Category Archives: markets

Byzantine Taxing

Posted on by
Reply

Many companies, sitting on billions of dollars of tax credits, want to be able to cash them in promptly.

For example:

Duke has been unable to use all the corporate-research and renewable-energy credits it accumulated because it has been using accelerated tax deductions for capital investments to lower its taxable income, said Dwight Jacobs, the company’s chief accounting officer. That bumped it up against tax-code rules that limit tax credits, leaving $1.8 billion in unused credits on Duke’s books. Under the proposal, the company could get that within months instead of years.
The proposal “would give us more cash today and that would cause us to avoid borrowing money that we would otherwise have to borrow,” said Mr Jacobs.

And

Under the tax code, companies can claim credits for activities encouraged by the government. Among the largest are credits for conducting corporate research, funding low-income housing, and producing renewable energy….
Unlike deductions, which lower taxable income, credits reduce a company’s tax bill directly. But there are limits. Companies can generally offset only 75% of the taxes they owe by using credits. Any leftover credits can be used for one previous year or up to 20 years in the future.

Sound complicated? That’s the point. This isn’t a matter of helping out Duke, et al., with a particular section of the tax code. This is a matter of a too-complicated tax code.

We need, badly, to simplify it. A single, low rate, with no deductions, subsidies, credits, or other froo-froo would be suitably simple.

Better, would be eliminating corporate taxes altogether. In the end, the taxes a business pays are just costs passed on to customers in the form of higher prices; the taxed business doesn’t itself pay very much of its tax liability.

Either move would be doubly beneficial: more money left in the company’s coffers for R&D, marketing, capital improvement, jobs, wage increases from the reduced/eliminated taxes. More money also would be left in the company’s coffers for R&D, marketing,… from the reduced/eliminated tax compliance costs.

And all of that adds up to lowered prices for the company’s customers.

Market Performance

Posted on by
Reply

Great Britain has decided to bar the People’s Republic of China’s telecom company, Huawei, from participating in the British build-out of their 5G network.

The PRC isn’t happy. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian:

Whether the UK will provide an open, fair and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese businesses offers a telling clue to how the post-Brexit British market will perform and how secure China’s investment will be in that country. So, we will be closely following the situation.

I certainly hope it’s a telling clue, given that PRC companies are extensions of that government’s intelligence gathering facility.

Besides, diversity in 5G network buildout and operation, which will be facilitated by avoiding Huawei participation and domination, will only enhance the communications market; enhancing national security in the several nations is a happy additional outcome.

More Disingenuosity

Posted on by
2

The Supreme Court has ruled—7-2—in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor and other organizations. The Court upheld the Trump administration’s rule exempting these employers from an Obamacare requirement to provide insurance coverage that includes contraception.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the Court:

We hold today that the Departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption. We further hold that the rules promulgating these exemptions are free from procedural defects.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

…this Court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets.

Ginsburg is being disingenuous in this. Contraceptives are dirt cheap in Walmart and drug stores. It’s no great burden for “women workers” to pay for contraception “out of their own pockets.” If it’s a burden to seek “contraceptive coverage” from other sources, that’s the direct result of Obamacare driving up the cost of all coverage.

Ginsburg is being sexist in this. Condoms are nearly as cheap and even more widely available. But Ginsburg is blithely assuming that contraception is solely the responsibility of the woman.

Markets

Posted on by
Reply

Zimbabwe, in attempt to protect its currency—already a close neighbor of worthless—has decided to close its stock exchange.

If there is no market for the currency, then it has little value in terms of purchasing power. If there is no convertibility of the currency into other currencies, then there is both high risk in holding the currency and reduced interest in holding it.  And so reduced purchasing power.

If the currency has little value and limited convertibility—or either alone—there is little interest in investing in the country or in simply buying its goods or selling foreign goods in—especially if the investments must be done in the domestic currency.

Without foreign trade or investment, domestic production of goods and services is strongly limited—especially when the nation is so far from self-sufficient in necessary resources—the inputs to any production.

Limited production, limited buying—the stuff of economic stagnation moving into decline.

Closing a stock exchange in such an environment is a move with no relevance to the failure of the ZWL. Aside from the fact that only the very rich Zimbabweans and foreign investors traded on that market, the failure of the currency is a failure in citizens’ belief in the government, a failure of their confidence in the nation, and a disbelief in the citizens to keep what they’ve earned, whether hard goods or money. It’s a failure in confidence in the future.

Getting the future back is more serious business than closing a stock market.

Distractions

Posted on by
Reply

Much is being made of the cybersecurity threat, the national security threat, that the People’s Republic of China’s Huawei represents. For instance, Senator Ben Sasse (R, NE) has said it’s good for the British government to be removing Huawei from the core of the British Internet.

Senator Mark Warner (D, VA):

Huawei has been and will continue to be a national security threat….

Senator Tom Cotton (R, AR) on the Brits’ initial decision to allow Huawei into their Internet infrastructure:

[t]he Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will now have a foothold to conduct pervasive espionage on British society.

But a question arises in my peabrain.

Huawei and ZTE, with their backdoors and outright spyware, have been remarkably easy to identify. Suppose they were intended to be seen. What are we missing in Xi’s left hand while we focus on the glitter in his right? Or more aptly, are we missing Xi’s dagger while we let ourselves be distracted by his épée?