in them that will always get you home.  Which is why the government’s green energy investment into the electric car industry will never deliver any of its promises (see U.S. electric car policy to cost $7.5 billion by 2019: CBO by Bernie Woodall and Deepa Seetharaman posted 9/20/2012 on Reuters).

U.S. federal policies to promote electric vehicles will cost $7.5 billion through 2019 and have “little to no impact” on overall national gasoline consumption over the next several years, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report issued on Thursday.

Consumer tax credits for buying electric vehicles, which can run as high as $7,500 per vehicle, will account for about 25 percent of the $7.5 billion cost, the CBO said.

The rest of the cost comprises of $2.4 billion in grants to battery makers and projects to promote electric vehicles as well as $3.1 billion in loans to auto companies designed to spur production of fuel-efficient vehicles.

“The more electric and other high-fuel-economy vehicles that are sold because of the tax credits, the more low-fuel-economy vehicles that automakers can sell and still meet the standards,” according to the report.

As a result, tax credits will have “little or no impact on the total gasoline use and greenhouse gas emissions of the nation’s vehicle fleet over the next several years.”

So auto makers are selling electric vehicles for two reasons.  Government subsidies.  And so they can sell more lower-fuel-economy and higher-polluting profitable vehicles.  The kind of vehicles the people want to buy.  And will buy without any government subsidies.  No one wants to buy the electric cars.  And the automakers can’t make any money selling the electric cars.  The only way any sales of electric cars happen is by transferring a large chunk of their cost to the taxpayers.  Against their will.  But, then again, that’s what government is for these days, isn’t it?  Going against the will of their constituents.

While drivers of these electric vehicles use less gasoline and emit less greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide, the cost to the government can be high, the CBO found. The U.S. government will spend anywhere from $3 to $7 for each gallon of gasoline saved by consumers driving electric vehicles…

The CBO said an average plug-in hybrid vehicle with a battery capacity of 16 kilowatt-hours is eligible for the maximum tax credit of $7,500.

“However, that vehicle would require a tax credit of more than $12,000 to have roughly the same lifetime costs as a comparable conventional or traditional hybrid vehicle,” the CBO said.

And, the bigger the battery the greater the cost disadvantage for buyers of plug-in vehicles and conventional vehicles, the CBO said.

What happened to that laser-like focus on creating jobs?  That’s what President Obama said back in 2009.  And here we are in 2012 still suffering in the Great Recession.  Despite their Recovery Summer back in 2010.  The president is spending a lot of money.  Some $500 billion or more to the solar panel maker Solyndra now in bankruptcy.  As well as other green energy investments.  Including the investment into electric cars to wean us off of expensive gasoline.  While the cost of the subsidies for these electric cars will basically double the price of gasoline the rest of us pay (the price of the subsidy costs us as much as what gasoline costs us).

We’d be better off just paying for the expensive gasoline to put into the cars we want to buy.

But it’s worth the price to save the planet.  That’s what they say.  But I can’t help but notice that the planet has never been in worse shape since we started trying to save it.  We know volcanic eruptions can lower the earth’s temperature with the amount of smoke, soot, ash and sulfur dioxide they put into the atmosphere.   Periods of global cooling correlate to active volcanic activity.  So that’s a given.  We know it for a fact.  So is it any coincidence that when we started putting scrubbers onto our coal-fired power plants to remove these same things from our smoke stacks that global temperatures began to rise?

Once upon a time we all burned coal in our houses for heat.  Coal-fired locomotives transported people and freight.  And every factory had a coal-fired steam engine.  We covered our cities in smoke, soot and ash from all the coal we burned.  But there was no global warming then like we have today.  Why?  Can it be that burning coal releases the same stuff volcanoes release when they erupt?  And cool the planet?  Perhaps.  If the global warming alarmists were right then the attack on coal and all the emission controls they mandated on our cars should have made the planet a chilly place.  Shortening our growing seasons.  And given us a famine or two along the way.  But that hasn’t happened.  Because the global warming alarmists have been warning us that the end of the world was only 3 years away for the last 30 years.  How much longer are we to quake in our shoes from their nonsense?

