« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Dispatch From Lisbon

The Canary Is Dead, The Coal Mine on Fire

“There appears to be an enormous divergence between what the Portuguese believe the state should deliver and the amount of taxes they are prepared to pay,” he told parliament recently.

– Vítor Gaspar, Portuguese Minister of Finance (HT: Ft.com)

It helps from time to time to get out that old set of notes from Economics 101 and give them a snappy re-read. On day 1 of the class, you get introduced to The Fundamental Problem of Economics. This cute little chestnut states that economics attempts to meet insatiable demand with limited resources. No feasible solution exists that is also optimal. The debate thus ensues over who gets fed and who gets (expletived).

A more civilized discussion of this problem gets into opportunity cost versus fundamental fairness. We can’t give people what they want, but they can sure get exactly what they deserve.* Honorable men, and politicians as well, differ dramatically over what that exactly entails. In the seven plentiful years accorded to Joseph, these differences stay submerged amongst a population sated and satisfied. It’s the seven lean years that follow where we discover just how far apart Confucious once claimed men grew in practice.

I refer to Portugal as a canary in that particular coal-mine. Unlike Greece (which has succeeded in staying the debt collectors for one more billing cycle), the Portuguese are forced to make a trade-off. They first ran out of resources and then ran out of credit. They are solvent in name only and have to change the way their nation allocates resources or face whatever fates the most sadistic financial minds in Brussels, Bonn and Paris would care to mete out.

This gives Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho and his parliamentary majority the choice of raising revenues (read taxes) or lowering expenditures (read mostly income redistribution). The takers in Portugal overwhelmingly outnumber the makers. The weight of the poor fell heavily on the supposedly Center-Right governing coalition. They folded like a cheap card-table in a tornado.

Portugal’s Parliament has approved unprecedented tax increases despite a broad public outcry and concerns that the latest austerity package will prolong the bailed-out country’s recession.

This allows us to see exactly what we get in return for national income distribution. It provides a tenuous and temporary cease-fire. Otto Von Bismark described his contributions to Germany’s social welfare state as an act of “stealing the Socialists’ thunder.” While most of what he enacted is standard fare in the modern employee’s benefit package, meeting the mob half-way only made them clamor for more.

Portugal has just enacted what are considered unprecedented tax increases on its productive population. In return, they wanted university students to borrow/pay tuition and patients at the national health system’s care facilities to pay larger co-pays. This has lead to the predictable and strategic leftist temper-tantrum.

But redefining the state’s responsibilities is highly contentious for many Portuguese, who see universal health care and education, free or subsidised at the point of delivery, as fundamental achievements of the 1974 revolution that overthrew 48 years of dictatorship. The government’s opponents fear it wants to destroy the welfare state.

Like the ignorant Left in Amerika, the Portuguese Leftists think they can declare something a right and therefore never again have to plan, resource or pay for it. They can just tax the “rich”. Oh, wait…Mark Steyn explains below.

“If you took every single penny that Warren Buffett has, it’d pay for 4-1/2 days of the US government. This tax-the-rich won’t work. The problem here is the government is way bigger than even the capacity of the rich to sustain it. The Buffett Rule would raise $3.2 billion a year, and take 514 years just to pay off Obama’s 2011 budget deficit.”

Yet the cynical, enlightened and world-weary all scoff at silly Jeremiads. This article talks about Portugal, not America! Were exceptional, gawd-almiddy ‘Murican Peebles! Portugal is…Portugal. Give it up, Jake. It’s Oporto.

You should soothe yourselves no longer with such banal and empty denial. Here’s straight and stank poop on the current “negotiations” over “The Fiscal Cliff.” We are not discussing terms by which we reduce a deficit. We just got our (bleeps) handed to us in a one-sided, ideologically-charged election. We are discussing the terms of our reparations to support an ongoing Visigoth Holiday for the victors at taxpayer expense. Eric Cantor admits as much below.

“Well the president got reelected and we know at the end of this year taxes are going up on everybody — everybody, rich, poor alike — we have marginal rates across the spectrum going up as well as [capital] gains, dividends, AMT, death tax, everything, right? This is the so-called fiscal cliff. So we know that is reality,” said Cantor. “That’s what’s changed, we know that. So why would we want to punish folks to see their taxes go up.”

