Tag Archives: taxes

Taxes and Small Business

With tax day taking place last week, I’ve been thinking about the impact of taxes on the economy, and in particular about the conservative talking point that lowering taxes on small businesses will unleash growth and create jobs.

This is related to, but different than, another classic conservative point: that lower income tax rates will create more tax revenue. Regular readers know well my disdain for this theory (the Laffer Curve), which has never been supported by any research. Read my posts here and here to see more of my laughing at Laffer.

In the case of small business taxes, I decided to build a little model and see what impact reduced taxes would have. You can see the results below:

Reduced taxes on small business

In this case, we have the same small business generating $1,000,000 in annual revenues and $250,000 in annual pre-tax income. Right now, at a 40% tax rate, this business delivers $150,000 to its owner. If taxes were cut in half, to 20%, the business owner would make $200,000 instead. Now, our business owner might be forward thinking, looking to invest in his business, and use the extra $50k to hire a new worker. But more likely, he is going to use that extra $50k to put an addition on his house, or buy a new car, or pay his kid’s college tuition. In short, tons of small business owners are not going to use their tax break to hire people and expand, but rather to buy stuff.

Great Attack on Tea Party

Some dude writing for Salon has a very funny article on why he likes tax day, and it features this outstanding quote:

The Tea Partiers represent the aggrandizement of paranoia, rage and self-pity into a political agenda. It is a “movement,” created by for-profit demagogues whose sole mission is to build audience share at the expense of honest debate about our common crises of state.

I think that pretty much sums up the movement in two sentences. For another great article about Tea Party activists who are taking aid from the federal government even whilst they denounce all government aid, click here.

Is Ireland Tougher Than America?

The Wall Street Journal wrote an article yesterday about the austerity measures Ireland has imposed to deal with its burgeoning deficit in the wake of its massive housing bust. Ireland’s current deficit is 12% of GDP, just behind Greece’s 12.7%, and not that far from our 10.6%. So what did Ireland do to address its budget deficit? Cut teacher and police salaries 15%. Reduced civil servant pay. Increased taxes across the board. People are having to skimp and make do as a consequence, but Ireland was also able to issue debt with a yield 150 basis points below Greece’s recent issuance. Ireland did what needed to be done.

Contrast that with the US, which also has yawning deficits, at the federal, state and local levels. Can you imagine what would happen here if a politician suggested cutting police pay by 15%? The police unions would raise a shitstorm of fear about rising crime rates. Politicians would elbow each other out of the way to say who was “toughest on crime.” Hell, the police would probably end up with a raise. I’m not saying that cutting police pay is a panacea; what I’m saying is that spending is going to have to go down, and taxes are going to have to go up. And instead of posturing about being tough on crime, we need to do what is really tough: admit that the party is over and it’s time to cut back. If Ireland can do it, so can we.

Grover Norquist is a Terrible Person

Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform, inventor of the “starve the beast” approach to government, and hater of all things that aren’t middle or upper class, showed in today’s Wall Street Journal why he is so terrible. As he was shoveling snow outside ATR’s headquarters, he said:

“Think about it…a government which can’t plow the streets and can’t fix the potholes wants to tell us how our toilets should flush, what size cars we should drive and whether we should paper or plastic when we buy our groceries.”

Let’s ignore the piss-poor parallelism of his statement, as well as his conflation of local and national government initiatives, because that is mostly stupid, as opposed to mean, to focus on the substance of his remark. Because what he is saying is that since he and his fellow low tax crusaders have starved governments of the revenue needed to perform basic services (eg. plowing snow), government is therefore incompetent, and thus shouldn’t be trusted to do anything. I know, that is the entire modus operandi of starving the beast, but rarely do you get him to say it so clearly and cruelly.

The New Republic vs. Ayn Rand

Jonathan Chait of The New Republic recently took on Ayn Rand and her philosophy, and thus he took on the entire intellectual edifice of the right, which is built on Rand’s view that any restrictions on the activities of capitalism ubermen is a moral abomination.

Chait critiques Rand on moral and logical grounds, but he is strongest when he subjects Rand’s worldview to withering factual criticism (see page 3 of his article). Alan Greenspan, a famous Randian, recently admitted that his free-market ideology was wrong. Passages like the below, from Chait’s article, should convince more Randians of the error of their ways:

“In reality, as a study earlier this year by the Brookings Institution and Pew Charitable Trusts reported, the United States ranks near the bottom of advanced countries in its economic mobility. The study found that family background exerts a stronger influence on a person’s income than even his education level. And its most striking finding revealed that you are more likely to make your way into the highest-earning one-fifth of the population if you were born into the top fifth and did not attain a college degree than if you were born into the bottom fifth and did. In other words, if you regard a college degree as a rough proxy for intelligence or hard work, then you are economically better off to be born rich, dumb, and lazy than poor, smart, and industrious.”

End of the Tax Revolt?

Back in early 2007 Mark Schmitt wrote an interesting piece in Washington Monthly suggesting that America might be approaching a time when talking about tax hikes was not an automatic loser. He pointed out the financial crises that are likely to come if the government doesn’t increase revenues, and then discussed various ways that a bipartisan consensus could emerge. In the midst of the current financial crisis, with government spending suddenly increasing by a trillion dollars, Schmitt’s argument is even more powerful. Check it out here.

More on the Laffer Curve

I recently discovered another tidbit that points out the lunacy of the Laffer Curve. Harvard economist Greg Mankiw – former Chairman of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisorsquotes David Stockman, who was telling a story about Ronald Reagan:

[Reagan] had once been on the Laffer curve himself. “I came into the Big Money making pictures during World War II,” he would always say. At that time the wartime income surtax hit 90 percent. “You could only make four pictures and then you were in the top bracket,” he would continue. “So we all quit working after four pictures and went off to the country.” High tax rates caused less work. Low tax rates caused more. His experience proved it.

But that example is irrelevant to the actual economy. Movie actors can stop making movies when they feel like it. But people with real jobs, even big shots on Wall Street or in venture capital, or entrepreneurs, like John McCain’s “Joe the plumber” from last night’s debate, can’t just stop working in the fall when they’ve earned enough money. In the real world, you keep working all year, even if you don’t need the money you’ll make in those last two months, because you’ll lose your job if you stop working, or because your employees need the money even if you don’t. The fact that the Reagan economic plan, and thus Republican orthodoxy, was built on the unusual case of movie star economics is profoundly disturbing.

Republican Tax Policy

Republican tax policy is so big a target it’s almost hard to know where to begin. But I’ll start with the most basic fact: Republic policy is to cut taxes. In general, Republicans will always push for lower taxes. Income taxes? Lower. Capital gains? Lower. Corporate taxes? Lower. Got yourself a financial crisis? Lower taxes will solve your problem!

The Republican quest for lower taxes is driven by three major impulses, one philosophical, one economic, and one greedy. I’ll discuss each impulse in turn.

The philosophical impulse is, broadly speaking, that the government shouldn’t take what you earn. As the current GOP platform puts it, not only should you “keep more of what you earn,” but “government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions.” But this too has multiple components. Saying “essential functions” relates to the Republican emphasis on small government. I already dealt with that ridiculous canard here, so I shall discuss it no further.

But keeping more of what you earn, to Republicans that’s just part of liberty and freedom, Mom and apple pie. As the Club for Growth puts it, they believe that “opportunity come(s) through economic freedom.” I get that; part of the American foundational myth is freedom from the heavy hand of government – no taxation without representation and all that. But notice that the famous phrase does NOT say “no taxation,” it just demands fair representation. In fact, Section 2 of the Constitution, the fifth paragraph in the entire document, condones taxation. The Founders didn’t equate freedom with reduced taxation.

The pairing of freedom and low taxes is merely a Republican shibboleth, one that we are all supposed to believe because they have repeated it so often. Yet why must society accept their definition of freedom? After all, cannot freedom also mean living in a safe, just and ordered society? That society requires government, and government requires taxes. Or, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “taxes are the price of civilization.”