The earth is fine.  We need to stop listening to these people.  Because all they’re doing is transferring enormous sums of money from the private sector to the public sector.  To play their games.  And live comfortably.  While those of us paying the taxes and buying the things they make ever more expensive have to sacrifice our quality of life so these talentless alarmist hacks can live a comfortable elitist life at our expense.  And they’re laughing at us all the way to the bank.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Filmmakers don’t like the High Cost of Making Movies in California so they Film Elsewhere

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

California provides a good example of what not to do.  That’s because they are a very liberal/progressive state.  Who like to live in a fantasyland of what could be.  Passing active, interventionist policies to try and change the way people think and act.  Unleashing a wave of unintended consequences.  And chasing filmmakers out from the film capital of the world (see California lost $3 billion in film crew wages from 2004 to 2011, report says by Richard Verrier posted 9/18/2012 on the Los Angeles Times).

California lost $3 billion in wages from 2004 to 2011 because of film and TV production flocking to other states and countries, a new study concludes.

Burbank-based Entertainment Partners, the industry’s largest payroll service company, which specializes in advising companies on how they can take advantage of film tax credits around the world, says its own research has found that California lost 90,000 jobs and saw its share of overall production wages in the U.S. decline 10% during the period as film producers took their business elsewhere.

About half the lost wages went to New York, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Carolina and other U.S. states that offer film tax credits and rebates — states that added 45,000 production jobs during the same period. The other half of the lost $3 billion went to Canada, Britain and other foreign countries, according to the report.

Wow.  They lost 90,000 jobs to states and countries that were more movie-making-friendly than California.  The movie-making capital of the world.  Which has cost the state of California taxes on $3 billion in wages.  No wonder California is going broke.  Their high taxes and high regulatory costs chase their own movie-making people out of their state.  So the very tax rates and regulatory policies that were supposed to increase tax revenue have decreased tax revenue.  Who’d a thunk it?  Well, pretty much everyone but a tax & spend, Keynesian, liberal Democrat.

They call these results unintended consequences despite having the best of intentions.  We simply call it causality.  If you implement anti-business policies you will get less business activity.  And filmmakers will go elsewhere to make their movies.

The findings were recently shared with representatives of the Motion Picture Assn. of America, the state’s finance department and the office of Gov. Jerry Brown, who is weighing whether to approve bills that would extend funding for California’s film program two more years. The state sets aside $100 million annually to qualified productions under a program that is due to expire next year.

Goldstein noted that his company’s research also shows the California tax credit has had some effect in slowing the job losses and migration of film work since it took effect in 2009 and that California would see an increase in employment if the credit was expanded.

“If California does not extend the credit, there will be more lost productions to other states and jurisdictions,” he said.

So some admit that California is not business-friendly.  That if they don’t offer special ways to avoid their punishing taxes and regulatory policies even more film business will leave the state.  Of course, if it’s happening in the film industry it’s happening in other businesses.  Which again explains why California is going bankrupt.  Their anti-business policies are chasing taxpayers (i.e., employees) out of the state.  By chasing business out of the state.

The MPAA, industry groups and labor unions have argued that tax credits should not be judged by short-term revenues alone, and that the state program is necessary to keep California competitive with at least 40 other states that offer incentives.

Vans Stevenson, senior vice president for state legislative affairs for the Motion Picture Assn. of America, said Entertainment Partners’ findings underscored the need for preserving California’s film incentive.

“Entertainment Partners’ data shows definitively that the production tax incentives have helped to stem the flow of jobs and wages out of California, and that the incentives are vital to California’s competitiveness,” he said.

