Tag Archives: political economy

Leave alone, Jobs, Respect

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-Chicago Mayor and ex-President Barack Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (D) cried out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed earlier this month that Progressive-Democrats are “blowing their chance,” the central theme of which was that the current crop of Progressive-Democrat Presidential candidates seemed to be running against ex-Progressive-Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton and Obama, rather than the current President, Donald Trump.

A Letter to the Editor writer in Friday’s WSJ took issue with Emanuel’s piece; this part in particular drew my attention.

Donald Trump is on the edge of doing more for black Americans than Mr Emanuel’s party has done for decades. He’s leaving them alone, giving them jobs, showing them respect.

I agree with the letter writer (RTWT), but I do have one small correction here. Giving minorities things is what Progressive-Democrats—like Emanuel—do, in order to keep those minorities trapped in the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage. Trump is creating opportunity and helping black Americans—all minorities—get second chances after sometimes serious mistakes, find their own jobs, be able to make their own way.

And you bet Trump is otherwise leaving them alone. This is wholly unlike the Left, even more generally than its Party, which hektors, when not outright smearing, blacks for not adhering to Party, not voting correctly, and thereby being good blacks.

Opportunity, actual help rather than giving things, no soft bigotry of low expectations—that’s true respect.

There was this, also, from Emanuel in his missive:

The next nine months will present our raucous coalition a rare opportunity to establish a new Democratic “metropolitan majority” that could last for years.

This is very illuminating. It makes explicit the Progressive-Democrats’ utter contempt for tens of millions of Americans—those of us citizens who live in flyover country.

Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

It seems Amazon isn’t paying enough corporate taxes to suit Progressive-Democrats.

In its annual regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Jeff Bezos’ sprawling e-commerce empire said it paid $162 million in federal income taxes on $13.3 billion of US pre-tax income, an effective tax rate of 1.2%. It deferred more than $914 million in taxes.

All perfectly legal, too, yet the hue and cry is loud. Matthew Gardner, Senior Fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, for instance:

This means that instead of avoiding 100 percent of its income tax liability, Amazon appears to have avoided only 94 percent of its tax bill last year[.]

Not at all.  Amazon, unless Gardner is going to allege actual tax fraud, paid 100% of its actual tax liability, after accounting for all of the credits, deductions, and other loopholes our byzantine tax code allows corporations.  Amazon just didn’t pay its “fair share,” whatever carefully nebulous sum that amounts to.

The hue and cry is accurate, though not in the way the Left would have us believe.  As someone almost said once, the fault is not in our corporatoins, but in our tax code.

Everything Amazon did was legal, and it would have been an abuse of the company’s fiduciary duty to its owners not to take advantage of the opportunities—Amazon’s tax bill and overall tax rate are an illustration of the failures of a tax code that has all of those vasty loopholes, gaps, deductions, credits, etc.

A single low, flat tax rate that treats all income identically, regardless of source, and that has no loopholes, gaps, deductions, credits, etc, would do wonders for our economy, increase the revenues ultimately remitted to Government, and enhance both private citizens’ and Government’s (in that order) ability to see to the least among us.

Mind you, that low, flat tax rate should be applicable only to personal income. Corporations should be assessed no income tax at all; they don’t pay those taxes anyway, not even that 1.2%: their customers, ultimately us individual persons, do in the form of higher prices.

A Good Start

Posted on by
Reply

But it’s only a start. The Trump administration is working with companies including Microsoft, Dell, and AT&T to develop 5G software in an attempt to break Huawei’s current dominance of the 5G market and to supplant it.

The plan would build on efforts by some US telecom and technology companies to agree on common engineering standards that would allow 5G software developers to run code atop machines that come from nearly any hardware manufacturer.

Software isn’t the only source or solution, though; we need to push hardware development, too. It’s too easy to bury malware in hardware’s ROM/PROM/EPROM chips; Huawei’s hardware will need to be excised as well.

Partially Right

Posted on by
Reply

India has decided that the way out of its current economic doldrum is to cut its tax rates.

Oh, and to raise its government spending, too.

On Saturday the government unveiled a long list of measures to energize consumption and investment. It lowered income taxes and some corporate taxes and pledged more investment in infrastructure, rural development, education and health care.
To accommodate the spending, India decided to miss its own budget-deficit target.

Cutting taxes almost always is good—only almost because a government does need a minimum level of revenue in order to accomplish the goals set for it by the citizens employing it. Cutting taxes—and even given that threshold, there’s room for major cuts in India—leaves more money in the hands of private citizens. Those citizens will more accurately spend their money because their spending is tailored to their needs and wants; it’s not spending on one-size-fits-all goals or government-determined goals.

On the flip side, India needs to cut spending to fit within the revenues generated from those lower taxes, not increase it. Deficit spending only increases overall national debt. That national debt always and everywhere represents higher taxes.  Those higher taxes either will come as explicit taxes designed to raise revenues for paying the debt or as inflation to devalue the debt.

Beyond that, government spending competes with the spending of those private citizens and their enterprises for goods and services and the resources needed to produce them. That only reduces the resources available to the private economy, and it drives up prices, not just for those resources, but for the competed-for goods and services, also.

Doing that will drive economic activity, which will yield a net increase in revenues to the government within those lowered tax rates. That increase revenue will enable the government to spend more on infrastructure, rural development, education, and health care—the goals the Indian government claims.

A Cost of Impeachment

Posted on by
Reply

It seems the Progressive-Democrats’ attempt to impeach President Donald Trump was not all that fiscally expensive as such things go.

According to an estimate from the Heritage Foundation in December, the [Progressive-]Democrat-led House of Representatives inquiry, and eventual impeachment of Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on December 18, cost taxpayers an estimated $3.06 million.

That compares with the effort against ex-President Bill Clinton (D):

According to CNN, the independent probe into Clinton cost taxpayers $80 million in 1994.

That bill includes the Senate trial, while the Heritage Foundation estimate doesn’t include the Senate’s in-progress impeachment trial, but it’s unlikely that the Senate trial will cost $77 million.

It should be no surprise, though, that the House’s seemingly slapdash effort was done on the cheap. The present effort has never been about actual impeachment and removal; it has been solely an effort to conduct a prolonged smear campaign and with that to prejudice the 2020 election.