The second Republican impulse to lower taxes is economic. The theory is that lowering taxes stimulates growth.  Again, from the GOP platform: “Republicans lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003 in order to encourage economic growth.” Yes, under standard Keynesian economics, a tax cut will put more money into the economy and thereby stimulate consumption. But the Republican view is based more on the theory that tax cuts fuel productive investment. That theory is based primarily on the Laffer Curve. Dr. Laffer himself: “The higher tax rates are, the greater will be the economic (supply-side) impact of a given percentage reduction in tax rates.”

Famous for being sketched on a cocktail napkin in a Washington DC restaurant, the Laffer Curve states that at 100% taxation the government will make no money, since all activity will cease. Sure, and when the sun explodes, all activity will also cease. Duh. But that doesn’t mean that lowering taxes inevitably leads to more activity, which is how Republican supply-siders generally interpret Laffer. Simple common sense rejects that implication of Laffer; does anyone really believe that investor X or entrepreneur Y will refuse to build a company because their gains will be taxed at 60% instead of 30%? That’s ridiculous. And all empirical studies agree. No study supports Laffer effects at any tax rate below 90%.

Here are just a few links to various studies and summaries:

But Harvard economist Jeff Frankel put it best: “The Laffer Proposition, while theoretically possible under certain conditions, does not apply to US income tax rates:  a cut in those rates reduces revenue, precisely as common sense would indicate.”

Bottom line: this Republican concept that lowering tax rates will unleash torrents of investment and innovation is rubbish. It defies common sense, and every academic study proves it to be wrong.

The third and last Republican impulse driving taxes lower is pure greed. Quite simply, they want to keep more of the money they make. And again, I understand that; nobody really likes giving money away, especially to a government that may spend your money on things you don’t support.  But the Republicans driving this policy aren’t exactly Joe Sixpack, working class stiffs hoping to keep more of their hourly wages. Instead, they are folks like Stephen Moore and Grover Norquist, white middle-class intellectuals who have never had to worry about money or needed the support that tax dollars provide to the less fortunate. Or, even more pointedly, they are Wall Street titans like Henry Kravis and Steve Schwarzman, of KKR and Blackstone Group, who are worth billions and really don’t need the extra money. An article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal noted that these and other Wall Street bigwigs were finally supporting McCain because “ ‘Reality set in,’ one fund-raiser said. ‘Donors realized they could face an Obama administration next month.’ They are petrified they will face steep increases in personal and corporate tax rates, this person said.” Schwarzman took home over $700 million when Blackstone went public. Does he really need a lower tax rate on his future income?

Is the Public Turning Against Pork?

Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth wrote an op-ed recently in which he described a nationwide poll that the Club recently commissioned. This poll showed that 54% of people would prefer a congressman who cuts overall federal spending, including spending in their district, while only 29% would prefer a candidate who increases federal spending but keep some of that spending coming home in pork barrel projects.

I’m no expert on polls and polling, nor have I seen the details of this poll, so I can’t comment on how they phrased the question or whether they skewed the data. Certainly the Club for Growth would want this poll to show exactly what they are saying it did, since the Club hates earmarks more than I hate flip-flops. But let’s assume that this was a well-executed poll. Are Americans really ready to let go of pork barrel spending in their district? I hope so.

This is an exceedingly rare occurrence, Halley’s Comet (also see) rare, when I want the same thing as the Club for Growth. In general, I think of the Club as representing greedy, mean-spirited, upper-middle-class older white men. But I really do hope this poll is right, because pork barrel politics are awful. Earmarks make for bad policy and they waste precious resources. In addition, they encourage irresponsible behavior in voters, who get trained to support any crappy project, as long as it brings federal dollars to their community.

But maybe, just maybe, that attitude is changing, and the Club for Growth poll is capturing this change. Press coverage of pork has been building over the past few years, and the Jack Abramoff scandal blew the whole lobbyist-earmark connection way into the mainstream. It’s possible that people, at least 54% of people, have realized that the overall cost of pork is greater than the benefit it brings to their district. It’s possible that they would rather their representatives focus on fixing problems than creating busy work in the district.

News of Ted Stevens’ indictment is coming out as I write this. He was an apologetic king of pork, with his reign culminating in the famous $320 million Bridge to Nowhere. Maybe that bridge served as pork’s crowning feast, so egregious that it finally made Americans realize how corrosive earmarks truly are.