Tag Archives: political economy

The EU and Tax Invasion

Posted on by
Reply

Notice that: invasion.

EU antitrust regulators ordered Apple on Tuesday to pay up to 13 billion euros ($14.5 billion) in taxes plus interest to the Irish government after ruling that a special scheme to route profits through Ireland was illegal state aid.

The problem, in the EU’s eyes, is that Apple headquartered its European operations in Ireland, which has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the EU (and which EU Know Betters keep hammering on the Irish to “correct” because its tax rates are, somehow, unfairly low), and then Apple funneled most of its European revenue through that Irish branch so as to pay—legally in their and Irish eyes—low taxes.

“Ireland granted illegal tax benefits to Apple, which enabled it to pay substantially less tax than other businesses over many years,” said Competition Commission Margrethe Vestager….

Ireland agrees with Apple and will appeal the EU’s demand.  As Finance Minister Michael Noonan said,

This is necessary to defend the integrity of our tax system; to provide tax certainty to business; and to challenge the encroachment of EU state aid rules into the sovereign member state competence of taxation.

Ireland is quite clear on the invasion matter.

The EU may well be on the right side of its law, but it’s on the wrong side of morality and the wrong side of economic principle.  It’s not the EU’s money.  It’s not even Ireland’s government’s money.  It’s Apple’s money, and it’s the money of the 6,000, or so, Apple employees in Ireland, which they allocate to the Irish government (not the EU governance) as taxes.  If Ireland is charging Apple a lower tax rate than continental members of the EU, the latter should compete, not run from competition by presuming to dictate to a fellow member what that member must do.

It’s also the case that the lower tax rate leaves more money in the hands of those who earned it—those Irish employees and the Apple corporation—which means those employees have more money with which to take care of their families and to spend generally and Apple has more money with which to hire employees and to engage in product development—all of which are good for the Irish economy.

How Ireland takes care of its domestic economy is of no legitimate concern to the rest of the EU, and that Apple paid all the taxes required by Ireland is just a bit of too bad for the EU Know Betters.

Pay to Play Variant

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her husband aren’t the only Democrats engaged in this.  Here’s a variant being employed by Democrat Attorneys General, as described in The Wall Street Journal, by Andy Koenig, a senior policy adviser at Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce.

The administration’s multiyear campaign against the banking industry has quietly steered money to organizations and politicians who are working to ensure liberal policy and political victories at every level of government. The conduit for this funding is the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, a coalition of federal and state regulators and prosecutors created in 2012 to “identify, investigate, and prosecute instances of wrongdoing” in the residential mortgage-backed securities market. In conjunction with the Justice Department, the RMBS Working Group has reached multibillion-dollar settlements with essentially every major bank in America.

Three guesses where those billions of dollars are going.  The first two guesses don’t count.

Yup.

[A] substantial portion is allocated to private, nonprofit organizations drawn from a federally approved list.

These government-favored organizations include Catholic Charities, La Raza, the National Urban League, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, and so on.  Catholic Charities is completely apolitical and entirely decent, but they’re on the list solely to give cover to the presence of the others, which are blatantly political—and have entirely pro-Liberal agendas.

[T]hese groups engage in voter registration, community organizing, and lobbying on liberal policy priorities at every level of government. They also provide grants to other liberal groups not eligible for payouts under the settlements. Thanks to the Obama administration, and the fungibility of money, the settlements’ beneficiaries can now devote hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to these activities.

RTWT, there’s much more.  To emphasize: those settlements are little more than vig extracted for Obama administration causes as a price of being allowed to do business.

Construction Union Vig

Posted on by
Reply

In California last week, legislators and interest groups declared dead a measure…to allow certain apartments with some low-income units to sidestep the state’s environmental review process. That followed a failed effort by state lawmakers in New York earlier this year to renew a widely used tax break for rental housing in New York City….

For both measures, construction unions were key to the defeat, as they won over key allies with their argument that the government shouldn’t be aiding apartment development without also guaranteeing union-level wages.

Let’s see, low income housing, union wages.  Union wages, low income housing.

