Tag Archives: economics

Corporate Free Rides

Posted on by
Reply

Alex Sanchez, Florida Bankers Association President and CEO, is worried about corporate welfare.

The problem with modern American credit unions boils down to a simple question: why should a family of four pay more income taxes than a $90 billion financial institution? That’s the total amount of assets held by Navy Federal Credit Union. Yet it is exempt from federal and state corporate income taxes, as well as sales taxes (and, in my home state of Florida, intangible taxes). This is corporate welfare.

He’s right that this isn’t a balanced approach to taxation, but he’s wrong about it being corporate welfare.  The answer isn’t to start levying income taxes on credit unions.  Since customers, American citizens, are the ones who end up paying the vast majority of a business’ taxes, the right answer is to reduce the income taxes on all businesses to the credit unions’ rate.

I agree, too, that even in a zero corporate income tax regime, personal income taxes are too high.  The present temporary personal income tax cuts should be made permanent—as most of our politicians now recognize; it’s only the Progressive-Democrats who not only oppose permantizing the current rates but want to raise them to Kennedy-era rates. Following closely on making those rates permanent, we then should debate lowering them further.

A family of four should pay a higher income tax rate than a multi-billion dollar business, or even a mom-and-pop business, pays, especially since that family already is paying those business’ taxes.

That family just should not be paying as much more.

Income Equality

Posted on by
Reply

William Galston doesn’t think we have enough, and it’s the successful one’s fault.

[T]his [trade leaving nations generally better off] is small comfort to those who lose out, especially because the winners rarely compensate them commensurately.

Galston is operating from a blatantly false premise here.

He does have a couple of solutions to offer.

First, they [government] could significantly expand the earned-income tax credit to bolster the incomes of workers somewhat higher up the income ladder. Second, they could implement a broader program of wage subsidies that would raise the wages of lower- and middle-income earners toward a specified hourly target.

Never mind that, with a Progressive-Democratic Uncle Sugar government paying these wage fractions, employers will have no incentive to pay as high wages.

Why not just skip these middle steps, and provide a Universal Basic Income?

Oh, wait….

Surprised

Posted on by
Reply

Writing on the topic of our applying economic pressure on Turkey as a means of getting an American hostage (among others) freed, Greg Ip expressed surprise and worry about the weaponization of trade in his Wednesday Wall Street Journal article.

Trade wars may be morphing into something more dangerous: financial wars.

This, though, merely exposes his misunderstanding of international trade.  Such trade is far more about national policy applied internationally than it is about economics, and international finance is just a tool of that trade venue.  Trade has always been “weaponized;” it has always been about achieving national political goals, of which economics is merely one.

Ip’s discourse also misuses the term “war;” although, he is not alone in this error.  Trade “wars,” even with finance tools being used extensively, are not shooting conflicts, and even with the global financial dislocations of events like the Great Depression or the Panic of 2008, nations’ existences were never at risk.  While trade, freely wielded as a tool of policy, can be effective at pushing the targeted nation to alter its behavior, it never threatens that nation’s independence.  It’s never war.

A Crisis Deepens?

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China has a serious debt problem, but its economy is still slowing (note, though: slower growth still is growth).  To try to control and reverse the trend, the PRC’s central bank is lessening capital requirements for the nation’s banks, pumping more money into the financial system, and urging commercial lenders to offer more loans at cheaper rates to small businesses.  Their answer to too much debt seems to be to pile on more debt, lower the backstop against failing loans, and devalue through inflation the currency needed to repay the debt.

Another day older and deeper in debt.
St Confucius, don’t you call me ‘cos I can’t go,
I owe my soul at the Chairman’s call.

Turkey and Natural Gas Pipelines

Posted on by
Reply

War on the Rocks has an interesting piece on Turkey’s desire to become a natural gas transshipment hub feeding Europe and perhaps Russia.  I think, though, that WOTR underplays the purpose of Turkey’s transshipment goal.

Recall the existing conflict between Turkey and Europe over immigration, economics, rule of law EU-style rather than as Recep Erdoğan does it, and a host of other excuses for Turkey to claim to be put upon.

Next, keep in mind that Turkey went to school on Russia’s use of its dominance in supplying natural gas to Ukraine and to central Europe and the fact that that dominating supply flowed almost exclusively through a pipeline running through Ukraine to Europe.  Turkey also is observing with care the increase in Russian control of Europe’s natural gas supply that construction of Nord Stream 2 would produce and which would allow Russia to take Ukraine out of the equation altogether, thereby to directly…influence…Europe.

Awash in natural gas deliveries from highly diversified pool of suppliers, Turkey hopes to dominate the market by becoming a natural gas hub for Europe, particularly Southeast Europe, which is less connected to EU natural gas infrastructure and remains heavily dependent on Russia[.]

Now here is Turkey deliberately building an oversupply of natural gas transport so as to feed southern Europe.  And…influence…it?  WOTR put it too mildly, I think.

If Turkey becomes a hub through which a diverse set of suppliers sends its natural gas to Southeast and Southern Europe, the country stands not only to amass economic benefits…. It can also use the status of an energy hub to heighten its geopolitical weight in the region, vis-à-vis Russia and the European Union.

I submit that Russia is less a target than is the EU.  After all, after the Turkish shootdown of a Russian fighter aircraft, there has been an enthusiastic rapprochement between those two nations.