Tag Archives: political economy

Fair Share of Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I, VT) says the rich should pay more taxes than they do already and that if only they paid “their fair share” Party’s socialist dream programs could all be paid for.  He repeated that demand on last Monday’s Town Hall with Fox News.

On the other hand.

According to data released recently by the Internal Revenue Service, compiled by the Tax Foundation, the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid about $43.9 billion in income taxes 2016—which accounts for roughly 3% of all income taxes paid.

The top 1%—Bernie’s second favorite target, at that Town Hall and everywhere else he speaks—pay

37.3% of all income taxes paid during the same year

That works out to $545.8 billion.

Those are dollars.  Here are the tax rates actually paid by those two groups.

the top 1% paid at a 26.9% individual income tax rate
the bottom 50% paid at a 3.7% rate

The rap on President Donald Trump’s and the Republican Party’s tax reform is that it gave the bulk of the tax cut to those Evil 1%.

Well, duh.  The reform’s tax cut here was an across the board reduction in rate and a consolidation of brackets, so that all taxpayers got essentially the same reduction in rates—with many middle-class taxpayers getting pushed into a lower bracket for an even greater reduction in rate.  However, those 1%-ers remain in the highest tax bracket, they still pay the most, by far, dollar amount—and so of course they saw the largest dollar reduction.

Beyond that, the personal income tax rate reduction is only temporary, and if the rates and brackets revert to their previous levels, it’ll be the middle-class that’s hardest hit.  Nevertheless, Progressive-Democrats in Congress refuse to allow the personal tax reductions to become permanent so they can have a talking point about their own second favorite target for the 2020 elections.

From that, it’s only natural that Sanders and his Progressive-Democrat cronies constantly avoid (refuse?) saying how much is “fair share,” just that it’s more, more, more, gimme, gimme.

Progressive-Democrats are the modern epitome of an 19th century railroad magnate:

Anything that ain’t nailed down is mine, and if I can pry it loose, it ain’t nailed down.

Mores and the Patent and Trademark Office

Posted on by
1

The Supreme Court has taken up the case of Iancu v Brunetti and heard oral arguments Monday.  Erik Brunetti wanted a copyright on the label for a clothing line of his that he’d named FUCT, an acronym for Friends U Can’t Trust.  Iancu is Andrei Iancu, who is duel-hatted as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  Wearing that second hat, Iancu and his fellow USPTO bureaucrats said they were scandalized and morally offended, and they denied Brunetti’s copyright application.  The Wall Street Journal, at the link, said

On [last] Monday the Justices will consider whether to broaden First Amendment protection to trademarks that offend moral sensibilities.

More correctly, though, whether the Justices recognize this or not, they’ll be considering whether to protect trademarks that offend the particular sensibilities of a few Government bureaucrats.

What constitutes scandalous is inherently subjective and depends on cultural mores….

This, on the other hand, is overbroad. Again, what constitutes scandalous behavior (what is scandalism?) in Government permitting doesn’t depend on cultural mores so much as it depends on the mores of a few Government bureaucrats and on how those bureaucrats choose to interpret what they personally view as the nation’s cultural mores.

It’ll be instructive if Brunetti doesn’t get a unanimous favorable ruling.

The Federal Reserve Bank and Presidential Pressure

Posted on by
Reply

“A string of central bankers,” the entire Precious lot of them, at last weekend’s IMF conference expressed their concerns over the independence of our Federal Reserve Bank System and the members of its Board of Governors.  They think the BoG is being unduly pressured by President Donald Trump because he demurs—enthusiastically—from the interest rate regime they’re setting.

I have to ask, though: what pressure? Trump has certainly spoken zealously and forcefully about what he thinks the Fed ought to do, but he’s made no threats.  He’s just argued.

For others to say Fed personnel feel pressured and the Fed’s independence is threatened is to insult the Fed personnel involved and further, to Congressmen—who in their aggregate are the only ones who can impact the Fed’s independence.

All a President can do is force the resignation of this or that Fed governor (following which, the Senate would have to approve any replacement).  If a Fed man feels pressured by rhetoric or by the thought of not being a Governor anymore, he either puts too much ego in having that particular job, or he’s too timid. Either of those makes him unfit for the job in the first place.

Budget Surpluses and the IMF

Posted on by
Reply

…and the US, at the just concluded International Monetary Fund meetings in DC.

The IMF, backed by the US, has pressed Germany and others with budget surpluses to cut taxes or raise spending to prop up growth. Countries with budget surpluses “should certainly make use of it and have the space to invest and to participate in the economic development and growth,” IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said, “but not enough has been done on that front.”

The IMF has begun pressing Switzerland to spend more, too.

A little bit of this is accurate.

Several US States have set up rainy day funds into which they put budget surpluses in order to build up the resources for State emergencies or to tide them over during a recession without having to borrow excessively.  There’s no reason nations can’t do the same with their surpluses; indeed, such a savings pile should come first.

Once the savings have been built to a satisfactory level, though, surpluses should be used to cut taxes and to pay down debt (which is future taxes), never to increase spending.  Leave the citizens’ money in their hands; they know more about how to use it than Government.

Above all, don’t use surpluses in any effort to counteract the forces of a free, capitalist market.  For the vast majority of cases, market problems are self-correcting and only made worse by activist government intervention.

Reparations, Again

Posted on by
Reply

Now the Progressive-Democratic Party members are desperately trying to show their virtue by touting reparations again.

HR 40 would establish a federal commission to study how slavery and Jim Crow impact African-Americans today. The bill’s language calls for suggestions to “remedy” slavery’s aftereffects.

My irony meter is pegged. Slavery and Jim Crow were then-Democratic Party institutions. The current crop of Progressive-Democrats doesn’t need taxpayer money to fund a commission whose purpose would be to dilute their past. They need only look in a mirror.

It [reparations] could amount to formal government recognition that slavery was an injustice committed by the US, for example.

I guess Progressive-Democrats think the Civil War was just some people [that] did something.