Union wages add some 20% to the cost of residential construction in California and New York.  Low income folks—who have the lowest ability to pay up; even union leadership understands that tautology—are being gouged by these unions.

That 20% is the vig low income folks must pay to have housing.  Alternatively, that 20% is the vig others must pay to subsidize low income housing.

Nice construction project you got there, really cool that it’s for the less fortunate.  Be too bad if something were to happen to it.

A Question of Cash

Posted on by
Reply

Kenneth Rogoff, Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University and ex-Chief Economist of the IMF, thinks we should get rid of most of the cash—paper currency—we have in circulation.  Rogoff claims to not want to do away with cash altogether, but regardless of his goal, it’s clear that eliminating a particular cash instrument can only be a first step and not a last one.

[P]aper currency lies at the heart of some of today’s most intractable public-finance and monetary problems. Getting rid of most of it—that is, moving to a society where cash is used less frequently and mainly for small transactions—could be a big help.

Really?  Hmm….

There is little debate among law-enforcement agencies that paper currency, especially large notes such as the US $100 bill, facilitates crime: racketeering, extortion, money laundering, drug and human trafficking, the corruption of public officials, not to mention terrorism.

This would matter if we had a fundamentally criminal society operating in a fundamentally criminal economy.  We have, though, a nearly $18 trillion economy, and crime—crime where cash matters, which is largely limited to the categories identified above, don’t play that big a role.  This is not to say that these crime types aren’t worth worrying about, but it’s better to deal with the crimes themselves rather than manipulate our cash forms or availability.

But Rogoff gives the game away with this:

According to the Internal Revenue Service, a lot of the action is concentrated in small cash-intensive businesses, where it is difficult to verify sales and the self-reporting of income. By contrast, businesses that take payments mostly by check, bank card or electronic transfer know that it is much easier for tax authorities to catch them dissembling.

That’s the rub.  Reducing the availability of instruments for cash transactions—pushing ordinary American citizens into transaction mechanisms which Government can track—facilitates exactly that: Government tracking of the activities of American citizens, a tracking in which Government most assuredly engages, sometimes for legitimate reasons, but far too often for no better reason than that a bureaucrat has a prurient interest.  And worse, because Government dislikes particular groups of Americans and so engages in any fishing expedition it thinks it can get away with.

The upshot of restricting cash instruments, then, is that everyone gets punished for the misbehavior of the few, and worse, the power of Government to track our private doings, for any purpose at all to which a bureaucrat might take a notion, is enhanced.

How very Progressive of Rogoff.

What’s Scaring Her So Much?

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, with the active support of the State Department which she used to lead, is refusing to release all of her State Department daily schedules until after the elections this fall.  These schedules would reveal with whom she met, for how long, and on what (claimed) subjects.  While some of those schedules have been released already (not voluntarily, but only under court order pursuant to an AP FOIA request that had to be satisfied via AP’s lawsuit), she—and State—are slow walking the release of the rest.  Now why would that be?

Recall that the daily schedules so far released demonstrate that while Secretary of State, Clinton met with or had telephone conversations with thousands of diplomats, other foreign dignitaries, Federal employees, and the like.  The released schedules also demonstrate that Clinton met with 154 private individuals, 85 of whom had given, in aggregate, more than $155 million to her Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton campaign has accused the AP of “cherry picking” schedules by focusing on those 154 individuals, saying that these folks are a tiny per centage of the meetings and telephone calls Clinton had as Secretary of State.

The campaign is correct, as a matter of third grade arithmetic, that those private individuals are a tiny per centage of the total.  What the campaign is carefully ignoring, though, is that Secretary Clinton was obligated to meet or otherwise talk with those thousands of diplomats, other foreign dignitaries, Federal employees, and the like.

What the campaign also is carefully ignoring is that Secretary Clinton was obligated to meet or otherwise talk with zero per cent of those 154 individuals; instead those 154 represent 100% of a population 55% of whom had given her Foundation those $155+ million.

This is of a piece with Clinton’s private email server, on which she conducted official State Department business, and which she had set up for the avowed purpose of concealing her emails from public scrutiny.

What is Clinton so desperate to hide?