Tag Archives: political economy

Thoughts on European Inflation and Tax Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Michael Heise, Chief Economist at Allianz SE, had some in his op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, but I want to focus on just a couple, for the mindset implied as he—and Europe’s politicians—address inflation and tax policy.

They [tax and ultralow-interest rate policies] encourage risk taking among investors searching for yield, potentially leading to malinvestment. They affect the distribution of income and wealth between the less affluent, who are most affected by low returns on bank deposits, and the wealthier, who tend to benefit most from rising share prices. Finally, perhaps most important, ultralow interest rates discourage savings for retirement and slow down the growth of existing pension assets.

“Ultralow rates encourage risk taking.” Yeah? And? That’s a business decision; no government need be—no government should be—involved in that. A free market will do a far better, far more efficient, with far prompter sanction application job of regulating risk taking businesses.

“Affect the distribution of income and wealth.” Yeah? And? To the extent such distributions can ever be bad, a free market is the best way to raise the prosperity of the least, and if the wealthy get wealthier, so what? The poor still are less poor. No government mandates or regulations can hope to match the prosperity creation that is freedom in the market.

“Ultralow interest rates discourage savings for….” This is true, and the ECB’s decision to artificially depress interest rates is negligently harmful to the poor, the retired, and those trying to save for retirement. Further, ECB and sovereign nation interferences in the market for debt instruments is purely political, and so it’s wholly unpredictable (who can tell when a politician will decide it’s in his interest to do something different?). That unpredictability seriously damages the ability of anyone to save for their future.

Tax policy shouldn’t be used for social engineering; optimally, it should be used only to fund basic government. The free market is a better place—more efficient, and faster acting—than government from which to regulate interest rates and risk. Even in social democrat Europe.

All Right Now

Posted on by
Reply

…or nothing at all, ever. That’s the attitude of the Democratic Party in today’s Congress and of the farther right of the Republican Party in today’s Congress. It’s enough to paralyze Congress and keep it from doing much of anything—and to hand Congress back to the Democrats, which may explain some of their attitude.

I’ve argued before that gridlock isn’t, of necessity, a bad thing, but there are a few things Congress does need to accomplish.

A short, partial list includes

  • funding the legitimate tasks of government, those enumerated in Art I, Sect 8 of our Constitution
  • reforming taxes, which would have the side effect of paring back—significantly—an IRS that thinks it’s outside (not merely above) the law
  • reforming immigration
  • privatizing Social Security and Medicare, and getting rid of the Federal contributions to Medicaid

But none of this can be—nor should it be (Obamacare, anyone? Dodd-Frank?)—done all at once. Easy steps, compromises, that bring us incrementally into that reduced government place we should occupy—and will ultimately get us there.

But to get there, we need to take steps, one after another, not hold out for single leaps that cannot occur.

Questions Republicans Should Be Asking

Posted on by
Reply

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified before the House Homeland Security Committee earlier in the week on, among other things, the subject of immigration. Johnson, by the way, also is a fully licensed and accredited lawyer as well as a politically appointed politician.

A reader wrote to Power Line with some questions for Johnson and others. [emphasis added]

So Jeh says with a smug knowing wink-and-nod “just go to any restaurant here is DC” to see illegal aliens working “under the table.” So is he saying that the employers in DC fill jobs now with illegal aliens? That he knows and the employers know that they are openly, brazenly breaking our immigration and labor laws? So why isn’t he for enforcing our democratically enacted laws? Isn’t he sworn to do so? Isn’t he an attorney? Why isn’t he advocating against the state of affairs that he implies obtains? Why is he advocating open non-feasance of his duty to enforce the laws?

It’s especially rich when he talks about their “coming out of the shadows and STARTING to pay taxes”. Got that? He knows that there are thousands of illegal immigrants and their employers—let’s not forget these scofflaws—who are not paying taxes! OK…so why isn’t he going after them?….for criminal tax evasion?….instead they’re explicitly offering something way beyond amnesty of tax evasion—and a deal that American citizens normally would never get.

Usually a tax amnesty is the government’s waiving the assessed fines, penalties and interest accrued from failure to pay taxes in full and on time—but you still have to pay the actual taxes owed. So the illegal immigrants who have not paid taxes—payroll taxes, most likely since their incomes are low—not only get a tax “amnesty”, i.e., forbearance of fines, interest and penalties—they get outright forgiveness of the actual taxes owed! It is a better deal than any citizen would get if guilty of evading income or payroll taxes. Furthermore it is outright forgiveness for the EMPLOYER’s share of arrears payroll taxes as well…even IF they knowingly hired illegals and failed to pay taxes, it’s outright forgiven.

Republicans should be asking President Barack Obama, Johnson, Democrats generally, and quite a few of their own these questions loudly: in House—and Senate, starting in January—hearings; in townhalls and neighborhoods, especially the rural and poorer ones where unemployment is high and endemic; in newspaper, radio, and television interviews; in letters to the editor.

