Tag Archives: taxes

Federal Climate Plan and Crony Capitalism

Posted on by
Reply

George Russell, writing for Fox News, had this on the efficacy of President Barack Obama’s national plan to fight “climate change:”

a separate, groundbreaking study by the National Research Council has warned that those kinds of subsidies are virtually useless at quelling greenhouse gases .

The study, which looks at the subsidies and other incentives embedded in U.S. federal tax law after the past several years of climate change initiatives, concludes that they  have done little or nothing so far to cut U.S. contributions to global carbon emissions, and are unlikely to do much more before 2035, the project’s research horizon.

And

[T]he study declared that “their combined impact is less than 1% of total US emissions” over the next 25 years, and they are a lousy bargain to boot:  “Very little if any GHG reductions are achieved at substantial cost with these provisions.”

[T]he study concluded “current tax expenditures and subsidies are a poor tool for reducing greenhouse gases and achieving climate-change objectives.”   They “achieve small reductions in GHG emissions and are costly per unit of emissions reduction.”

The full cost was something the study was unable to make entirely clear.  It estimated that the federal government had spent some $48 billion in just the past two years on “tax expenditures”—meaning subsidies, credits, and other incentives—related to the energy sector, and also noted that few were specifically enacted to reduce greenhouse gases.

Obama’s plan also ignores the erroneous nature of its assumptions about what is a significant GHG.  It includes all of their assumed GHGs, for instance including atmospheric CO2….

Worse, for the short term,

[T]he probe underlined how little is yet known about the relationship between government tax-and-spend activity and actual climate change results, especially as government spending gets embedded in a growing thicket of regulations and initiatives created to solve different parts of the greenhouse gas puzzle, but all touted to achieve the same ends.

And

[T]he plan also calls for $7.9 billion in additional funding for advanced clean energy technology, a hike of about 30%.  This includes investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels to nuclear mini-reactors.

Never mind that this is a waste of money.  If the technology can’t compete in the free market without subsidies, it’s not commercially viable.  And so does not warrant subsidization—assuming government subsidies are ever appropriate.

The ludicrosity goes on, but you get the idea.

It’s hard to believe that Obama and his colleagues in the Executive Branch and allies in the Legislative Branch didn’t know this stuff a priori; earlier studies, for instance, have debunked the very concept of serious human impact on evolving climate.  But he, and they, do know full well the pecuniary benefit of this plan for the plan’s recipients.

The study itself can be found here.

A Thought on Global Tax Reform

Posted on by
Reply

UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said he hoped the G-20 countries would commit to the [OECD plan to close international tax law loopholes].

And

The plan aims to plug the gaps created by a complex web of bilateral tax treaties that has expanded since the 1920s, and which now allows for “aggressive” tax planning, where companies adopt legal structures designed to shift their profits to the lowest-tax jurisdictions, regardless of where those profits are earned.

“These gaps have facilitated tax planning by globalized players.  The goal of the action plan is to close down the avenues that we have left open,” said Pascal Saint-Amans, director of the OECD’s Center for Tax Policy and Administration.

And

The UK Parliament’s public-affairs committee has held a number of heated public hearings over the past six months examining whether large companies are paying enough tax.

Never mind that of course business executives engage in careful “tax planning”—they have a fiduciary duty to their bosses, the business owners, to minimize costs and maximize profits.

Nor is there any consideration of whether the G-20 nations (other than, say, Ireland) are charging too much in the way of taxes, cynically without justifying governments’ claimed need for OPM.

And this from Ángel Gurria, OECD Secretary-General.

Although of course we do not expect [businesses] to very happily go there and deposit their more substantive check, I think they will understand that this is a way to keep the systems running better and the trains running on time.

Shades of Alexander Hamilton:

There are some who maintain that trade will regulate itself and is not to be benefitted by the encouragements or restraints of government.  Such persons imagine that there is no need of a common directing power.  This is one of those wild speculative paradoxes among us, contrary to the uniform practice and sense of the most enlightened nations.

As Adam Smith and the empirical evidence of the US’ experience until the early 20th century have shown, Hamilton was wrong then, and Gurria is wrong today.

Here’s a thought: standardize on low/no corporate tax rates.  It’s not government’s money, anyway; the money is the property of the companies and the people who own them.

Detroit and the Nation

Posted on by
Reply

In Detroit’s bankruptcy filing, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R) included a letter outlining his reasons for his approval of the filing.  Here are some of them [emphasis added].

  • The City’s unemployment rate has nearly tripled since 2000 and is more than double the national average.
  • Its citizens wait an average of 58 minutes for the police to respond to their calls, compared to a national average of 11 minutes.
  • The City’s police cars, fire trucks, and ambulances are so old that breakdowns make it impossible to keep up the fleet or properly carry out their roles.
  • The City has more than $18 billion in accrued obligations.
  • Detroit tax rates are at their current legal limits, and that even if the City was legally able to raise taxes, its residents cannot afford to pay additional taxes. Detroit simply cannot raise enough revenue to meet its current obligations….
  • The City’s population has declined 63% from its peak, including a 28% decline since 2000.
  • A decreasing tax base has made meeting obligations to creditors impossible.