Yes, Ladies and Germs, that’s the sound of Prime Minister Chamberlain signing over the Sudantenland. The President got reelected and we know we’ll have to pay. Winter is coming. As we watch the Portuguese enter the blizzard; gather your firewood and prepare to dress warmly.

*-H. L. Mencken once suggested that they get it good and hard.

COMMENTS

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    You’ll note my connotation on the word “deserve” was ambivalent at best.

  • commonsenseobserver

    I think that’s the point.

  • satchman3

    I don’t know where the idea that there are all these small businesses making more than $250k/year comes from. And if they’re making so much money how is increasing taxes going to put them under water?

    I know a number of small business people. There are a few that make a lot of money but even then if they’ve got a decent accountant they’re not showing so much income – if you have a small business you have lots of ways to manipulate your income with business-related expenses. One of my friends drives a truck that he legally wrote off for example. He can show very little income and still live pretty well.

    I don’t think higher taxes are going to disproportionately impact small businesses.

  • satchman3

    I hope this isn’t true – I think if all of the Bush tax cuts expire it will cause increased taxes pretty much across the board but I’m not sure.

  • aeaeren

    So I don’t know maybe it’s just a phase i am going through but at this time when I see any politician on TV I just change channels. I can’t stand any Democrat whatsoever so much like Mark Levin 2 nano-second sound byte is 2 nano-seconds too much and I now feel the same way about the Republicans. I have ZERO control and very much less Freedom yet I have to pay for it and listen to the likes of Boehner and Co telling me how they are fighting for me. And then I have to hear from those that don’t contribute why it is unfair for me to have this or that while they don’t! Fighting for me (soon to be out of the middle class) would be something new and at this point there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING we can do about it. 3rd party just means Democrats win, Republican party just means Democrats win, a little bit slower but they still win. Even if the economy should come crashing down and MILLIONS and MILLIONS more go unemployed NOTHING is going to change for the better. They will just pass their laws and make is worse and worse while blaming the other side for stalling the recovery and the Media will continue blaming the new evil Hitler Conservatives and then afterwards they all meet up at their favorite bar to laugh at just HOW FREAKIN STUPID AMERICANs are and how they keep re-electing them. How in hell did we a country of 300+ million FREE people turn over control of our lives to less then a thousand people and really of those 1k it just comes down to 12 in control?

    No matter what anyone tells you until the electors wake up and realize they are being played by BOTH sides nothing we can do will change one thing. It might be better to let the Democrats have their dream and get to the Apocalypse now so everyone learns WHY this liberal ideology is a complete and utter failure in the end that causes untold damage and how RINOs are just a pawns in the game of Washington Politics, and not even smart pawns. So it might just be a stage but the more I hear them doing the same ole crap the more I stay in my stage and the more I understand that working for something is just not worth it anymore. Nothing is going to change anytime soon except we are moving closer and closer towards the black hole of Big Government and the collapse of the civil society in the end. Yup maybe just a phase yet one that continues to get renewed when I hear the same ole people saying the same ole thing.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Uh, no, it’s not debt that is good, it’s credit.

  • Melody Warbington

    From what I’ve read, the ObamaTax would affect about 3% of small business owners who make over $250K. However, reports say those top earners generate over 50% of all small business income. Further, small businesses provide the jobs for a majority of the country. Raising taxes on them means they have less to invest in their companies and their employees, which as cso pointed out, means less pay and fewer jobs, not to mention more money to the government for redistribution rather than poured back into the economy. No growth for some of those businesses could certainly result in lay-offs or shutting down entirely. Add that to an already bad economy and an out of control government is a recipe for more disaster.

    http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/finance-accounting/2012/07/19/if-250k-plus-earners-lose-tax-breaks-then-710000-will-lose-jobs-says-study/

    I’ll let a small business owner explain it to you.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1959309282001/obama-to-veto-extending-tax-cuts-for-those-making-over-250k/

  • spandrel

    Say I make $100/day, and I borrow $100. Then in 6 months, thanks to inflation I am earning $1000/day, so I can repay the debt in an hour, not a day. And if I used that $100 to purchase something that retained value, then I come out well ahead. Of course, this assumes I can borrow at a “pre-inflation” rate.

