Tag Archives: taxes

Tax Reform, CBO Scoring, and Revenue Neutrality

Posted on by
1

The Senate passed a non-binding (more’s the pity on the “non” part) resolution to have the CBO score tax proposals dynamically in addition to its traditional—and utterly misleading—static scoring methodology.

Static scoring assumes the idiocy of, as The Wall Street Journal put it, that

people work nearly as much at a 60% income tax rate as they do with a 30% rate, and investors don’t care all that much if the tax on capital gains is 15% or 30%.

“This often leads to crazy results.”  You betcha [emphasis in the original].

In January 2003, for example, the modelers predicted that capital gains revenues would be $68 billion in 2006 and $73 billion in 2007.  In May 2003 Congress cut the capital gains tax rate to 15% from 20%, and in its revised budget forecast in August 2003 CBO estimated that the rate cut would reduce revenues to $65 billion in 2006 and $69 billion in 2007.

CBO wasn’t even close.  Actual capital gains revenue rose despite the lower tax rate to $109 billion in 2006 and $126 billion in 2007, thanks to faster economic growth and a greater incentive for investors to cash in their gains at the lower rate.

But here’s a larger problem.  The opinion piece then goes on to say

Tax reform done right should be revenue neutral using standard CBO static analysis, but a dynamic model would predict a large revenue windfall from the overall increase in investment and economic efficiency.  As part of a budget deal, those extra tax dollars that Democrats crave could be earmarked for deficit reduction.

That’s certainly a fine use of the windfall, but why, exactly, must tax reform be revenue neutral—statically or dynamically scored—in order to be “done right?”

The political imperatives involved for neutrality are painfully obvious, so that can’t be what the WSJ was talking about; let’s leave that aside.

Why, indeed, must tax reform be revenue neutral?

The Party of Stupid

Posted on by
Reply

New York Branch.

As the quid pro quo for agreeing to Governor Andrew Cuomo’s demand for his higher minimum wage, the New York Senate Republicans browbeat him into accepting a tax credit for businesses who hire at that new minimum wage.

Leaving aside the anti-hiring outcomes of minimum wage increases, as a result of this foot-shooting everyone in New York now gets to pay a piece of that higher wage, not just the businesses and their customers.

Brilliant, guys.

Competition and Cadillac Insurance

Posted on by
Reply

Under Obamacare, writes Emily Chasan in The Wall Street Journal, employers will be required by 2018 to pay a tax of 40% on health care plans that President Barack Obama and his minion, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, decide for themselves are somehow “excessively rich” in the benefits they pay out.

The excuse these two and other Progressives make for this is that these Cadillac plans, with their low deductibles and “generous” medical coverage, will encourage overuse of our health-care system.  Sure.  Everyone needs to be covered.  But only to a government-approved degree.  And never mind that those low deductibles make the policy purchasers ineligible for Health Savings Accounts—Progressives don’t want Americans to have those, anyway.

But these folks also ignore—or don’t understand—another aspect of their interference.  Competition in a free market for health insurance, including an ability for insurers to charge risk-based premiums, and for health services would address that “overuse” concern much more efficiently than a 2000 page law with its tens of thousands of pages of HHS rules ever could.  Such an environment would directly impact the costs born both by suppliers and their customers/patients.

The competition would drive down the prices charged, and risk-based premiums within that environment would enable insurers to bill for the coverage offered in accordance with the actual likelihood of payout.  Yes, some high-risk coverages would get more expensive, but the vast majority of coverages, by not having to be priced so as to subsidize those high risks, would get a lot cheaper.

Also, customers and patients would gravitate to the combination of policy coverage and medical service usage that actually interested them, instead of having to buy a government-approved policy that included things only a bureaucrat could love.  An equilibrium would develop that had customers and patients getting the policies and services they wanted at prices that suited them with insurers and providers offering those services and policies at prices that would let them stay in business.

There’s no need of a tax to manage demand and supply.  Americans are fully capable of doing that for themselves in a free, competitive market.

Another Look at the Senate Democrats’ Budget

Posted on by
Reply

The Heritage Foundation has looked at it.  As has already been pointed out, Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray’s (D, WA) budget has little good in it; although it does preserve the sequester cuts in their magnitude and general allocation.  However.

Cynically, it raises taxes on Americans—and amazingly, on our businesses, which already are subject to the highest rates in the world—by a shade over $1.5 trillion.  This isn’t new, but their budget is worse than originally thought.  The Democrats’ guess (and I use that term advisedly) of getting $155 billion per year over the next 10 years is based on their erroneous static analysis.  A dynamic analysis, which includes the actual and ongoing effects of taking this much money out of the economy, indicates that this “budget” would only get $88 billion per year.  Heritage’s graph below illustrates the year-by-year revenue flow.                                          

This only exacerbates the impact of the Democrats’ continued increases in spending on our debt and on our economy.  Their 5% increase in spending, in every year of those same 10 years, increases the Federal budget deficit, and it contributes to a continued explosion in our national debt—to the tune of $7 trillion more added to an already ruinous level.

But that’s all to the good, anyway, right?  The Democrats say so.  The Senate Republicans have a different analysis.  Overall, they point out that this budget would

  • Lower GDP by $1.4 trillion over 10 years.
  • Cut job growth by an average of 853,000 jobs each year.
  • Slash after-tax incomes by $1.9 trillion over 10 years.
  • Shrink household income by $1,512 per year.

They also look on a state-by-state basis, and the outcome is clear and even starker (it’s important to note here that the state-by-state analysis was done by the Senate Budget Committee’s staff economists, not by Republican staffers).  Here are the outcomes for, oh, say, California and Texas.

California:

For the state of California these tax changes mean losses in personal income, household disposable income, and job opportunities:

Texas:

For the state of Texas these tax changes mean losses in personal income, household disposable income, and job opportunities:

There are no states—none—in which the Budget Committee’s staff economists projected gains in personal income, household disposable income, or job opportunities.  Every state suffers losses as a result of this Democrat budget.

Why Not Just Take It All?

Posted on by
Reply

Spiegel International Online notes that the Cypriot government may be figuring out some of the foolishness of the troika’s (ECB, EC, and IMF) demand concerning the latter’s “offered” bailout as well as some of the variants under discussion.  Some of those variants include reallocating the confiscationtax according to more deposit account sizes than just two, and hitting the highest—still those over €100,000 with a 15.6% claim.

[C]oncerns have emerged that a large number of foreign investors and depositors will withdraw their money from the country en masse.  Critics warn this would devastate Cyprus as a financial center and also threaten the country’s entire economy.

Well, yeah.

Still, even the current proposal has central bankers nervous.  Officials at the Cypriot central bank are still fearing a massive capital flight.  Central bank head Panicos Demetriades said he expects that at least 10 percent of deposits will be transferred abroad during the first few days after the banks reopen, according to lawmaker Roula Mavronikola who attended the session.

Demetriades is optimistic.  The Cypriot banking system would be fortunate to retain a single euro, were this institutionalized theft to go through.  The only way to stop the capital flight would be for the government to steal it all.

In the event, though, the Cypriot Parliament rejected any sort of levy, rather resoundingly.