Coyote Blog

Isn't this exactly the type of government policy that helped promote the housing bubble and in turn led to our current recession?

WASHINGTON (AP) "” The Senate voted Wednesday night to give a tax break of up to $15,000 to homebuyers in hopes of revitalizing the housing industry, a victory for Republicans eager to leave their mark on a mammoth economic stimulus bill at the heart of President Barack Obama's recovery plan.

Republicans:  We want to prove we can do stupid, populist sh*t too!

Update: Via TJIC, more hair of the dog:

Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance company under U.S. government control, will loosen rules for homeowners seeking to lower their loan payments by refinancing.

Fannie Mae will drop some credit-score requirements, reduce income-documentation standards and waive the need for appraisals in some cases"¦

A letter I am drafting currently.  If you don't know how unemployment taxes work, see here.

Governor Schwarzenegger:

As a business operating in California as well as twelve other states, I have the ability to compare the regulatory and business climate across states.  And while I could discuss many issues with the state of California regulatory affairs, I will focus on just one in this letter:  administration of the state unemployment insurance program.

All the states have an unemployment insurance program with roughly similar rules.  The fund will pay workers some percentage of their past earnings if they are terminated for reasons other than with cause from their last employer and are actively seeking new employment.  Employers are typically charged an insurance rate as a percentage of wages that is based on past unemployment claims by ex-employees of that company.

Before I provide my observations on the problems in the California system, let me provide some data that helps indicate that California is indeed unique.  Here are our unemployment insurance rates by state  (we have roughly the same business profile in each state, though if anything our business is less seasonal in California so one might expect, all things being equal, that our rates in California would be lower than average)

New Mexico:  0.03%

Texas:  1.06%

Florida:  1.02%

Arizona:  3.30 %

Michigan:  1.5%

Colorado:  0.9%

Wisconsin:  0.25%

Minnesota: 0.40%

California:  6.2% + 1.1% disability adder

You can see that our rates in California are double that of any other state, and more than 6 times our average.  Further, the California rate could actually be higher by our experience, as 6.2% is the cap.  By the way, we did a study a while back as to why our Arizona rates were so high.  It turned out most of the claims were from people who had recently moved from California, and grew up under the California system.

In interacting with the California state unemployment system for a number of years, our company has observed two issues that raise costs:

1. It is virtually impossible to convince unemployment office workers that an employee was fired for cause.  It is very clear they see their mission as making everyone eligible, and thus even a guilty plea of outright theft has not been enough to have the state unemployment office agree that a firing was "for cause."
2. The state unemployment office does absolutely nothing to ensure that a worker collecting unemployment is actively seeking work, as is required by legislation.  We run a seasonal business, and our workers have told me the unemployment office tells them that it is perfectly fine to work 6 months and take the other 6 months off on unemployment.  I have had employees vacationing in Mexico for 6 months still collecting unemployment.  When I reported this fact to the state unemployment office and said that these workers obviously could not be actively seeking work in California, I was told by the workers comp. customer service staff that if I made such a claim, and did not succeed in proving it, I was subject to fines and even incarceration for making a false charge.  Of course, I dropped it.

No matter what the text of the legislation says or what you are told by the managers of the system, the front-line employees who make the decisions that drive costs see it as their job to ensure maximum payout to any individual, regardless of whether they are honestly looking for work or not.  I have, just as a test, asked trusted employees to call the unemployment office to ask about benefits.  They were told that they didn't really have to be looking for work, that no one would check, and that all they had to do was call in and say they were looking for work and they would get paid.  Your unemployment office was practically begging them to take as much money as they could.

I don't think that anthropogenic global warming will be substantial enough to justify massive and expensive interventions to limit Co2.  I won't go into the reasons for this statement, as I have a whole other blog dedicated to climate.  If you are unfamiliar with the arguments that Co2 is likely warming the Earth, but not by nearly as much as alarmists claim, you might start with some of these videos.

However, it seems almost inevitable that the new Congress and Administration will do "something" on Co2, if for no other reason that it has become a self-image issue on the left  (i.e. I am a good person because I care about global warming).  We libertarians are seldom very good at engaging on issues of how such government interventions should be done best.  Every time people ask us our opinion of how to structure such a program to do the least harm, we get about 5 seconds into an answer before we just break down and start yelling, "this is crazy!  Do nothing!  Leave us alone!" (actually, emissions laws are one of the few areas where government regulation helps to protect private property rights).

Bryan Pick at Q&O points to a number of folks advocating an increase in carbon taxes offset by reductions in payroll taxes (Bryan's plan is more comprehensive than this, and is here).  I actually advocated something similar over a year ago.  Here is my logic chain:

1. The carbon tax is a much, much better approach to reducing CO2 than cap-and-trade systems.  Cap-and-trade is bad for the same reason that politicians like it -- it offers a near infinite playing field for lobbying, special rules, influence-peddling, special exemptions, government chosen winners, etc. while hiding the fact that it is in fact a huge new tax.  My more detailed argument on this can be found here and here and here.
2. A new carbon tax should be revenue neutral.  After all, the point in the first place is not to raise revenues, but to provide a pricing signal that Americans need to switch away from carbon-based fuels.
3. A good place to offset revenues is the payroll tax.  Both fuel taxes and payroll taxes are criticized for being regressive, so it is an easy place to try to forge a compromise with the left.  Further, the payroll tax acts effectively as a tax on hiring, so a reduction would certainly be welcome any time, and particularly in a recession.
4. We need to create a streamlined licensing program for nuclear reactors.  Utilities, particularly ones dependent on coal today, need a realistic option to continue to provide power at reasonable cost in their communities.  Solar and wind are just not reasonable alternatives today.  Nukes are the only carbon-free scalable generating technology we have.

Again, I don't think the dislocations required here are worth the effort, but this is the best way to do it if we must.

Postscript: By the way, here is one thing no one is telling you.  Folks in Congress have tossed around carbon and fuel tax ideas that might add, say 25 cents per gallon.  But if we are truly in thrall to the climate alarmists and take their recommendations, then Co2 outputs must be reduced 50-80% in this country.  We are talking about reducing Co2 output to levels before 1920!  To do this will require a truly massive tax.  Just to scale it, over the last year gas prices doubled by about $2 a gallon, and total miles driven fell by less than 5%.   Europe is at around $8-$9 gas and are nowhere near these climate goals.  I don't think it would be too much to say that gas prices would have to top $20 to reach these goals.

This is why I think the most likely case for climate regulation is that we will have some kind of tax or cap system but that this system will be far short of anything that will really reduce Co2 or even stop its growth.  The costs are just too high, and the benefits too shaky.  You can see that in Europe, as countries back off Kyoto goals  (and even Kyoto goals are far short of what alarmists think we need to be hitting).  And any progress they have made against Kyoto goals has mainly been accidents of changing enconomic and political structures rather than the result of any real targeted action.  What we will get is something that costs a lot without accomplishing much, but will make the left feel better about themselves.  Sound familiar?

What better way to inaugurate the new blog site than to rant about a Kevin Drum post?  Drum posts this chart today from the NY Times showing a drop-off in the effective total tax rate (income+social security+other stuff) at very high income levels.

Well, no freaking duh.    I suspect that this has been true practically forever.  Why?  Because this is NOT an income tax chart, it is a total tax chart.  And as such, it includes social security and medicare taxes (collectively, with a couple of other minor things, called "payroll taxes".  These taxes, about 8% of total income, are a flat tax with a cap around $100,000.  This means that everyone with income under $100,000 pays 8% of all income.  Someone at $5,500,000 (midpoint of the $1 million to $10 million band) pays only 8%  of the first $100,000 or an effective rate of 0.146% of total income on payroll taxes.  For someone in the top 400 taxpayers, the rate is close to zero.   So you really have to add 8 percentage points or so to the higher rates to make them comparable ex-Social Security to rates for earners under $100,000.

Now, we can argue about the regressive structure of Social Security.  But many on the left have opposed making it more progressive.  They want Social Security to perceived as an insurance program, not a welfare/transfer program.   To be insurance rather than welfare, effectively the same income that is used as the basis for benefits must also be the income basis for taxation.  Income over $100,000 is not used to calculate benefits, so it is not taxed.

Here is one person on the left making this point in 2005:

...when his aides presented him with their initial Social Security proposals 70 years ago, FDR balked: "No dole," he said, "mustn't have a dole" "” because he knew instinctively that welfare programs are both fundamentally unpopular as well as corrosive to the human spirit. Conservatives understand this better than liberals, and know perfectly well that the best way to kill something is to convince the public that it's actually a welfare program.

But that's not what Social Security is. It's a modestly progressive social insurance program that's paid for by everyone and that benefits everyone. If it ever stops being that, if it ever stops being universal, it will eventually cease to exist. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

The person who wrote this was ... Kevin Drum.  It is wildly disingenuous to look at income taxes and payroll taxes mixed together.  It is even more so given Drum fully understands why payroll taxes are structured as they are.

Which is all not to say that there is not a really halide point in the article that people in the 100,000-200,000 range are getting hosed.  But I would submit this hosing is more due to work by Drum's intellectual allies than the reverse.  Phase-outs of deductions  occur mostly in this range in the tax code, as does phase-in of the AMT.  Both are leftish creations.

Also, there has clearly been something regressive in the tax code for the top 1% of earners over the last 10+ years.  I am not sure what it is, because it certainly is not in the base rate schedule.  My guess is that they just spend a hell of a lot more on managing their tax bill than you or I do.  I am sure if I spent a million dollars on tax advice, I would cut my bill by 3 percentage points.  Of course, that is a losing proposition for me, but a winning proposition for someone who makes $100 million a year.  But hasn't this always been the case?  And won't it always be the case, at least until we decide to radically simplify the tax code?

I wrote more about Drum's 2005 post here.  I demonstrated how Social Security is promising me a negative rate of return on my money here.  I showed despite Drum's protestations that Social Security is in fact mostly a transfer program here, if one defines a transfer as the difference in the return I get from SS and the return I would get on the private market.

Update:  Over the weekend, without comment, the Obama team pulled down the language below and put up new, vaguer language without the "required."  Discussion and a screen shot of the original is here.

How do you tax people with who have no money?  Why, you take their labor by force.  It worked when we dragged Africans over here against their will in the 19th century, and it can work today.  From the Obama transition site:

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation's challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

So what was that about no tax increase for people making under $250,000?  Because my guess is that most high school and college kids made close to zero, but here is Obama seeking to expropriate 50-100 hours of their labor.  Sure looks like a tax to me.  By law, high school kids, by DOL rules, can work up to 1200 hours per year.  For kid that works every hour she can, this is about a 4% tax.  Kids that work less pay a higher effective tax rate, up to infinite for kids not working at all  (hey, this tax is even regressive).  Also, richer kids trying to get into top colleges will be the least affected, as they are already volunteering at a level close to this, so most of the burden of this tax will fall on the poor.

I remember when I was slammed by Obama supporters during the election when I said that his call for "universal" community service meant that he was going to mandate it.  Carefully avoiding being clearer about what he meant before the election, Obama sure has not wasted any time making sure everyone understands he is talking about government coercion here, not volunteerism.

PS- I thought this site was fake, because it was amazing to me to see Obama's intentions stated so baldly after he so strenuously avoided clarifying his position during the election.  But the Huffpo and other sites link to this site as if it is real, so I will treat it as such.

PPS - Here is Obama's pledge on taxes from the same site:

Middle class families will see their taxes cut "“ and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.

OK, we are not going to take more money, we are just going to take your labor directly.

Update: Radley Balko adds the chilling speech implications of such a program:

So who gets to decide what constitutes "community service"?  Who gets to decide which causes and organizations will be credit-worthy, and which ones won't?

Something tells me that you'd be more likely to get one of Obama's vouchers by going door to door for one of ACORN's living wage campaigns than, say, volunteering for a libertarian nonprofit organization that advocates against things like government-mandated community service.

Obama supporters will say, no problem, we trust Obama.  Hmm.  The folks who wrote our Constitution designed our government assuming all politicians would be knaves.  Writing laws that depend on the good intentions, fairness, correct incentives, and intellectual capacity of the government folks who run it are doomed to failure.  Would Democrats have been happy to have GWB deciding what community service their kids were forced to endure?  I doubt it.  Well, we don't live in an autarky, and sooner or later GWB's party will be back and making exactly those decisions under such a program.

I have always been mildly suspicious of the word "Patriotism," particularly when it is used to mean supporting one's country even when it is behaving badly.  I prefer to say that I respect, even love this country for the high values it has historically set for itself.   But when it falls short of those values, it is going to hear it from me, patriotism or no.

But if patriotism is defined as having my money put in someone else's pocket, I am not a patriot.

As we previewed last week, the IRS came out with its numbers on 2006 taxes, and it turns out that the top 1% richest taxpayers earned 22% of the taxable income and paid 40% of the income taxes.  According to candidate Obama, this represents an unfair free ride for the rich.  These numbers increased from 21% and 37% in the last year of the Clinton administration.

I guess my question is, what's enough?  Already, half the country only pays less than 3% of the income taxes.  Do we really want a country where 50.1% of the people vote to live off the other 49.9%?

Postscript:  Yes, I know payroll taxes work differently and hit lower income folks pretty hard.  But then again, the Social Security program is supposed to be an insurance and retirement plan, not a transfer program. The left goes bananas when you suggest Social Security is welfare and not an honorable paid participation program.  So, like any other insurance, the premiums are flat rather than progressive.  You can't have it both way.

From Mark Perry  (a new favorite of mine)

In related news, comes this from the WSJ via Evan Coyne Malloney

New data from the IRS will be out in a few weeks on who pays how much
in taxes. My contacts at the Treasury Department tell me that for the
first time in decades, and perhaps ever, the richest 1% of tax filers
will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden. The top 50% will
account for 97% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% will
have paid just 3%.

Here is the same data from 2005:

This is really a huge threat to the Republic and the minority protections built into the Constitution.  Our government was most explicitly not meant to be a tyranny of the majority, where 51%+ of the people can legally abuse the rest with impunity, but this tax picture sure seems to be stepping over this line.  A particularly worrisome subset of this problem is the increasing legislative predilection for funding  projects with millionaire's taxes, as discussed here and here.  I discussed more about the implications of 52.6% voting for the other 47.4% to support them here.

I generally like the work that Factcheck.org does, and am perfectly willing to believe that McCain's claim that Obama has voted "for higher taxes" 94 times is exaggerated.  However, some of their rationale leaves me flat:

Twenty-three [votes] were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.

Uh, OK.  It strikes me that voting against 23 tax cuts is voting for higher taxes 23 times.  I know that politicians work very hard to establish a sort of taxation Stare Decisis, wherein once a tax is in place it can never be questioned, but many of us think that tax cuts are fair game.  But then Newsweek, in reporting this story, goes on to repeat this claim over and over, as if that makes it correct:

By our count, about a quarter of these votes for "higher taxes" "“ 23 to
be exact "“ are votes Obama cast against changing tax rates from what
they were at the time. Taxes would not have gone up. They would have
been "higher" only compared to the cuts being proposed.

Sorry, but this does not sound like independent fact-checking.  This sounds like political spin and hackery by folks in Obama's camp.  Voting against a tax cut is a vote for higher taxes.

Eleven votes the GOP
is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1
million a year "“ in order to fund programs such as Head Start and
school nutrition programs, or veterans' health care.

The implication here, I guess, is that the rich people don't count as people, and that raising taxes only on the rich does not count as a tax increase?  We see this same bias that rich people don't count in their summary:

It's true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have
increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such
increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, McCain and
the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise
taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he's voted
consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but
not on middle- or low-income workers.

The other interesting pice of the previous quote is that tax increases don't count if they fund programs such as Head Start that the author of the study, presumably, supports.  The article goes on to say:

And in many cases, the legislation in question called for increasing
taxes in order to fund popular programs, a fact not mentioned by the
Republican opposition researchers. One such amendment
by Sen. Christopher Dodd to a 2006 bill, for example, proposed the
creation of a "veterans hospital improvement fund," financed by
increasing the capital gains and dividend tax rates on those earning $1
million a year or more.

You get it?  Its not a tax if it is on the rich or funds a liberal program.  By the way, I find this increasing reliance on taxes on people making $1 million or more an enormous threat to the very basis of our demacracy.  It is always a danger in democracy to have 51% of the people vote themselves benefits at the expense of the other 49%.  But this becomes increasingly seductive as the numbers skew, until every politician is crafting programs that take from the top 1% and give to politically influential portions of the other 99%.  Here is a great example of that in California, with a program the majority of voters were not willing to pay for, but accepted when it was funded by a millionaire's surcharge:

Already, we see many states funding new programs with surcharges on the rich.  Here is but one example:

California voters agreed to tax the rich to support public mental health
services. 

More than half of them (53.3 percent) voted last month in favor of
Proposition 63, which will impose a tax surcharge of 1 percent on the taxable
personal income above $1 million to pay for services offered through the
state's existing mental health system. The initiative will generate an
estimated $700 million a year....

Richard A. Shadoan, M.D., a past president of the CPA, wrote in Viewpoints
in the September 3 issue of Psychiatric News, "The scope of the
program and its tax-the-rich source will provoke a debate. But it's an
argument worth having to make California face the neglect of not providing
treatment to more than 1 million people with mental illness."

So
what happened?  I don't know how many people make a million dollars in
California, but it is certainly less than 5% of the population.  So the
headline should read "53.3% of people voted to have less than 5% of the
people pay for an expensive new program."  If the 53.3% thought it was
so valuable, why didn't they pay for it?  Well, it is clear from the
article that the populace in general has been asked to do so in the
past and refused.  So only when offered the chance to approve the
program if a small minority paid for it did they finally agree.  This is the real reason for progressive taxation.  (by the way, these 53.3% will now feel really good about themselves,
despite the fact they will contribute nothing, and will likely piss on
millionaires next chance they get, despite the fact that they are the
ones who will pay for the program).

That example reminded me in turn of this story from history, one of what I call "great moments in progressive taxation,"  and the ultimate logical end of this desire to have fewer and fewer rich people fund services for everyone:

My story today comes from the Roman Empire just after the death of
Julius Caesar.   At the time, three groups vied for power:  Octavian
(Augustus) Caesar, Mark Antony, and republican senators under Brutus
and Cassius.   Long story short, Octavian and Antony join forces, and
try to raise an army to fight the republicans, who have fled Italy.
They needed money, but worried that a general tax would turn shaky
public opinion in Rome against them.  So they settled on the ultimate
progressive tax:  They named about 2500 rich men and ordered them
killed, with their estates confiscated by the state. 

This approach of "proscriptions" had been used before (e.g. Sulla)
but never quite as obviously just for the money.  In the case of
Octavian and Antony, though nominally sold to the public as a way to
eliminate enemies of Rome, the purpose was very clearly to raise
money.  All of their really dangerous foes had left Rome with the
Republicans.  The proscriptions targeted men of wealth, some of whom
had been irritants to Octavian or Antony in the past (e.g. Cicero) but
many of whom had nothing to do with anything.  Proscribed men were
quoted as saying "I have been killed by my estates."

I wonder how many of today's progressives would be secretly pleased by this approach?

Postscript:  I can't tell if this Newsweek article represents some sort of strategic alliance or deal with Newsweek, or just a one-off.  If it is some kind of alliance, I think we can write off any notion that Factcheck.org is still non-partisan.  I predict if this is the case we will see more pro-Obama spin out of Factcheck, or as a minimum, a cherry-picking by Newsweek of which checked facts it wants to publish and which it does not.

I find that in discussing gasoline prices, a lot of people don't know what their state's gasoline tax is.  So, as a public service (hat tip to Mark Perry)

For about all of history, a large part of tax management has been in deferring recognition of income.  Everything being equal, its better to pay taxes further in the future, given the lower present value of deferred taxes.

This year is different.  As I talk to many other folks who run their own business, many are using every accounting trick in the book to pull income forward, into this year.  Why?  The reasoning is here.  Many folks are betting that their marginal tax rate will be going way up next year.  I know I will be drawing down every reserve and deferring every expense I can find to pull income into this year from next.

Though I would not want to trade my income taxes with those paid by Europeans, there is at least one area where the US has the worst tax regime in the world.  The specific area is the double standard the US applied on eligibility of income when other countries are involved.  For citizens of other countries, the US applies the standard that taxation is based on where one earns their income, so citizens of, say, France that are working in the US must pay US taxes.  However, for citizens of the US, the government reverses its standard.  In this case, the US applies the standard that taxation is based on citizenship, so US citizens must pay taxes on their income, even if it is all earned living in a foreign country.  Since most countries of the world apply the first standard  (which is also the standard individual states in the US apply), US expats find their income double taxed between the US and the country they are living in.

But now, it is just getting worse:

Queues of frustrated foreigners crowd many an American
consulate around the world hoping to get into the United States. Less
noticed are the heavily taxed American expatriates wanting to get out "”
by renouncing their citizenship. In Hong Kong just now, they cannot.
"Please note that this office cannot accept renunciation applications
at this time," the consulate's website states. Apart from sounding like
East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the closure is
unfortunately timed. Because of pending legislation on President Bush's
desk that is expected to become law by June 16th, any American who
wants to surrender his passport has only a few days to do so before
facing an enormous penalty.

"¦Congress has turned on expats, especially those who, since new tax
laws in 2006, have become increasingly eager to give up their
citizenship to escape the taxman. Under the proposed legislation,
expatriates surrendering their citizenship with a net worth of $2m or
more, or a high income, will have to act as if they have sold all their
worldwide assets at a fair market price.

"¦That expats want to leave at all is evidence of America's odd tax
system. Along with citizens of North Korea and a few other countries,
Americans are taxed based on their citizenship, rather than where they
live. So they usually pay twice "” to their host country and the
Internal Revenue Service. As this makes citizenship less palatable,
Congress has erected large barriers to stop them jumping ship. "¦[I]t
may have the opposite effect. Under the new structure, it would make
financial sense for any young American working overseas with a
promising career to renounce his citizenship as early as possible,
before his assets accumulate.

This is simply awful, and is another example of fascism in the name of egalitarianism (the fear is that a few rich people will move to tax havens to avoid US taxes).  Add up your net worth - equity in your house, retirement savings, etc - and imagine having to pay 35% of that as a big bribe tax to the US government to let you leave the country. 

Apparently, according to one survey, a majority of people think their taxes are "fair"

The 60% is an interesting figure.  It also roughly corresponds to the percentage of people who get more government benefits back than they pay in taxes:

So 60% of the people vote themselves goodies from the other 40%, and coincidently, 60% of the people think the arrangement is fair.

Richard Conniff in the NYT:

But we need language to remind us that this is our government, and that
we thrive because of the schools and transit systems and 10,000 other
services that exist only because we have joined together. Instead of
denouncing taxes, politicians would do better to appeal to the
patriotic corners of our hearts that warm to phrases like "we the
people." "Taxation" is a throwback to the time when kings picked our
pockets. "Paying my dues," a phrase popularized in the jazz music
world, is language by which we can stand together as Americans.

I am confused as to what the substantial difference is between 1 king picking our pockets and 535 kings picking our pockets.   Just because I get the annual opportunity to cast a meaningless vote between the Coke and Pepsi party does not change my view of government. 

To my mind, this is the #1 incorrect perception people have about the American Revolution.  So many people, like this author, seem to think it was about voting and democracy.  Bleh.  The Revolution was about the relationship between human beings and government.  Voting was merely one tool among many the founders adopted to try to protect man from government.  Unfortunately, this intellectual battle is being lost. 

JFK was the president that first made it clear that those of us who love freedom have been losing this battle.  In his famous quote "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country,"  JFK defined the heads-statists-win-tails-freedom-loses choice that people like Mr. Conniff continue to try to present us with.   These collectivists define our relation to government as either the recipient of unearned loot or milch cow to the whims of the voters.  Neither part of JFK's challenge represents a relation between man and government a freedom-loving person should accept.

More on why voting is not what makes our country great here.

From Jane Galt:

All this useless activity is so that our politicians can look like They
Care by giving tiny tax breaks to all of their favorite people--that is
to say, the people who vote for them and give them money. All of these
tax breaks, almost without exception, do the most good for the people
who least need them. Meanwhile, they waste time for the rest of us,
distort the economy, and require us to pay extra people to process tax
returns. It's lose-lose-lose all around unless you owned a seal-fur
farm between 1987 and 1991.

She also outlines her alternative tax plan.

From the Beatles (yes, those guys)   (Beatles, Robin Hood, and of course they perform the song)

From yours truly, the five worst traits about taxes

I don't believe man-made global warming is substantial enough or catastrophic enough in its effects to warrant expensive public action.  But if we did feel the need to do something, John Tierney echoes a theme I have been sounding for a while (emphasis added):

The CBO report concludes that a tax on carbon emissions "would be
the most efficient incentive-based option for reducing emissions and
could be relatively easy to implement. If it was coordinated among
major emitting countries, it would help minimize the cost of achieving
a global target for emissions by providing consistent incentives for
reducing emissions around the world." But the major presidential
candidates aren't supporting such a tax, and the few proposals on
Capitol Hill to impose a tax are not expected to go anywhere anytime
soon.

Instead, the candidates and most legislators prefer to talk about
cap-and-trade schemes like the Kyoto protocol. These schemes have the
great political advantage of hiding the costs from consumers and
voters, but they cost more and accomplish less. The CBO calculates that
the net benefits of a tax would be five times higher than for a
cap-and-trade with inflexible targets. A more flexible cap-and-trade
system wouldn't be quite as bad a deal economically, but it would
create all sorts of political temptations for doling out exemptions and
subsidies to well-connected industries and companies.

Typically, wealthy individuals and investors will work hard to delay declaration of income and to push taxes off as far into the future as possible.  The present value of taxes paid a year from now are less than paying the taxes today.

But over the last several weeks, I have had casual conversations with entrepreneurs and individuals from the moderately to very wealthy, and almost to a one they have said they are trying to pull income into 2007 and 2008 in anticipation of potentially large increases in capital gains tax rates and the rates at the top of the bracket.

On a different topic, a friend and I depressed ourselves in a bar last night laying out the case that the next decade may in many ways be a repeat of the 1970s.  Already, we see both parties reverting to the economic prescriptions they promoted in the 1970s.  Further, this week may herald the beginning of an inflationary monetary and fiscal policy combined with government enforced structural limits on growth (e.g. Co2 abatement policy, trade protectionism, price controls, high marginal tax rates and capital gains tax rates, lending restrictions, etc.)  We are seriously discussing nationalizing a major industry (health care) for the first time since the 1970's (when nationalizing oil was seriously considered).  Currently we have a Republican President who is less market-oriented than his Democratic predecessor, and at least as clueless on economic issues as were Nixon and Ford.  All that's left to do is elect a new Jimmy Carter in 2008...

A few weeks ago, my wife's car was totaled when a guy in a large van fell asleep and slammed into her car when she was sitting at a red light.  Since he admitted culpability, his insurance company quickly came up with a settlement amount for the totaled car based on blue book values and such. 

Here is the interesting part -- since the insurance company is technically buying the wrecked hulk from us, Arizona treats the payoff as a taxable transaction, and charges its full automotive sales tax rate on the settlement.  It's incredible to me that having my car wrecked is considered by the state of Arizona to be a taxable event, and that the tax is owed in this case by the victim.  I am glad my house didn't burn down, the state might have bankrupted me!

This all seems odd to me, since if I had sued the driver to make us whole, rather than accepted the insurance settlement, any amount I won in court would not be taxable.  My guess (and hope) is that they are only taxing me on the scrap value of the hulk, not the entire transaction, but I have to do more checking.

Note before commenting that laws and rules on this are highly variable by state.

I propose a survey.  We will ask 500 CEO's of large company's and 500 small business owners just one question

1.  Do you agree/disagree with the following statement:  In order to make my business more competitive in international markets, the federal government needs to raise taxes and expand its scope

How many out of the 1000 would answer "Agree?"  Well, at least the number won't be zero, as long as you ask the NY Times:

"¦the taxes collected last year by federal, state and local governments in the
United States amounted to 28.2 percent of gross domestic product. That
rate was one of the lowest among wealthy countries - about five
percentage points of GDP lower than Canada's, and more than eight
points lower than New Zealand's. "¦the meager tax take leaves the United
States ill prepared to compete. From universal health insurance to
decent unemployment insurance, other rich nations provide their
citizens benefits that the U.S. government simply cannot afford.
"¦revenue will prove too low to face the challenges ahead.

I love the part about unemployment insurance particularly -- other countries are more competitive than we are because they pay their citizens more not to work.  Huh?  Daniel Mitchel responds:

The editorial conveniently forgets to explain, though, how America is
less competitive because of supposedly inadequate taxation. Is it that
our per capita GDP is lower than our higher-taxed neighbors in Europe?
No, America's per capita GDP is considerably higher. Is it that our disposable income is lower? It turns out that Americans enjoy a huge advantage in this measure. Is our economy not keeping pace? Interesting thought, but America's been out-performing Europe for a long time. Could higher rates of unemployment be a sign of American weakness? Nice theory, but the data show better job numbers in the United States.

I also would point out the general direction of net immigration, which has always been towards the US from nearly every country in the world rather than the other direction.

The favorite argument du jour for more taxes is that the US has more income inequality than other countries.  Well, that is sort of true.  Our rich are richer than theirs.  But are our poor poorer?  In fact, as I posted here, the data (from a liberal think tank) shows that they are not.   The poor in European countries have a higher percentage of a lower median wage.  When you normalize European income distribution numbers to percentages of the US median wage, you can see our poor do at least as well as those in Europe, while our middle class and rich do better.

The US poor still trail countries like Switzerland, but that is because of very different immigration realities.  The US numbers for the bottom quartile are weighed down by tens of millions of recent immigrants (both legal and not) whereas those of Switzerland and Norway are not.  If you left out recent immigrants, my guess is that the US poor would be the richest in the world.

With the northern victory in the Civil War, and the subsequent passage of the 13th amendment, slavery was formally ended in this country.  Specifically, the 13th amendment stated:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, over a century later, slavery has returned to the United States.  Today, through the exercise of political power and the redistribution of wealth that should never have been Constitutional, 55% of Americans hold the other 45% in bondage, living off the product of their efforts just as surely as the white plantation owners of the Old South lived off the sweat of their African slaves.  The basis for this new servitude, however,  is not race, or religion, or national origin, but productivity. (via TJIC)

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Slightly over half of all Americans - 52.6 percent - now receive
significant income from government programs, according to an analysis
by Gary Shilling, an economist in Springfield, N.J. That's up from 49.4
percent in 2000 and far above the 28.3 percent of Americans in 1950. If
the trend continues, the percentage could rise within ten years to pass
55 percent, where it stood in 1980 on the eve of President's Reagan's
move to scale back the size of government.

Meanwhile, Ari Fleischer writes in today's WSJ (sub req) that the
top 1% of income earners pay 37% of total income taxes, the top 10% of
income earners pay 71% of total income taxes, and the top 40% of income
earners pay 99% of total income taxes.

The latter analysis is a bit off because it does not include payroll taxes, but if you include these taxes you still have under 50% of Americans paying virtually all the taxes (table at top of this page includes payroll taxes) 

The second greatest failing of the Constitution as originally drafted (the first being legality of slavery) is the lack of clear protections for property and commerce.  As a result, the only protection we have against full confiscation of everything we own is the whim of the electorate.  Now that a clear majority of voters are on the receiving end of money confiscated from a minority of voters, how good is this last protection? 

We have become a nation of slaveholders, with the majority holding the productive minority in bondage.  Inserting government in the middle of this process as an agent, so the recipients of this slave labor don't have to get their own hands dirty, does not change the nature of the relationship one bit.  It just pretties things up for our conscience.

Update:  Is the word "slavery" over the top?  Maybe, and I guess I could be accused of trivializing the true horrors of African slavery in the 19th century.  So substitute the word "serfdom" for "slavery". 

The fact that this was predictable does not make it any easier to swallow:

The bill set to reach the House floor today (resembling the Senate
version) would raise taxes an average of $1,795 on 115 million
taxpayers in 2011. Some 26 million small-business owners would pay an
average of $3,960 more. The decreased number of Americans subject to
income taxes would all pay higher taxes, and 5 million low-income
Americans would be returned to the rolls.

It just flabbergasts me that anyone can make the case that the feds don't have enough money, and that there are no spending cuts to be found.

It is not surprising that that a debate like the one over estate taxes that attracts so many class warfare fanatics should miss the point on a lot of issues.  However, the estate tax debate has been handled in the media perhaps worse than even other tax debates, which is a pretty low bar to try to crawl under.  The reason I say this is that the most serious "end the estate tax" type proposals out there have two parts, only one of which I have ever seen mentioned in the press:

1. End the federal tax on estates (this, of course, is the part that gets the press)
2. End the stepping-up of the cost basis of financial assets at death (this part never gets mentioned)

This 2nd piece of the proposal may seem arcane to some -- let me explain.  Most large estates (ie, the ones that estate tax supporters are concerned about) are dominated by financial assets (e.g. stocks, bonds).  These financial assets, typically held for years, tend to have a cost basis far below their current market value.  An example might be shares of Microsoft held for 10 years that were purchased for only a small fraction of the current price.  The cost basis of a financial asset is generally its purchase price plus commissions and other transaction charges.

Lets take a gentleman who dies and whose estate is made up entirely of $10 million worth of Coca-Cola stock bought years ago for just $5 million.  The estate all goes to his one daughter.  Under estate law, two things would happen.  The estate pays a large tax on the $10 million, and the remainder flows through to his daughter.  Lets say taxes take half, and his daughter now has $5 million of stock with an original price of $2.5 million.  The other thing that happens is the basis of assets is stepped up to current market value.  That means that as far as the IRS is concerned, his daughter owns stock worth $5 million with a basis of $5 million.  If she immediately sold the stock, she would have no capital gains tax.

There are a couple of good arguments against the estate tax.  From an efficiency standpoint, it diverts large pools of capital from private investments into the hands of the Federal Government, where only the most ardent statist would argue that it is better spent.  Also, billions and billions of dollars are spent every year with lawyers, accountants and financial planners to find ways to dampen the impact of the estate tax.  This is all wasted, unproductive effort that would immediately be redirected to more productive uses if the estate tax were eliminated.

From a fairness standpoint, the estate tax acts as a second tax on income that has already been taxed before.  In our example, though the $5 million capital gain is getting taxed for the first time in the estate, the $5 million original costs, which must have come from taxed income at one time, is getting taxed for at least a second time.  The other fairness problem becomes visible if we change the name of the stock from Coca-Cola to "Dad's private company."  For family businesses, ownership is not as easily divisible - you can't sell half or two-thirds that easily in part because there is not much market for minority shares of small family businesses.  What therefore happens in practice is that the daughter must sell the family business to pay the taxes.

The estate tax reform plan outlined above eliminates both these latter problems.  Under these rules, the daughter would inherit the full $10 million of stock, but, unlike today, her basis would remain the same as her dad's -- in this case, $5 million.  She would not pay any tax until she sold any of the assets.  And then she would pay capital gains taxes using the lower basis of her father's.

This results in two beneficial outcomes:  a)  taxes are only charged on the part of estates that have not already faced income taxes and b)  taxes are only paid when the individuals who inherit choose to make an asset sale and convert assets to cash.  The timing of assets sales drive taxes, whereas today, in all too many cases, taxes drive the timing of asset sales.  (By the way, supporters of the estate tax also argue that it is good because the estate tax incentivizes charitable giving.  The argument is that the tax is so confiscatory, and that the government so well-known as a black hole for money, that rich people decide it is better to give it away than to let the government take it all.  This is an odd argument for statists to make, but they do.  Note that in this estate tax proposal, the daughter would inherit a lot of low-basis stocks.  The same charitable giving incentives exist for low-basis stocks, since the IRS will give you credit for the market value as a deductible gift but you don't have to pay the capital gains).

Asymmetrical Information has been on this case for a while:

There is no case for saying, as the New York Times inexplicably does, that "Repeal would shield
the estates of the very wealthiest Americans from the tax." It does not. It
does, however, defer taxation. Because basis will no longer be 'stepped-up'
after death (except for a $1.3 million exemption) they will simply be taxed like
all other capital gains - at the time those gains are realized.

Stepped-up basis is one of the four legs of the estate-planning stool along
with the life insurance tax exemption, minority discount valuations and the division of income and
principal interests (such as the "estate
freeze"). It is not entirely clear that beneficiaries of large estates are
better off after repeal when the full toolkit of estate planning techniques is
taken into account - unless capital gains tax is done away with altogether and
the states stop taxing estates. Neither is likely to happen.

Given the large estates I've seen avoid taxes, I am skeptical of analyses
that suggest an enormous impact to revenues from this repeal. I don't believe
they factor in the new potential revenues from carryover basis outside the
traditional estate tax shelter vehicles. Certainly, the capital gains rate is
lower than the estate rate, but when estate tax shelter vehicles dwindle away,
more assets will ultimately be subject to capital gains taxation. Based on what
estate planning professionals tell me, it will be a wash in many cases and more
expensive in some significant estates. In other words, with respect to the
Estate Tax, we may still be in the fat part of the Laffer curve, where a lower statutory rate may yield higher
revenues over time (due to avoidance behavior, not a lack of work
incentives).

This post also cites a study that says that increased capital gains taxes on inherited assets could offset estate tax losses to the government.  That seems aggressive, assuming a lot of assets are getting passed in vehicles (trusts?) that avoid or limit estate taxes, but the offset is there never-the-less and is something you will never ever see in a newspaper article about the estate tax.

I haven't paid attention to the current Congressional proposals out there, but the post goes on to argue that Congress, as is its wont, has chosen the worst of both worlds while maximizing rent-seeking opportunities.

postscript: By the way, shame on all of those accountants, lawyers, and others in the estate planning profession.  They all tell their clients that the estate tax is confiscatory, and can go on for hours with a client about various things that are unfair in the system.  But at the same time they run to Congress begging them to keep the whole tottering complex system in place to protect the rent they extract from inefficiencies in the system

Oakland is fed up with high school kids that litter, throwing the lunch wrappers from their Big Mac on the ground rather than putting them in the trash.  The city is arguing that these folks' inconsiderate littering is making a mess of the town and costing the city a fortune in clean up.  The city wants to send a clear message to its kids that this is not going to be tolerated and they expect people to take responsibility for this, so the City Council has boldly passed a new law to ... tax McDonalds to clean up after the little darlings.

So City Council Member Jane Brunner is proposing to charge major fast
food restaurants a fee of $2,400 to hire crews to pick up garbage
around town. She says a study shows fast food restaurants account for
20-percent of Oakland's litter.

Vince Thomas, Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise owner: "I don't have any control over it once it leaves my lot."...

The Restaurant Association reminded the council it could be getting itself into a discrimination lawsuit.

Johnnise Downs, California Restaurant Association: "Because it singles
out and penalizes one specific group of businesses, and basically
places the entire burden of Oakland's litter problems on those
businesses."

You know what this reminds me of?  It's as if parents were frustrated that their kid never cleaned up after himself and always left messes around the house, so they choose to deal with it by hiring a maid to clean up after him.  What about actually, you know, enforcing litter laws.

By the way, here's another question.  We all know how little of the tobacco settlement that was ostensibly to fund health care actually went to health care.  I wonder in this case how much will actually go to incremental trash pickup and how much will just be dumped into general revenue.

Kentucky, the state that made me get an egg license, is in the news again because it is complaining that it is not getting its fair share of the tobacco settlement funds, and so needs to increase cigarette taxes even more. 

Don't feel guilty if you can't actually remember what the settlement was about other than just more tax money.  The settlement was the result of a series of lawsuits from state AG's against cigarette companies arguing that use of their product is costing the states money in the form of higher medical costs (the health care as Trojan horse for total government control argument I have discussed before).  The substantially increased taxes on cigarettes was supposed to both deter use and to raise money for state health care.

Well, check out this statement form the Kentucky governor as to why he wants to raise the cigarette taxes, and notice what justifications for the taxes are NOT there:

The additional revenue from the tobacco settlement,
according to [governor] Fletcher, would increase the state's debt capacity and
allow for more spending on more projects, such as an information
technology research center and expanding the Big Bone Lick State Park.
He also says the added revenue would allow the state "to ease the tax
burden on small businesses."

I do have to admit that "Big Bone Lick" state park seems the perfect monument to government taxation.

This is a great example of the perverse incentives "sin" taxes put on government.  First put in place to reduce some behavior, once government officials become addicted to the spending the tax allows, the government tends to shift posture to supporting, rather than reducing, the "sin" since its continued existence is required to maintain tax revenues.  This is happening all over with the tobacco settlement, as government has suddenly become the tobacco companies' partner in maintaining revenues and market share.  And here I wrote about a similar occurrence.

Postscript:  By the way, not accounted for by the governor in his "fair share" of settlement funds are the large subsidies that flow to Kentucky tobacco growers.  In surely one of the best examples of how most government programs are all about rent-seeking rather than whatever their stated purpose is, the US is vigorously taxing tobacco, ostensibly to reduce its use, while at the same time aggressively subsidizing the production of tobacco.

California is one of the toughest states in the country to do business in.  Bill Leonard, a member of the California BOE*, takes a refreshingly free market approach for a left-coast politician.  From looking at his site, he and I may not see eye-to-eye on immigration, but he has been a lone voice of sanity on tax and regulatory policy in California for several years.  If you are interested, his email newsletter is generally filled with news and commentary on how California tax and regulatory law is changing and how these changes may affect local businesses.  You can sign up for his newsletter here.

*  You know your state is in trouble when the department of taxation and revenue calls itself the "Board of Equalization", though I am told this originally referred to equalization of tax policy across counties rather than having the redistributive overtones it has today.