Horribly high expenditures against a tax system that’s already very expensive for the citizens has driven Detroit into the ground and forced restructuring through bankruptcy.

What are the implications for the nation as a whole?

On the one hand, bankruptcy—legal bankruptcy—is not an option for the US.  Nations have no bankruptcy system available to them; all a bankrupt nation can do is to repudiate its debts or debase its currency, repaying with devalued (dollars)—to repudiate its debts through subterfuge.

Here lies the United States: we have horribly high expenditures (see Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid transfer payments, Social Security, Federal public service union pensions, Stimulus spending, etc) against a tax system that is hammering the paying population into the ground while, by design, excluding half the tax base from tax obligations.   This combines to create on the national level massive annual deficits, exploding national debt, and increasing costs to borrow (presently low, Bernanke’s artificially suppressed interest rates will not be able to stop the market’s assessments of our national creditworthiness).

Detroit is the future of the United States under our current policies.  In that light, notice the loss of population as Detroiters fled the disaster—28% of its people just since 2000.  As our national disaster unfolds—unless we move to terminate our Federal government’s destructive policies and put aside our own disdain for work and responsibility—where will Americans go?

Greed and Bankruptcy

Posted on by
Reply

Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy last week when

…Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr’s attempt to reach out-of-court settlements could not overcome opposition from unions, retirees and a long list of lenders….”

Orr’s spokesman Bill Nowling had much of it right:

Pension boards, insurers, it’s clear that if you’re suing us, your response is “no.”  We still have other creditors we continue to have meetings with, other stakeholders….

But that’s only part of it.  The pensions and unions are owed the largest amount out of Detroit’s total $18 billion debt, but they’re not the only ones who were intransigent.  Bank of America and UBS AG agreed to a restructuring of the debt Detroit owed them (chump change alterations on less than $500 million of that debt), but they were nearly the only ones actually willing to deal.  Nearly all the remaining creditors each insisted, regardless of the city’s ability to pay, on holding out for their full cut, or as much of it as they could squeeze, and to hell with the rest of the creditors.

Good for the Latvians

Posted on by
Reply

Mostly.  They are, after all, joining the Euro Zone next January, to their long-term detriment.  However, other than that, they clearly have the right idea, much to the chagrin of Euro Zone officialdom (given that chagrin, they’re still drawing Latvia into the fold.  What does that say about the consistency of officialdom’s judgment?).

Here’s why I like the Latvians, so far.

Latvia’s corporate tax rate is just 15%, far lower than the EU average of 23.5%.  Within the euro zone, only Ireland and Cyprus, each at 12.5%, have lower rates.

The problem here isn’t that Latvia’s tax rate is too low, as Euro Zone officialdom insists, it’s that the EU average is too high (never mind conflating the EU with the Euro Zone).  Moreover, officialdom—both Euro Zone’s and EU’s—arrogantly refuse to justify their claimed need for all that money, refuse to explain how all that money is better handled by them and not by the ordinary citizen of the EU/Euro Zone, refuse to justify the things on which they spend all that OPM beyond insulting generalities like “it’s good for everybody.”

Here’s more of why I like the Latvians:

Holding companies—firms that hold stock of other companies—enjoy further benefits in Latvia.  Since the beginning of 2013, their foreign profits earned via dividends and stock sales have been tax free.  Transferring such profits out of country is also not taxed.  Furthermore, as of 2014 Latvian holding companies will no longer have to pay taxes on interest and licensing fees they pay to foreign companies.

Business friendly is the same as jobs friendly, and jobs mean income and opportunity for the common man.  Oh, and revenue for government, whether that revenue is justified or not.

And

Markus Meinzer, an analyst with the Tax Justice Network, has already begun calling Latvia a “Luxembourg for the poor.”

What’s the downside of that, exactly?

Of course, officialdom objects to these things.

[T]he banking systems in both [Ireland and Cyprus] have collapsed—and both have been forced to seek emergency aid money from EU bailout funds.

Never mind that it was the knowledge of the existence of bailouts—at taxpayer expense, to boot—and too much regulation that led to the collapses.  Businesses that can be sure of bailout face no consequence from their decisions, and so no risk—and so make dumb, over-extensive moves.  Over-regulation compounds the problem by artificially constraining the range of moves allowed—constraints that the market can apply much more efficiently, much more broadly, much more flexibly, and much more promptly.

And

…money with shady origins keeps appearing.  In April 2012, the United Nations Security Council determined that Latvia’s Parex Bank (which has since changed its name to Reverta) assisted military officers from the Ivory Coast in circumventing international sanctions.

Of course, this has nothing to do with tax law or being business friendly.  Enforcing existing law against money laundering would handle this nicely.  To the extent the specific charge is true (if the UN says it, it’s automatically open to question), that’s a violation of such existing law; Latvia’s tax treatments are wholly irrelevant.

The Euro Zone needs a whole lot more tax havens within it—perhaps as many as 17 more.  It’s not the governments’ money, after all, and the governments for the most part don’t need it as much as the people do.