Apparently it’s just not just the high taxes and high cost of regulatory policies chasing business out of the state.  It’s also the high cost of union labor.  For the unions are admitting that they make the state of California uncompetitive in the film industry.  And want tax credits to offset their high costs to bring the film business back.  That is, they want the taxpayers to subsidize that portion of their pay and benefits that chases business out of the state.  So they can keep their jobs.  They want taxpayers to take a pay cut (by paying higher taxes) so they don’t have to.  That’s fair, right?

California is a liberal state.  They like to run and regulate business the way they want to.  Not how business would like.  And when these policies chase business away they want higher taxes to subsidize the high cost of their anti-business policies.  To help business escape their punishing policies.  And bring that business back.  Which further raises taxes.  And chases more business away.  In effect killing the golden goose that pays for their generous public sector pay and benefits.  Which are currently bankrupting the state of California.

We need to learn from California even if California cannot learn from their own mistakes.  Anti-business policies are bad.  And will encourage businesses to leave the state.  Businesses hire people.  Who become taxpayers.  Taxpayers pay all the government’s bills.  Governments need to understand this connection between businesses and paying the bills.  For there is no other way to pay the bills without businesses and their private sector jobs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

No Deficit Reduction and the Credit Rating Agencies don’t Care

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 3rd, 2011

The Credit Rating Agencies wanted Serious Spending Cuts and our Glorious Government Delivered 

It was scary.  We stared into the abyss.  We stood at the edge of the world as we knew it.  With one foot held up midstride, dangling precariously over the void.  Ready to tumble forward into the chasm of fiscal demise.  And then something happened.  Congress compromised.  There would be more debt.  There would be more spending.  And they restored our financial house to order.  We could put that foot down on terra firma.  Everything was going to be all right.  Like it was before.  Hallelujah (see U.S. Debt Rating: Economists Wait to Hear From S&P by Susanna Kim posted 8/3/2011 on ABC News).

Now that President Obama has signed the debt ceiling deal and averted a default, economists are waiting to see if ratings agency Standard and Poor’s will downgrade the nation’s credit rating…

At stake in all this is not only interest rates the US must pay on its $14.4 trillion debt, but a host of rates for consumers, from mortgages to car loans to credit cards. A downgrade of US debt would cause interest rates of all kinds to edge up and that would cost the US and consumers billions of dollars. The stock market plunged yesterday partly on worries about this possibility.

What a horrible fate this would have been.  God bless Barak Obama, Harry Reid, John Boehner and everyone else that did such an extraordinary job of saving us from this fate.  The credit rating agencies wanted to see some serious spending cuts.  And by God if that isn’t what our glorious government gave them.  Moody’s and Fitch have already given us the good news.  We’re still AAA with them.  Just waiting on Standard and Poor’s.  If they still like us we’re golden.

No spending cuts, no Deficit Reduction and no Credit Downgrade, were they Lying?

The only problem with this is that it is all bull [deleted expletive] (see Spending Cuts Seen as Step, Not as Cure by Binyamin Appelbaum posted 8/2/2011 on The New York Times).

There is something you should know about the deal to cut federal spending that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday: It does not actually reduce federal spending.

By the end of the 10-year deal, the federal debt would be much larger than it is today.

Indeed, both the government and its debts will continue to grow faster than the American economy, primarily because the new law does not address federal spending on health care.

Well how can this be?  More spending?!?  And not just a little but a lot.  So much that it will grow faster than the economy.  But they told us they made real spending cuts.  That they made some real deficit reduction.  Are you telling me that our government lied to us?

Stabilizing that [debt] ratio would require about $4 trillion in cuts over the next decade, according to a number of independent analysts. That is also the target that S.&P. declared the nation must meet, and it was the goal of the “grand bargain” that Mr. Obama tried to reach last month with Speaker John A. Boehner.

The deal they reached instead contains cuts of at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. By the end of that period, the federal debt could equal as much as 80 percent of economic activity, and rising.

Guess so.  We barely made half of the recommended cuts and two of the agencies already gave us their blessings.  Which begs the question was all that fear mongering of the debt downgrade just bull you-know-what?  Just a trick to raise the debt ceiling?  I mean, this deal should have triggered the credit downgrade.  It doesn’t cut spending or reduce the deficit.  So how can it be the end of the world as we know it one minute and then credit rating bliss the next?  Because nothing changed.  Something fishy here.

With the Spending Crisis over, now comes More Spending

All right, so the spending cuts were only phantom spending cuts.  Just designed to fool the American people so the government can do what they do best.  What they always planned to do.  Even though the credit rating agencies said we can’t keep doing it.  Spend with reckless abandon (see Compromise achieved, reform’s the next chapter by Timothy Geithner posted 8/2/2011 on The Washington Post).

The agreement creates room for the private sector to continue to grow, without the threat of default and the burden of higher interest rates…

And by locking in long-term savings, Congress will have more room in the fall to pass additional short-term measures to strengthen the economy — such as extending the payroll tax cut, which provides an average of a thousand dollars to the after-tax incomes of working Americans; extending unemployment benefits; and financing infrastructure investments. After all, strengthening growth and putting more Americans back to work are among the most important things we can do to improve our fiscal situation today and over the long term.

This is like a chain smoker who just got the scare of his life.  A bad lung X-ray that could be cancer.  Only to find out later that it wasn’t cancer.  He feels so good that he lights up to celebrate his good health.

The government has already tried every Keynesian stimulus in the book.  A trillion dollar stimulus bill.  Subsidies for green energy (the economy of the future).  Tax credits.  Shovel ready jobs.  None of this helped the economy.  It just gave us a spending crisis that added so much debt that the credit agencies are threatening to downgrade the U.S. bond rating.  Additional spending is not going to improve our credit worthiness.  In fact, it will do that other thing.  The opposite thing.  It will make it much, much worse.  How can they not see this?  Was I the only one paying attention these past weeks?

When the Market Corrects things get Better; when the Government Corrects you get Double-Dip Recession

So it’s been all smoke and mirrors.  So what?  So they like to spend.  But their spending stimulates, does it not?  They’re investing in the future.  To win the future.  Like green energy.  The economy of the future.  They’re pouring money into this to create jobs and stimulate the economy.  And imagine how bad things would be if they didn’t do this.  Instead of a double-dip recession we may be in a triple-dip recession.  The recession could be one dip worse, then, couldn’t it?

Yeah, that’s a joke.  The economy is horrible despite everything they’ve tried.  Or perhaps it’s horrible because of everything they’ve tried.  Spending for the sake of spending hasn’t produced any results yet.  Just take a look at the Chevy Volt.  The car that was to lead GM back from the abyss.  And change the American automobile industry.  The Obama administration was going all in on this car.  Even ponying up $7,500 in tax credits per car just to make people buy these things.  But apparently the people don’t like the Chevy Volt.  Because they’re not buying them.  Even with a federal gift of $7,500 to sweeten the deal (see Chevy Volt: Still Not Selling by Jonathan V. Last posted 8/3/2011 on the weekly Standard).

The July sales numbers are out and the Chevy Volt continues to electrify (get it?) the country. GM sold … 125 Volts last month!

Way back in March I made fun of the Volt for selling 281 units in February. Turns out, February was a good month. But wait, there’s more! GM says they’re going to increase production to 5,000 Volts per month in order to keep up with demand. You see, they claim that the reason the Volt isn’t selling is that they can’t keep enough cars on the lot. A GM spokeswoman recently claimed that they are “virtually sold out.” Which is virtually true. Mark Modica called around his local Chevy dealers and found plenty of Volts waiting for an environmentally conscious driver to bring them home.

These numbers are so bad they’re embarrassing.  And building 5,000 units to meet a 125 unit demand?  You can tell the government is calling the shots at GM.

