Tag Archives: taxes

Foolish

Posted on by
1

Bill Gates, the co-founder of  Microsoft and world’s richest man, said in an interview Friday that robots  that steal human jobs should pay their fair share of taxes.

He said, and he was serious,

Right now, the human worker who does, say, $50,000 worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed and you get income tax, Social Security tax, all those things.  If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you’d think that we’d tax the robot at a similar level.

No, I wouldn’t.  Leave aside his blithe assumption that that money is the government’s in the first place, and not the property of the human worker.  Leave aside his blithe assumption that the government needs the money.  Leave aside his blithe assumption that a human worker should be taxed for a stranger’s current retirement and medical needs (Gates omitted the Medicare-related taxes also collected) instead of his own future retirement and medical needs.  Leave aside Gates’ omission of the employer’s payroll taxes on that human worker’s labor.

The whole point of automation is to hold down costs, is to be competitive with other companies, and an outcome of all of this is lower costs to the consumers who are using—in some cases dependent on—the goods and services being sold.

Recode, citing a McKinsey report, said that 50% of jobs performed by humans are vulnerable to robots, which could result in the loss of about $2.7 trillion in the US alone.

Loss to whom?  One “loss” is to government revenues—but there is no submission of a justification for Government’s need for the revenue.  Another loss seems more real: to the private sector.  The money isn’t lost, though, it’s misallocated—to unnecessarily high cost labor, which translates into unnecessarily high cost to consumers.

Besides—the robots already pay taxes, at every company along the production path that leads to a completed robot: costs of acquisition of that stage’s components—from the mine on up—and income tax on their part of that stage company’s income, and on the final assembly’s cost allocation in the production of the final good or service.

Human workers don’t pay much of this at all.  This is just another backdoor effort to prop labor costs artificially above the value of the labor.  And it’s foolish.

Evil Tax Deduction for Trump Businesses

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal has decided to put its collected knickers in a twist over a Trump tax-overhaul proposal that would preserve millions of dollars in savings for companies controlled by his family.  True.  His proposal would preserve the ability of companies to take a tax deduction for interest payments on company debt.

Companies that are part of the Trump Organization pay more than $20 million a year in interest on their debts, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of financial disclosures and other public information about the companies’ outstanding loans and their interest rates.
…
The Journal‘s estimate of $20 million is conservative, meaning Mr Trump’s or his companies’ tax savings from being able to deduct interest payments from taxable income might be higher.

The horror.

Such deductions reduce the amounts companies owe to the government.

The horror.  The horror.

Carefully ignored by the WSJ is the fact that all businesses with debt-based interest payments would save tons of money from such a deduction. The $20M (or more) the WSJ claims to have identified for Trump’s businesses is chump change compared to that national-level total.

Whether debt interest payments should be deductible is a separate argument.  I think they should not because I think there should be no deductions, credits, what-have-you; income should be taxed (at a single, low rate) without special treatments for this or that source.  Our tax code should not be in the social engineering business at all.

That such deductions reduce the amounts owed to the government is a good thing.  The money is more efficiently, more intelligently, allocated by private citizens in the private economy than any government can hope to do.

Polemics vs Reasoned Argument

Posted on by
Reply

As the Congress considers import taxes as part of its general tax reform agenda, toy sellers are expressing their concern: they import most of what they sell; their products are manufactured overseas.  Import taxes are surely a thing worth discussing and debating thoroughly, whether they’re essentially cost of goods sold neutral, as Doug Holtz-Eakin argues (the dollar will rise from the tax change and economic growth, and so the dollar cost of imports will fall; the cost of goods sold will simply emphasize taxes more and import costs less), or they’re dangerously like protectionist tariffs, as others argue.

Arguments that are carefully emotion-laden while devoid of facts, though, are inappropriate.  Here’s an example from Steve Pasierb, President of the Toy Industry Association:

We are fully prepared to work productively or be a royal, boisterous, media-friendly pain in the backsides of people who would take away children’s happy birthdays, steal Christmas, and destroy quality US-based jobs.  And no one wants to have to explain to their children why Santa was put out of work.

Such Leftist “feel my pain” three-hankie argument has little credibility and less validity in the sort of reasoned discourse necessary in an economic debate.

Oil-and-Gas Industry and Tax Breaks

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another post comes from a Wall Street Journal debate/point-counterpoint piece.  This time, though, I think the question itself is too narrow, limited as it is to oil and gas subsidies.  The imbalance in the WSJ question is illustrated by this claim from President-On-The-Way-Out Barack Obama (D):

Not only has President Barack Obama repeatedly called for a repeal of much of the oil-and-gas industry’s favorable tax treatment, his budget proposal for fiscal 2017 included a new $10-a-barrel fee on oil to help fund low-carbon infrastructure projects.

Mark Perry, of the American Enterprise Institute and a Professor of Economics in the University of Michigan-Flint School of Management, made the case for continuing these tax breaks, centering his argument on using taxes to create incentives to do Government-favored things in an otherwise free market.

Tax incentives are essential for unconventional oil-and-gas production, and there would have been no shale revolution without them.

Then Perry had this remark in disparagement of those who oppose the oil-and-gas industry generally:

For climate crusaders who view oil and gas as a problem instead of the lifeblood of our economy, rejiggering the tax code is seen as a catalyst for restructuring the energy economy.

Compare that with Perry’s claim quoted just above it.  Perry wants to use exactly the same tool—the tax code—merely to do precisely the opposite.  His own contradiction is just an argument for getting the tax code out of the market place.

Ryan Alexander, President of Taxpayers for Common Sense, is on the right side of this question, but too narrowly so.

The tax breaks that Congress provides on income derived from or devoted to certain activities are designed to encourage that specific activity. But what they end up doing is distorting economic decision making and rewarding activity that would occur even without the special treatment.

But it’s not just oil and gas energy.  Low-carbon infrastructure projects and other “green”-related energy enterprises do not need subsidies, just as oil and gas enterprises do not.  If these sorts of enterprises—even industries—can’t compete on their own in a free market, they’re not ready for production or sale.  Market forces alone—including market forces that pushed $100 oil into a fracking boom—are sufficient to determine whither oil, gas, and “green” energy, and any other aspect of a free market.

No, taxes have no business being used for social engineering, or market manipulation, or managing private business decisions, or anything at all other than funding government so it can do its three constitutionally mandated tasks.

Tax Rates

Posted on by
Reply

James Pethokoukis had a piece on this at AEIdeas, but I want to focus on just a small part of it.

[W]hat would be the economic case for lower rates for the 0.1%?

Pethoukis doesn’t object to these lower rates; he just has other job-growth priorities.

I have, though, two questions in answer to this question: what would be the economic case for excluding this or that group of Americans from an otherwise general tax policy?  And the obverse: what would be the economic case for forcing inclusion of this or that group of Americans into an otherwise limited tax policy?