« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Tax Trap

I would like to claim credit for this idea, as I espoused it among friends long before I heard it on the radio.  In reality, before writing it I heard it on my daily ride home in the brief segment of the Sean Hannity Show that I listen to before getting annoyed with Sean it and changing to my music station.  I have expanded upon what the caller in to the show stated.

There is a problem with any temporary tax rate extension.  Right now, the Senate is debating an extension to the current tax rates (which the Left lovingly describes as the “Bush Tax Cuts”) while House Democrats have already rejected that bill out of hand.  The bill is to extend the current rate for an additional two years, essentially putting the onus on the next Congress to extend said tax levels any longer.

Conservatives are enamored with the Laffer Curve, the theory that a reduction in tax rates will result in an increase in investment, spurring economic growth and, by extension, greater tax revenues despite the lower tax rates.  The evidence is that Laffer’s curve theory is in fact true, since historically major tax cuts have always, over the long term, resulted in equal or greater tax revenue as during the previous higher-tax regime.  Liberals hate this.

So as Conservatives espouse the advantages of the Laffer Curve, the President has offered a “compromise” wherein conservatives give him lots of pork spending and other Leftist goodies, while the tax rates are extended for a scant two years.  The Senate Republicans, eager to get the tax rates extended and “prove” the Laffer Curve (as well as to make sure everybody’s tax withholding doesn’t go up on January 1), enthusiastically support the bill.

Dumb move.

The problem with this is the length of the extension:  Just two short years.  Had a two year extension been approved in 2008, it might have helped to stimulate our economy and settle corporate jitters, eliminating some of the economic mess we’re now facing.  Sadly, President Bush and the Democrat Congress instead chose to spend billions of dollars forcing banks to take money they didn’t need.  In 2009, President Obama and the Congress chose to spend billions more dollars on pork projects and patronage, and yet again punted the tax cuts until after the election in 2010.

A two year extension now is too little, too late.  Instead of helping to calm the fears of corporate managers, all the President and Congress will do is continue the economic malaise.  Corporations will have a bit more certainty, but not much.  Most businesses don’t invest expecting a two year return.  Smart busineses plan on at least a five year scale, if not longer.  Extending tax rates for two years only clears up uncertanty for the near term.  It makes it less likely people will lose their jobs to layoffs next year, but doesn’t encourage new investment in new plant and equipment with a ten-plus year payoff period.

The United States already has the second-highest tax rates in the developed world (the highest rates in some high-tax states).  An extension of the tax rates merely means we choose to not be the most hobbled runner in the economic rat-race.  A short-term tax rate extension, to continue the metaphor, means we’re running around the track with cement in our shoes and a basket over our shoulder waiting for somebody to dump sandbags in it.  The only reason we’re still running in front is because we’re already the strongest runner in the group, but those guys China and India are fast catching up!

The goal of the Republicans should be a permanent extension of the current tax rates.  Settling for a two year extension is poor policy:  When the extension doesn’t work to stimulate growth, the Democrats will be able to demonize it.

SEE?! SEE?! The Laffer Curve doesn’t work! Those AWFUL Republicans lied to you! Vote for us! Stop the tax cuts for the filthy, awful rich and vote for US!!!!

And the voters, generally ignorant of anything more than the most basic economic ideas, will believe them. Because, as far as they will be able to tell, the tax cuts won’t have worked to stimulate the economy. The short-term nature of the cuts will have played right into the hands of the President and the Democrats. While the Left may, in the short-term, be apoplectic over the President’s deal with Senate Republicans, in the end it will end with Democrats having a seemingly strong case for a continuation of their economic policies and a rejection of the Republicans.

Sun Tsu wrote, “By holding out advantages to him, he can cause the enemy to approach of his own accord; or, by inflicting damage, he can make it impossible for the enemy to draw near.” President Obama has offered an advantage to the Senate Republicans, allowing them to draw near to the trap illustrated above.

Republicans in both houses of Congress would be smart to refuse it.

COMMENTS

  • izoneguy

    Nothing else will work to move the country forward.
    The uncertainty needs to be lessened.
    Otherwise we are back at this again.
    Raising taxes will only give the libs more excuses to spend our money.
    Many of the new incoming Senators have a list of things to cut.
    That is what we need to do. The left will never be happy even if tax rates were 115%. So let’s not “compromise”. We don’t need to when the 112th is seated.

  • pilgrim

    A continuation of the current tax rates is no reason for anyone to think that the economy is going to be stimulated whether it is a current tax rate extended permanently or a current tax rate for the next two years.

    This is the real trap getting set. If there is no improvement the Ds scream how they tried the Laffer way and here is proof that it does not work. That is bull crap because no test using a real tax cut is going to happen. The rates we have today in a weak economy well be in place in 2011,

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

      and hear Prager, Medved and Hewitt. But never, ever miss Rush!

  • eastbaylarry

    Let’s move the USA a few notches further away from the ‘most heavily taxed’ leader.

    That should be the Republicans counter-offer to the dems ‘compromise’.

    Oh! And of course, Make.It.Permanent!

    • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

      …and let them talk us into a “compromise” of setting the current rates to permanent.

    • msctex

      And use the Democrat’s mischaracterization against them. If choose to describe the maintaining of current rates as a cut, play along for a bit, then throw an actual cut in their faces, and make them explain why they are suddenly against it.

      The status quo is clearly not sufficient. We need more money in the economy, and keeping it from the Government and allowing the People to keep what is their own is the only efficient way of going about it.

  • littlel

    This is on target! The Senate& House Repubs have flown into the spiders web and trapped themselves if they vote Yes on this!

    Tax Cuts work to stimulate but this is not a cut–it is status quo. Secondly, the “Sweetners” being loaded into this are posion pills. We have nothing to “Sweeten” the pot with–it is all Borrowed Money. Coupled with the Unemployment extensions, which we were “promised” less than a week ago would not happen unless they were paid for–Right!

    The spider set the trap and the fly is now in it–Mitch better hope the Dems kill this before he and those who support this disaster give the WH to Obama and Nancy the House in 2012.

  • Common_Cents

    We have a spending problem.

    To spur confidence in business and creating jobs you need stability not just year to year. Businesses plan on the long term, investing with paybacks of up to many years. why gamble if you think Lucy will pull the football away in a couple years?

    what happened to Dems PAYGO? They haven’t proposed any offsets in government spending at all. Of course their idea of PAYGO is tax INCREASES instead of spending cuts elsewhere.

    yes, I think they’ll make a half azz effort and call it a failure. Tax cuts are just part of the solution and must come with government spending reductions and streamlined regulation on many businesses.

    • texasgalt

      Maybe not so much

      • dsmurf

        reflect what your title suggests, actual revenues vs the table which shows it as as a share of GDP. A rising GDP may show rising revenues but make it look flat here.

        The fact of the matter is Congressional forecasts are always inaccurate because they fail to account for how people will react to the tax rate increase or decrease, or how people will use the multiple loopholes available to hide their cash until more favorable rates are put back in place.
        Greg Mankiw’s required reading goes over this extensively and quote a Nobel prize winning economist and his studies of tax rates in various countries. Fact of the matter is people are more productive when tax rates are lower, and are less likely to resort to an underground economy in a low tax rate environment whichever country you choose.

        • dsmurf

          work,
          notice the record revenues in 2007,
          http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1950_2015&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
          from 1950-2008

        • texasgalt

          down GDP. Whatever, it seems the result is going to be revenue at about 19% of GDP.

          Clearly, the way to gain revenue is to have an expanding business and commercial sector.

      • Common_Cents

        Not put it in terms of GDP.

        Can you believe the left wing IDIOTS are calling for higher taxes to get us back to the “clinton economy”?! That is unfreakin real. Gee. I am an idiot, I think we should raise taxes to spur on an economy!

        Anyone in CONgress who thinks that should be run out of office immediately for stupidity or insanity.

        A stupid left wing liberal if they ever owned a business, would try to raise prices(raise tax rates) to grow their revenue(tax rev), rather than have a sale or promotion.

        So if you raise prices (tax rates) you would get MORE customers in the door to spend MORE money?

        Why doesn’t ANYONE ask these stupid simple questions to the idiots in CONgress??? These questions would expose them for the frauds they are.

        • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

          …is to get your revenue from fewer customers. They sell BMWs and Audis for more money, but they sell fewer BMWs and Audis than Fords or Chevys. So on a certainlevel, you can raise prices to get more money. It’s a self-limitiing game, though.

          The same goes with higher taxes: Raise tax rates, make them ever more progressive, and the rich (actually, the high achievers) end up paying the vast majority of the taxes. But you can only make taxes just so progressive before people find ways to avoid paying them. I recall hearing once that ABBA left Sweden because their tax rate was over 100%. Don’t know if it’s true, but it sure as heck makes sense!

  • Menlo

    Don’t the Swedish and Danish have higher rates.

    • texasgalt

      municipal taxes. Their corporate tax rates are lower than the U.S.

      Not sure why it would be relevant to the U.S. The population of both countries combined is well short of the population of Florida.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

      • Menlo

        They seem to have a higher individual income tax too, no?

        I wouldn’t know anything about corporate taxes beyond hearing the left’s claims that most corporations pay none.

        • mriggio

          because those eeevil, profit-seeking corporations, just add the tax they’re responsible for to their prices. In the end, WE pay the corporate taxes.

          • Menlo

            The statutory burden is still on the corporations, and they would still be on record as paying the taxes regardless. That would also make little economic sense because the more they collect, the more they owe.

            I’ve seen attempts to explain corporations’ not paying taxes, but I can’t understand any of them.

          • texasgalt
          • Menlo

            Corporations are not paying taxes on the money they get from consumers.

          • texasgalt

            Corporations are paying taxes on the profits generated by the money (revenue) they get from their consumers.

            If they were not doing so, they could lower the price to the consumer. That IS the way it works. I’ve been at it for thirty years.

            And in thirty years I’ve never been able to change a disbeliever’s mind about it. :-) I don’t know why. I guess it just sounds good (populist) to tax corporations and so that’s what we get.

          • Menlo

            Apparently based on GAO reports, news stories have been all over the fact that corporations paid no taxes on the money they made.

            See here and here for two examples.

          • JSobieski

            First, over half of the businesses in the US are Chapter S corporations, which means that the tax liability is passed through to the individual. In country where most businesses are Chapter S, BY DEFINITION, the majority of businesses pay no CORPORATE income tax.

            Second, you need to factor the number of businesses that don’t make any income (business bankruptcies have been up since 2008). So even more corporations are on the list of non-taxpayers.

            There are no statistics in the reports that address the two variables above. The money quote in one of the reports makes it clear that these reports are worthless:

            “The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren’t paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.”

            So the report didn’t even attempt to address profitability and the Chapter S issue. It then proceeds to make accurate but misleading statements about how most corporations don’t pay corporate income tax.

            Junk. The people who wrote that report should be fired.

          • Menlo

            I figured something was misleading. The attempts to explain it though are either beyond my level of understanding or not there. I’m still left wondering why, and that’s how I assume something is misleading.

          • JSobieski

            At least 51% percent of US businesses are S-Corps. By definition and design, they pay no corporate income tax because all of the income is passed through to the owners. So, the statement of that most businesses (i.e.50+%) pay no income taxes is true but misleading.

            Did you know that in families of five or more people, the majority of the people in the household pay not one cent of incomes taxes? Kids can’t work until they reach a certain age, and people who don’t work and don’t have income don’t pay taxes.

            So I could go around complaining that in large families, an increasing number of people pay no taxes. Its true, but its misleading. How many households can have more than 2 tax payers for any length of time?

            If they actually wanted to have meaningful data, they should focus on large well known C-Corps (like the S&P 500) and analyze that their effective tax rates are.