There are lots of ways to encourage immigration into our country, and we should; we benefit greatly from that immigration. The present way isn’t one of them; on the contrary, it’s highly destructive of our nation.

 

h/t Power Line

Another Disregard for Congress

Posted on by
Reply

Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, and it last was amended in 2007. Among other things, the FLSA allows the Labor Department to define who, in a business, is a manager and who is not.

There are two problems with this, either of which alone is sufficient to demonstrate the need for a further amendment. One problem is that it lets government dictate to business owners—private citizens—how they will run their businesses by dictating to them who they may have on their management teams.

The other problem, the one of interest in this post, is that Labor’s definition of who can be a manager is determined by the man’s salary and not by what he does. This definition matters because managers are “exempt employees,” that is, businesses do not have to pay them overtime for working more than full-time hours (nominally, 40 hours per week or 80 hours per two-week periods; although Obamacare muddles that definition).

Sean Higgins, of The Washington Examiner, had some thoughts on that earlier. I’ll just comment on a couple of them here; RTWT.

The president and administration officials have indicated they plan to increase the $23,000 minimum amount a worker must make before his employer can opt to exempt him from federal overtime rules….

Groups such as the liberal Center for American Progress, which has close ties to the White House, have called for the threshold to be raised to $50,000.

That’s the set up.

Higgins then quoted Joshua Parkhurst, a New York labor rights lawyer:

A fast-food restaurant can slap an “assistant manager” title on someone and…that exempts them from overtime. The white-collar exemption is far and away the most litigated issue under the act.

I’ll ignore the fee-generating litigation Parkhurst alluded to; the “error” is his implication that being an assistant manager is, of necessity, a bogus status. How many managers does a fast-food restaurant (or other small business) need? Exactly one. Who’s in charge on the shifts where the manager isn’t working? Somebody? Anyone? Answer: the assistant manager. Businesses doing 24-hour operations need at least three assistant managers—one for each shift (because the day shift’s manager would benefit from the help, and so the business would), plus one (or more) to fill in when someone gets sick or goes on vacation. How many more properly is a business decision, not a government one.

Doubling the threshold, the Center for American Progress argues, would force businesses to pay workers the overtime they are due or force employers to raise salaries to meet that level. “The average worker works 11% more hours than he or she did in 1975. If we as a nation could afford overtime rights then, we can afford them now,” center policy analyst Brendan Duke wrote….

This, of course, is nonsense. Raising the threshold (not even doubling it) would not at all force businesses to pay overtime or to raise wages. Businesses also have the option of restricting their business hours. They also have the option of restricting those workers’ hours and hiring temporary, part-time help. The former could harm the business, but it’s a business decision whether the higher labor costs or the reduced business hours would be the less harmful. The latter would be good for the temporary hires, albeit their hours and income would be uncertain. It would harm the existing workers, though, by capping them, ending their upward mobility and limiting their ability to build resume material for later, better jobs. This is what most of the workers in this sort of business are doing anyway—getting work experience and looking to improve themselves.

Or, the businesses could (and this is the most likely alternative) simply cut back on the benefits provided in order to compensate for the increase in labor cost from government’s redefinition of “manager.”

And the pseudo-logic that, just because “we as a nation could afford overtime rights” 40 years ago when we worked less, we surely can afford to pay increased costs today is breathtaking to hear from an “analyst.” Or maybe not.

Finally, here’s Parkhurst, again:

The point is, if you are shifting someone back and forth from administrative tasks to manual labor, they aren’t a manager. And slapping a title on them doesn’t change that.

This, too, is nonsense. By Parkhurst’s logic, “if you are shifting someone back and forth from administrative tasks to manual labor, they aren’t a” laborer. And calling him that doesn’t change that.

This gets to the crux of the matter. What makes a man an assistant manager is what he does, not how much he’s paid. And what he does is a matter for business to determine, not government. Or a “labor rights” litigator.

The FLSA would benefit from one more amendment, and so would the country.

Economic Viability of Wind Energy

Posted on by
Reply

Tim Phillips, in The Wall Street Journal, quoted Christopher Flavin, of the Worldwatch Institute, as saying in 1984,

Tax credits have been essential to the economic viability of wind farms so far, but will not be needed within a few years.

It’s been a few years. It’s been 30 years’ worth of “few.”

In all, wind energy “generators” get $56.29 per MW-Hr in Federal subsidies. To put that in perspective, natural gas gets $0.64, and nuclear power $3.14.

These guys are free-loading off you and me, and it’s time to put a stop to it. They need to stand or fall in the free market: if their technology is ready for prime time, they’ll have no trouble. If their technology isn’t—after 30 years—they’ve had enough of our prop-up money.

Cut off the subsidies—or more accurately, do not renew them (they expired in 2013) with finality. While the new Congress is about it, it should cut off those natural gas subsidies (those for oil, too, even though they’re similarly just walking around money) and the nuclear energy subsidies, also.

The free market is a much better watchdog for energy production than the Federal government ever can hope to be, no matter how honest or diligent those bureaucrats and regulators might be.