Tag: taxpayers money

–The fallacy of taxing the rich

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

Cynical populist politicians try to gather votes by playing Robin Hood. They think taxing the rich will make them popular with poor, and sadly, they are right. As the poor don’t realize, but readers of this blog have learned, TAXING THE RICH actually hurts everyone, especially the poor. Read the following article By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer, dated Aug 1, 2010
=====================================================================

“WASHINGTON – Wealthy Americans aren’t spending so freely anymore. And the rest of us are feeling the squeeze. […] Economists say overall consumer spending has slowed mainly because the richest 5 percent of Americans — those earning at least $207,000 — are buying less. They account for about 14 percent of total spending.
[…]
“President Barack Obama wants to allow the top (tax)rates to increase next year for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000. The wealthy may be keeping some money on the sidelines due to uncertainty over whether or not they will soon face higher taxes. […] Think of the wealthy as the main engine of the economy: When they buy more, the economy hums. When they cut back, it sputters. The rest of us mainly go along for the ride.

“Earlier this year, gains in stock portfolios had boosted household wealth. And the rich responded by spending freely. That raised hopes the recovery would strengthen. […] The affluent went back to tightening their belts in June after months of vigorous showing. Data from MasterCard Advisors’ SpendingPulse showed luxury spending fell in June for the first time since November. […] “It isn’t a good omen for the consumer recovery, which cannot exist without the luxury spender,” said Mike Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers.

“[…] And it helps explain why economists expect the rebound to lose momentum in the second half of the year. Especially if the rich don’t resume bigger spending. “They are the bellwether for the economy,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “The fact that they turned more cautious is why the recovery is losing momentum. If they panic again, that would be the fodder for a double-dip recession.”

“That’s because whether they’re saving or spending, the wealthy deliver an outsize impact on the economy. What’s not clear is whether they will remain too nervous to spend freely again for many months. That’s what happened when the recession hit in December 2007 and then when the financial crisis ignited in September 2008.

“As their stock holdings and home values sank, the affluent lost wealth. Their jobs weren’t safe, either. Bankers, lawyers, accountants and mortgage brokers were among those getting pink-slipped. Those who did have jobs feared losing them. Neither group spent much. Instead, Americans’ savings rate spiked. And most of the increase came from the richest 5 percent, according to research by Moody’s Analytics. In the first quarter of this year, stocks rebounded, layoffs slowed and the rich were spending again. But now the rich are building up their savings and splurging less on discretionary items. That’s starting to show up in softer sales at upscale retailers, such as Neiman Marcus and Saks Inc.

“’The affluent — as their wealth goes down — they’ll become more and more conservative,’ predicts David Levy, chairman of the Jerome Levy Forecasting Center.”

So, if you feel raising taxes on the rich is harmless, think again.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Debt is bad; debt is good. Take your pick.

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

There is no functional difference between a federal tax cut and a federal spending increase. Some might argue that federal spending is superior or inferior to private spending, though evidence for either is slim, and either has the same result. They both increase the amount of federal money in the economy. (Mistakenly called the federal “debt.”)

Further, increasing the federal money supply stimulates the economy, and decreasing the money supply depresses the economy. So it is both laughable and sad to see how debt hawks squirm between wanting a lower debt, higher taxes and lower taxes, along with less federal spending, more spending and improved GDP. As the song says, “Something’s gotta give.”

Here are quotes from the always confused editors of the Chicago Tribune, in the editorial dated 8/1/10, titled “Out of debt.”

“. . . Democrats and Republicans are very good at doing one thing: running up the debt. That’s the reason for the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility . . . to find ways to stem the red ink.” O.K., so federal deficits are bad.

“. . . at this stage (a tax increase) would be a terrible mistake, not only for the health of the economy, but for the nation’s long-term fiscal health.” O.K., so federal deficits are good, in both the short term and in the long term.

“More likely, Congress and the president would spend every nickel (from a tax increase) – and then spend some more.” Oh, oh. Now federal deficits are bad, again.

“Nor does it make sense to place a new (tax) weight on the economy when it is already struggling to grow.” Woops, deficits are good, again.

“Congress can’t afford to indulge the notion that endless borrowing is a sustainable strategy.” So deficits are bad.

“The wisest option is to extend tax cuts for a year . . . “ Deficits are good

“. . . then see what the deficit commissions proposes to curtail our addiction to debt.” Deficits are bad.