            Instead, they pull this crap. Its not even well disguised crap.

          • Menlo

            All they had to say was that there were no profits to tax.

          • JSobieski

            Its very misleading junk. I have an LLC, and I can assure you that (1) I pay no corporate income taxes and (2) I pay plenty of personal income taxes. Not sure if LLCs are included as “corporations” for the purpose of the study, but that would send the percentages even further out of whack.

          • texasgalt
    • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

      Your’e right, I was quoting business tax rates. However, our personal income tax rates are still much higher than most of the rest of the developed world, and even much of the developing world.

      Also, the expected increase in capital gains and other tax rates are equally counter-productive.

      I tried to keep my post simple for clarity, but I realize that may have confused some issues among the more knowledgeable, such as yourself.

  • dsmurf

    Some banks certainly did need the money that the stimulus provided. Its simple, Banks need a certain percentage of money vs loans on their books, when houses can’t be refinanced, and they take losses their cash position goes down and hence they can’t lend further due to the huge losses they took.
    So we could have a had a run on banks, like the Depression era had, but that is not Bernanke or Paulson, is about-allowing Banks to fail, at least not the ones too big to fail, hence we have how many banks this year that have failed, I know Drudge has had a running update.
    There was a huge cash hole due the Lehman collapse when they could not pay up, hence the market sold off another 6-8 months. Credit froze and the Federal Reserve essentially took over the whole US mortgage refinancing source of funding, witness Fannie and Freddie. So the stimulus was pocket change compared to the Fed’s obligations in mortgages, at least that’s what I understand from the IG of Fannie and Freddie, from this Mr Barofsky and reading from IBD, (I don’t know the IBD archival link address, which was more obvious at one time, if it is still available.)

    • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

      …most banks didn’t need the money. Many didn’t want it in the first place. Most have already paid it back. And the ones that really could have used it, largely didn’t get it.

      All of which is irrelevant, since we have FDIC and bankruptcy laws expressly for the purposes of dealing with failing banks. The TARP bailout was unnecessary, at least for the big banks. The Lehman collapse was unexpected, but not surprising. Lehman was always the “big risk” guy on Wall Street, and so those risks caught up with them.

      Credit froze because the risk market was too high as bad mortgages were failing, not because there was no cash. The banks were plenty liquid, but the risk of making loans was too high with all the existing failures.

      • dsmurf

        seeing stories of how BMW, Toyota and others used Fed cash for their loans in a frozen credit environment. After hearing of my former home in CA going up 1000% in a poor neighborhood from the late 70s until 2005, making it a 300k home then and realizing all the turnover, all the loans in just that neighborhood and how that scenario was repeated with these people taking on these homes with no verification of any income in at least seven states, I fail to see how small and big banks don’t have a big hole that will need to be filled and it probably won’t be with private money either, unless they have huge reserves, or Fed cash, the too big to fail types-
        talk about Bubbles first the Nasdaq bubble blowing up in 2000 and then the real estate bubble, no doubt there is cash somewhere, but the correction to the wealth accumulation bubble from the real estate bubble I dare say-remains to be settled, as will the banks’ cash position.

        • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

          …is easily determined from a review of their financial statements. As is an estimation of their “bad debt”. A review of the large banks’ financials in 2008 reveals they were not in a cash-poor position, but accrued bad debt liabilities increased. That was the reason credit froze: Too much bad debt, and suddenly you don’t meet FDIC guidelines.

  • sarg01

    It’ll just be vetoed. It probably wouldn’t even get that far, as by my count 49 of the 100 Senate seats in the new congress voted to strip the tax cuts over 250k out. That leaves just 51 seats that aren’t already on record as opposing ANY extension of all the Bush tax cuts.

    51 is the bare minimum number needed (and includes a few Dems) so several senators will have leverage over the whole deal and need to be “bought”. That’s a bad starting point, and when you consider the filibuster and the presidential veto, there’s simply no chance of actually getting a permanent extension passed until 2013.