    In other words, inflation erases debts, which is the main reason we should be worried about it:

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2011/06/escaping-debt-crisis

  • commonsenseobserver

    Okay.

    On the other hand, it’s no debt that is good, but the credit provided. That’s why after purchasing “something that retained value”, and in times of inflation, you would choose to repay the debt.

  • satchman3

    Higher taxes isn’t going to do anyone any good – that’s not my point. I agree it is painful and I don’t want to pay higher taxes.

    If you read the lead quote in the diary it says that people don’t want to pay taxes to support the government services they want – it’s a rock and a hard place situation. I believe that if we want to reduce the amount of services people expect we have to ask them to pay for it and that means higher taxes on the ‘takers.’ I’m willing to accept higher taxes across the board because that’s the way it works.

    So my belief is that higher taxes (and connecting taxes to expenditures) are the path to lower spending and lower taxes. Not an easy path but a workable path.

  • commonsenseobserver

    I hardly think high indebtedness and low earning are what we want to promote.

  • satchman3

    Spandrel’s point is absolutely not ridiculous. People and businesses manage their tax exposure by making choices to increase or reduce their taxable income. The more you can expense and offset your taxable income, the less tax you pay.

    In my experience the way to make money in a small business is to be as busy as possible on paying business. That’s also how jobs get created – by overloading your staff so that you have to hire more people. Businesses don’t hire more people because they are making a bunch of money – they hire people because they need them to keep up with demand.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Exactly noted!

  • dajeeps

    But what about the cap on deductions if filing 1040? There’s only so far you can go with that, and I’m assuming that this discussion is about those specific people.

  • dajeeps

    Tax increases have helped Europe so well, too… /sarc Too bad it’s well beyond the grasp of the Dims that the European model is proof that raising taxes in a recession is a really bad idea. And it isn’t so much because the taxes are paid, either. No matter where rates have been, the government has collected only ~18-19% GDP as a historical average. What raising the rates actually does is incentivize evasive behavior that is inefficient and is nothing but deadweight opportunity cost as people would rather pay someone to hide income or forgo income all together rather than surrender it to Uncle Sam. It isn’t going to help the deficit, and any assumption that more revenue than average will be collected as a result of higher rates is nothing short of fallacious.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Replace big spenders with spendthrifts?

  • commonsenseobserver

    The economy is showing some signs of modest growth, and unemployment is declining faster than expected, but a large tax hike would immediately reverse those gains.

    Not that that’s a bad thing in the long run.

  • commonsenseobserver

    I am not convinced that that effect would offset the negative impact of higher taxes on business investment. Compare the cost of hiring more workers and increasing benefits to the benefit of reducing taxable income subject to higher tax rates slightly.

    And how do you think demand is created?

  • satchman3

    cso, I’m not trying to argue that higher taxes will make small businesses happy and more successful. Of course it won’t. I do object to the idea that any increase in taxes will cause significant harm to small businesses and jobs. I don’t think it’s true.

    How does demand get created? That’s a tough one – if a business offers a product or service that customers want at a price that appeals to customers and the customers have the money then it’s likely that purchases will happen. If customers have less disposable income than less business will happen – and if the prices go up to keep up with costs that will also depress business. I’m partly in sales so a lot of what I do is trying to find customers who have problems that we can help them with and the money to make it happen. It’s not easy and when their budgets go down our business slows.

  • sbm1

    Then we mean different things. I have been taking all the credit that banks have given me on houses I have bought in the last 5 years (Owner occupied or firm rentals in good areas) rather than upping my equity I have kept that money in cash or other liquid. Right now I’d rather owe the bank a million over 20 years at 3.8% and have 400k in cash, than owe the bank 700k and have 100k in cash. And on signing each of my mortgages I checked the legal ramifications of hyperinflation, and at least where I am, they can’t up my rate at all… So if a million becomes worth $1, then I could pay of my houses with a loaf of bread.

  • Pingback: Things fall apart | Amerika: New Right, Conservationist, Traditionalist, Deep Ecology and Conservative Thought

  • Pingback: 2012 and Amerika – On The Night Train To The Big Adios | Irascible Musings