This is what happens when government starts running automobile companies.  They destroy automobile companies.  And wastes tax money.  They’ll keep raising taxes (and borrowing money) so they can ‘invest’ in jobs.  Creating jobs where people build things that nobody buys.  This is how the best and brightest tweak the economy.  Use Keynesian stimulus to correct for ‘market inefficiencies’.  Which in Washington is when people don’t spend their money ‘correctly’.

Of course, when the market corrects things get better.  When the government corrects you get a double-dip recession.

The Obama Administration did some serious Fear Peddling to get the Debt Ceiling Raised

The Obama administration did some serious fear peddling to get the debt ceiling raised.  First they tried to scare everyone that the government would default on their debt obligations.  When it was pointed out that there was some $200 billion of tax revenue coming in monthly they changed their story. 

Then they tried to scare old people by saying they couldn’t send out Social Security checks.  When it was pointed out that Social Security Trust Fund was full of treasury securities (i.e., IOUs) that could be converted into cash without any impact on the debt ceiling they changed their story. 

Then they tried to scare everyone that if they didn’t reduce the deficit with a balanced approach (new taxes and spending cuts, but mostly new taxes) the credit rating agencies would downgrade the U.S. AAA debt rating.  So far that hasn’t happened.  Despite there being no deficit reduction.

Well, they got their debt increase.  They may have been less than honest but they got it.  And what are they going to do with that additional $2.4 trillion?  Why, build more Chevy Volts, I guess.  And other winning-the-future job-creating Keynesian stimulus spending.  Because it’s worked so well these past few years.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Obama Budget: High Taxes, Reckless Spending and Lies

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 18th, 2011

Is it how Much we Give or how Much we Could Give that Counts?

Imagine, if you would, two people standing in front of an orphanage.  There’s a donation box there.  And we can see these caring people actually count out their money before placing it in the donation box.  One counts out $20.  The other counts out $100.  Who is more generous?

Is this a trick question, you ask?  Well, yes, I guess it is.  You see, normal people, like you and me, are inclined to say the person donating the $100 is more generous.  I mean, $100 is more than $20.  $100 buys more than $20.  $100 will do more for orphans than $20.  So it sure looks like to us, the normal people, that the $100 donation is the more generous donation.  But that’s not the way government would see it.  For I left out one important piece of information.  I didn’t say how wealthy these people are.  So let’s do that now.  The $20 donation is from a UAW line worker.  The $100 donation is from a rich business owner.  Now who is more generous?

$100 will still buy more than the $20 for the orphans, but $100 is a smaller percentage of the business owner’s salary.  The $20 donation is a larger percentage of the UAW line worker’s salary.  So, people in government, and those on the Left, will say the $20 donation is the more generous donation.  Even though it will buy less for the orphans.

We Pay Tax Dollars, not Tax Rates

This is a big problem clouding the debate over ‘fair’ taxation.  Devious politicians point to tax rates and cry that the rich aren’t paying their fair share.  When, in fact, they are paying far more tax dollars than those less rich.  Even in an attack on these rich bastards shows this (see Only Little People Pay Taxes by Dave Gilson posted 4/18/2011 on Mother Jones).

Leona Helmsley’s distaste for paying taxes eventually landed her in federal prison. But the rich have little need to break the law to avoid the tax collector. As Martin A. Sullivan of Tax.com recently calculated, a New York janitor making slightly more than $33,000 a year pays an effective tax rate of nearly 25%. And the effective tax rate for a resident of the Park Avenue building named after Helmsley, earning an average of $1.2 million annually? A cool 14.7%.

And the chart following this shows the income and taxes of the Janitor and the millionaire.  And even though the millionaire pays only 14.7% in taxes, the actual tax dollars paid in income taxes is $159,515.  And how much did that janitor pay?  Just $3,168.  The cheap bastard, the millionaire, paid $156,347 more in income taxes.  That’s 4,935% more than the janitor paid in income taxes.  Yes, 14.7% is a smaller percentage than 25%, but there’s no math in the world that says the janitor paid more in income taxes than the millionaire.