“ . . . Erskine Bowles suggests a healthy ratio of $3 dollars in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases . . . it’s essential if we hope to foster lasting prosperity . . . “ Deficits now are awful. Mr. Bowles “scientific” suggestion equals $4 in spending cuts or $4 in tax increases, or anywhere in between. Guarantee: He has zero data to support his 3/1 ratio, but hey, who need facts?

“ . . . while sparing the taxpayers of tomorrow an unsupportable debt burden.” Deficits are bad.

And here is my favorite: “Coupled with spending discipline, revenue measures can be on leg of the journey back to fiscal sanity. But if they are the first and only leg, they will be a fatal detour.” Huh? They are saying spending cuts and tax increases are good, but first we should have spending increases and tax cuts!

All of the above is classic debt hawk double talk. Federal debt is a taxpayer “burden,” but necessary to grow the economy, but “unsupportable,” even though taxpayers don’t pay for federal debt, and the government has the unlimited ability to service its debt.

That kind of muddy thinking is what needlessly has extended this recession and the unemployment that goes with it. Ignorance may be bliss, but it sure is harmful. As the theme at the top of this post reads, “The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–$1,000 reward

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

Politicians continue to worry about the size of the federal debt:

“The president knows that Republicans support extending unemployment insurance, and doing it in a fiscally responsible way by cutting spending elsewhere in the $3 trillion federal budget,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio. “At what point do we pivot and start being concerned about our children and our grandchildren?” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

I will pay $1,000 to the first person (including you, Representative Boehner) who can demonstrate why the U.S. federal government will be unable to service its debts.

Wait, I’ll make it even easier. I’ll pay $1,000 to the first person (including you, Senator McConnell) who can demonstrate why the U.S. federal government will be unable to pay its debts, even if all taxes and all federal T-securities were eliminated. And I’ll throw in an extra $1,000 if you can show how the U.S. taxpayer and/or taxpayers’ grandchildren owe the federal debt.

Readers, please feel free to pass this on to your political representatives. I have my checkbook in hand.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–How President Obama’s National bipartisan Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform could destroy America

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

Parade Magazine, in its 7/4/10 “Intelligence Report”, printed an interview by Steven Beschloss and Janet Kinosian titled, “Can These Men Fix the Deficit?” The men are Erskine Bowles, a former White House chief of staff, and Alan Simpson, a former Republican Senate whip. Today, Messrs. Bowles and Simpson are co-chairs of President Obama’s National bipartisan Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

Here, with my comments, are what they said:

BOWLES: “If we don’t solve the (federal) debt problem, we will be paying $1 trillion in interest in 2020. That’s money we can’t spend on Social Security, Medicare, education, infrastructure or innovation to make sure America is competitive in a global economy.”

RMM: “Of course, he’s dead wrong. America is a monetarily sovereign nation. Future spending is restricted neither by past spending, by debt, by deficits nor by tax collections. That $1 trillion in interest will function as an economic stimulus. This is classic cognitive inconsistency. Mr. Bowles believes the government cannot do what he sees with his own eyes, the government actually doing, i.e spending trillions on stimulus plans, despite debt that has grown more than 1,500% in only 30 years. In addition to cognitive inconsistency, he suffers from anthropomorphic economic disease – the mistaken belief that the government’s finances are like yours and mine.

BOWLES: “We’re looking at how we can reduce discretionary spending – things like education, transportation, the military, homeland security – and mandatory spending which includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. We also need to raise revenue.”

RMM: He believes that cutting back on education, transportation, the military, homeland security, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, while raising taxes, will “make sure America is competitive in a global economy.” The notion would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.

SIMPSON: “We’re not going to cut Social Security – we’re going to stabilize it. None of the ideas that have been presented will affect anyone over the age of 58.”

RMM: “Stabilize” is political double talk for, “We are going to cut Social Security for everyone 58 and younger.”

SIMPSON: “As it is, it (Social Security) can’t sustain itself.”

RMM: Ah, the old (and false) “unsustainable” claim.

BOWLES: “We’re going to work our hearts out succeed.”

RMM: In their world, “Fiscal Responsibility and Reform” are code words for austerity, which always causes recessions and depressions. Heaven help us from those who have power, yet cannot learn.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity