Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

A Flat Tax

Posted on by
Reply

Steve Forbes, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media, and Stephen Moore, a Heritage Foundation economist, proposed last Monday.

Collapsing the personal-income and corporate tax rates to 15% would have huge economic benefits. America would suddenly have one of the lowest tax rates in the world, resulting in trillions of dollars of new capital flow and a spike in take-home pay.

And this:

The simplicity of a flat tax would reduce the deadweight costs associated with tax compliance—and the headaches. The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs calculates that Americans spent almost eight billion hours filling out tax forms in 2024.

Using a naïve estimate of 97.2 million households (and even more naively assuming all households pay taxes, which provides an upper bound on the number of households relevant here), that works out to over 80 hours per household—two working weeks—of tax compliance labor.

This, too:

The Tax Foundation estimates that this cost the economy $413 billion in lost productivity, and the Internal Revenue Service estimates that we spent $133 billion on out-of-pocket compliance costs.

That’s $4,250 per year in lost productivity for each household, with an added $1,370 per year per household of unreimbursed spending just to comply with current tax law. Most households could find other uses for those $5,620.

Still, I don’t think Forbes and Moore go far enough.

I’d add getting rid of the corporate income tax altogether. Business’ customers pay the bulk of those taxes, anyway, rather than the taxed business; for the taxed business, the tax is just another cost center to be covered proximately through product/service pricing and indirectly through reduced spending on innovation, expansion, hiring, and raises.

Forbes and Moore suggest getting rid of some deductions, but I’d go farther here, too. Get rid of all deductions, subsidies, and credits, too, and tax all income from all sources as ordinary income. Let businesses make their expansion and financing decisions based on purely business and market criteria instead of having to game the tax implications of borrowing or stock issuances. Individuals also would go back to making their spending and investing decisions based on what’s good for their individual/family situations instead of having to game a byzantine tax system in the course of their decisions.

And those optimal decisions would include how to use those $5,620.

One More Reason…

Posted on by
Reply

…to stop doing business in New York. This time, it’s the State’s move to tax energy producers who sell their fossil fuel products in the State on the risible basis of those producers’ (global) CO2 production over the years 2000 through 2018. Never mind that, as the Wall Street Journal‘s editors put it,

It’s impossible to determine a company’s contribution to climate change since the effects of CO2 emissions on temperature and natural disasters are mediated by myriad variables.

New York’s bureaucrats will make their assessments anyway, and those assessments will be, of necessity, wholly arbitrary. Then there’s this, too, which New York’s government personages consider irrelevant:

Most fossil-fuel emissions stem from their combustion rather than production….

The fossil fuel energy producers shouldn’t waste time litigating this in court, even though they’d likely win given the plethora of court decisions that hold moves like New York’s illegal.

These folks should simply stop selling their products in New York, and that should include no longer selling their products to utilities that provide electricity- and natural gas-related energy in New York. They’ll save more money that way, money that could be used for innovation and better fossil-fuel-related products for their other customers.

Nor will New Yorkers be harmed by the withdrawal. They have plenty of energy flowing from all those “green” and “renewable” energy sources. And those nuclear reactors on the horizon. The State government’s personages assure us so.

Not Entirely

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s headline lays out the claim:

Elite Colleges Have a Looming Money Problem

The article goes on:

[T]here are financial problems below the surface that could emerge if the bull market stumbles and especially if some proposed Trump administration policies are enacted.

And this:

…Ivy League endowment returns, which could have been worth 20% more since the 2008 financial crisis if invested in a classic stock and bond mix.

We all could have done better. That’s irrelevant. The bare fact is these endowments, as the table of Ivy League endowments below shows, are plenty big enough, and they’re still growing, for all the temporary losses of the Panic of 2008.

*Per Wikipedia, a/o June 2023
**Calculated from undergrad + grad student enrollment

It’s all crocodile tears. If the schools were truly worried about their dwindling endowments—just $1 billion could fund 100 professorships or permanently cover tuition for 100 students—they could cut the claptrap and waste out of their expense structures. Those structures include such…foolishnesses…as bloated management teams that include a plethora of DEI staff and Inquisition bureaucracies designed to convict a male student on the basis of a female student’s bare accusation.

No, these schools have rich endowments; they’re not financially challenged. They just might lose their access to the Federal feedbag. Which they should anyway.

More Progressive-Democrat Lies

Posted on by
Reply

This time by Jennifer Granholm, Energy Secretary for the Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden. The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are too timid polite to characterize her claims as anything other than “she’s wrong,” but as one of those So Much Smarter Than Us, Granholm knew and knows better; she is lying to us. Here are the unhappy totals (sorry, Jack Brickhouse), prompted by a just-released DoE report on the effects of exporting liquified natural gas.

  • Granholm: exporting more LNG would boost US natural gas, electricity, and product prices.
  • Her Lie Exposed: US gas prices are hovering near record lows even as exports have surged. That’s because growing US production has more than offset domestic demand.
  • G: more US exports aren’t needed since the world will soon be awash in gas.
  • L: Europeans and Japanese disagree, and the DOE study stresses that “US LNG has played a role in enhancing supply security for markets looking to reduce coal in their energy mix while prioritizing both renewables and gas.”
  • G: US LNG would “displace more renewables than coal globally.”
  • L: The study finds that US LNG would mostly displace fossil fuels and at most increase global CO2 emissions cumulatively by 0.05% through 2050.

This is yet another reason why we wouldn’t have nice things under the reign of the Progressive-Democratic Party.

“Our Question is: Why?”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s The Wall Street Journal editors’ question, and it’s mine, too, regarding further interest rate cuts. The editors posit a number of reasons for not cutting further, but mine is simpler. It’s a refrain I’ve done before.

Inflation, which is the Fed’s Directed Operational Requirement, already is within noise distance of its longtime 2% target, and now is bouncing around noisily. The Fed’s target benchmark interest rate setting already is at a level historically consistent with its 2% target. It’s time for the Fed to sit down and be quiet and let the market bounce around, as it does and as it self-corrects. The bouncing, within very broad limits, is just the noise of a free market operating normally and prosperously.