There’s a difference between tax dollars and tax rates.  And tax rates don’t pay the bills.  Tax dollars do.  And the rich pay more of them by far.  Anyway saying otherwise is fostering class warfare for political purposes.  Because if it was about tax dollars to pay for federal spending, $159,515 pays for a lot more spending than $3,168. 

Low- and Middle-Income Families don’t Pay their Fair Share of Taxes

So if the rich aren’t paying their fair share of taxes, who is?  And are there others, too, not paying their fair share?  Of course, that can’t be.  Because only the rich can get away with cheating the…  Hello, what’s this?  Low- and middle-income families aren’t paying any federal income taxes?  Really?  How can that be?  Wasn’t it the rich blankity blanks that were screwing the poor?  Not the other way around (see Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax by Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer, posted 4/7/2011 on Yahoo! Finance)?

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization…

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

Really?  They’ve told us that people flipping burgers for minimum wage were poor, but even people earning $50,000 are poor?  No wonder we have so many people in poverty.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment…

In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.

No wonder the Democrats win elections.  You know there are a lot of Democrats in that 49% not paying federal income taxes.  That makes the Democrats a modern day Robin Hood.  Stealing from the rich.  And giving to the low- and middle-income.  And when you’re on the receiving end of this bounty, you’re all for class warfare.  Screw the rich, you’ll shout.  Until, God forbid, you become rich.  Just ask Nicholas CageSinbadWesley Snipes.  Or Willie Nelson.  And anyone who won the lotto.  Or a car.  Who did not realize that their bounty came with a hefty tax obligation (there’s no tax withholding for these people.  They have to write a check for all the taxes they owe).  People are stunned to learn the amount of their money the government wants.  And that isn’t fair.  But before they were rich, that was a different story.  Then nothing was fairer than sticking it to the rich.

The Rich aren’t Rich Enough to Pay all our Taxes

If the poorest half of all Americans aren’t paying any taxes, then who, exactly, is?  I mean, if the rich aren’t paying their fair share and the poor aren’t paying anything, who does that leave (see Where the Tax Money Is posted 4/17/2011 on The Wall Street Journal)?

Consider the Internal Revenue Service’s income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the “millionaires and billionaires” Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

That’s funny.  I thought the rich weren’t paying their fair share.  And in 2008 the top 1% paid 38% of all taxes.  I don’t know, but 38% sounds like a lot more than the 0% paid by the poorest 50%.  So the rich are paying a lot.  Can they pay more?  Can they pay all of our taxes?  Well, even if you confiscate all of the top 1%’s income, no.  They can’t.  They simply aren’t rich enough.

Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That’s five times Mr. Obama’s 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.

The richest 10% of all Americans, including everyone making $100,000 or more, won’t do it either.  At least, they can’t fund a $4 trillion budget.  Which means there’s no way no how you can pay for government by taxing the rich.  Even if you tax them at 100%.  You see, these rich simply aren’t rich enough.  You know who is, though?  The middle class.

So who else is there to tax? Well, in 2008, there was about $5.65 trillion in total taxable income from all individual taxpayers, and most of that came from middle income earners. The nearby chart shows the distribution, and the big hump in the center is where Democrats are inevitably headed for the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks.

This is politically risky, however, so Mr. Obama’s game has always been to pretend not to increase taxes for middle class voters while looking for sneaky ways to do it…

Keep in mind that the most expensive tax deductions, in terms of lost tax revenue, go mainly to the middle class. These include the deductions for state and local tax payments (especially property taxes), mortgage interest, employer-sponsored health insurance, 401(k) contributions and charitable donations. The irony is that even as Mr. Obama says he merely wants the rich to pay a little bit more, his proposals would make the tax code less progressive than it is today.

The $100-200 thousand earners are the largest group of earners in the country.  They may each make less than each of the top 1%, but their numbers are far greater.  And it adds up.  If you drop that low end to $50 thousand and the total pot of income is close to $3 trillion dollars.  That’s a lot of money to tax.  And a lot of tax deductions to disallow.  That’s the sweet spot.  The $50-200 thousand earners.  They’re just one plump, stuffed, cash piñata.  And oh how they want to whack it open.  But how to do it?  And blame the Republicans?  That is the question that faces them.

Only the Middle Class can Fund a $4 Trillion Budget

And you do this, of course, by lying.  In his speech to offer his ‘budget’ in a response to the Ryan budget, Obama said he would cut the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years.  How?  In part with $2 trillion in spending cuts.  Which aren’t exactly all spending cuts.  They’re actually tax increases.  You see, he sees tax breaks and credits as federal spending.  Because it costs government by not having that money collected as a tax.  So he will cut that ‘spending’.  By eliminating those tax breaks and credits.  Resulting in you paying higher taxes.  And that additional money the government is ‘taking back from you’ will lower the deficit.  Confused?  You should be.  This is about as devious as it gets.

And he also said he would save $1 trillion by not renewing the Bush tax cuts.  So that’s another $1 trillion in new taxes (see Obama’s $2 trillion stealth tax hike by James Pethokoukis posted 4/17/2011 on Reuters).

If you’re keeping score, what Obama is actually proposing is $1 trillion in new taxes on wealthier Americans (and small businesses) and $1 trillion in higher tax revenues by reducing tax breaks and subsidies for a total of $2 trillion in new taxes over 12 years. That means total debt reduction, not counting interest, would be $4 trillion, 50 percent of which would come from higher taxes. The econ team at Goldman Sachs ran a similar analysis and found that 56 percent of Obama savings over ten years could come from higher tax revenue.

So that’s $2 trillion in new taxes.  And where do you think that will come from?  Not the 1%, that’s for sure.  If you took all of their money it would only get you half way there.  To raise that kind of money, you have to go to the sweet spot.  The middle class.  Including those making far less than $200,000.  You have to tax everyone making $50,000 or more.  And take away their tax breaks and credits.  Where it will really hurt.  And be political suicide.  So why promise to do just that?  Simple.  He’s not. 

The Obama plan is a non-plan.  It’s just a political tool for the 2012 election.  To show that it is the Republicans that want to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  Not him.  He’ll say he fought like a dog to save these entitlements.  Because he cares for you.  Unlike those nasty mean Republicans.  And entitlement spending will continue to grow unchecked.  Making it that much harder to save these programs down the road.  But this is what politicians do.  Kick the can down the road.  For someone else to worry about.  For by that time, many of the Democrats will be dead.  And won’t care anymore.

It’s not the Taxes, Stupid.  It’s the Spending.

There’s a difference between tax rates and tax dollars.  And it’s the tax dollars that are important, not the tax rates.  The rich may have a lower effective tax rate but they pay an awful lot in tax dollars.  And as tax dollars go, they’re paying more than anyone else.  Far more than half of all Americans.  Who pay $0.00 in federal income taxes.  If anyone is screwing anyone, it’s the lower 50% screwing the top 10%.  And the top 10% probably wouldn’t mind so much if we weren’t constantly demonizing them despite their generosity.

When you can’t pay for your spending by taxing everyone making $100,000 or more at 100%, you’re spending too much.  This is a spending problem pure and simple.  It’s not that the rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes.  They are.  And then some.  It’s that government is just trying to buy too many votes.  If there is any greed here it is in Washington.  Their spending is out of control.  Even Standard & Poor’s Ratings Service thinks so.  They just lowered our rating from “stable” to “negative” because of the “ballooning deficit.”   Because our out of control spending threatens our future ability to service our debt.

But the Democrats have other pressing concerns on their minds.  Like winning elections.  And you win elections by spending.  Not living within your means.  And if they play it just right, the day of reckoning will come conveniently in the future.  When they’re dead.  Problem solved.  For them, at least.  Their children and grand children?  Guess they just don’t care about them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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