Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Energy, Progressivism, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: Obama's "Economic Patriotism", Slashing Corporate Taxes, The Booming Canadian Economy
We previously nattered on about President Obama’s idea of “Economic Patriotism,” which only shows that the president has little understanding of business and how it operates. The Left is deeply suspicious of business, at least Big business, and often labors under the delusion that it would be far better without business, or with business more completely controlled by government, so they didn’t cause so much trouble and especially pay their executives so much.
All this came about through what has come to be called “inversions” or businesses’ choosing to locate their executive offices in other countries to lessen the corporate tax hit. The latest case is Burger King’s purchase of Canada’s Tim Horton’s chain of coffee and donut shops and plan to move their headquarters to Canada. How unpatriotic to attempt to evade America’s corporate taxes, the highest in the world. Um, Canada’s total tax costs are 46.4 percent lower than in the U.S. Why would Burger King want to move there? Canada has the most business-friendly tax policy in the world!
The one solution that would quickly solve the problem is quite simple. Cut or eliminate the corporate taxes, especially the tax on income earned abroad. Inconceivable! Lower taxes, and give up all that revenue when our economy is so slow? When we so desperately need more jobs? Canada lowered their taxes to help business out during a recession. But, but tax receipts! We must have more money!
How much tax revenue did Canada lose by the dramatic reduction in their corporate tax rate, from 43 percent in 2000 to 26 percent today?
We have tried to tell you. Canada’s lower corporate tax rate raises more tax revenue.
According to OECD data, corporate tax revenue increased after Canada cut corporate tax rates beginning in 2000. Relieved of a crushing tax burden, corporations grow organically through lower start-up costs and reinvestment of after-tax earnings. They make more money, and the government gets more revenue. Works every time. It shouldn’t remain a mystery, and it certainly is not “Economic Patriotism,” which is just another of their clever talking points.
Democrats will attempt to use Economic Patriotism as an issue in the election this fall. Don’t be fooled. They just have no understanding of business. That’s why our economy drags along sluggishly while across the northern border Canada’s is booming.
Filed under: Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, History, National Security, Progressivism, Regulation, Taxes, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Conservatives and Progressives, Facing Up To Reality, The Problem of Magical Thinking
Here’s Bill Whittle at his best. The Defending the Dream Summit 2014. Dang, but he is good. Common sense multiplied.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Liberalism, Politics, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: America's Corporate Taxes, Free Markets / Free People, World's Highest
Democrats are not happy with President Obama, and they are trying desperately to change the subject from things like ISIS, and Russia, and foreign policy in general, ObamaCare, immigration, the miserable economy, and jobs, and jobs and jobs.
Their natural inclination is to focus on those things which arouse people’s passions, so naturally they are freaking out about Burger King’s plans to merge with Tim Horton’s Canadian coffee and donut chain and move to Canada. “Economic Patriotism” they cry, and moral panic and sheer rage that an American business would consider relocating for the simple reason of paying taxes. Obviously it’s time for my favorite quote from Walter Wriston:
Capital will go where it is wanted and stay
where it is well treated. It will flee from manipulation
or onerous regulation of its value or use and no
government power can restrain it for long.
The business of business is to make a profit. Liberals always want to impose other rules on business. They are deeply suspicious of the whole idea of profits. They are outraged at CEO salaries. Proper people work in service jobs, like government, or for foundations, or righteous causes or universities. Liberals are really quite conflicted about business. They were outraged by the Citizens United decision. And even more so by Mitt Romney’s claim that corporations are just people. On the other hand, they get enthusiastic support from some businesses like Google, or Facebook, but that’s different.
The problem isn’t just that America has the highest corporate taxes in the world, but that America collects taxes on the income earned in other countries., though those other countries collect taxes as well. Because they distrust business in general, Liberals have little hesitation in finding new and better ways to tax business.
Total tax costs are 46.4% lower in Canada than in the U.S. Is it really a surprise that Burger Kind wants to move there? Burger King would still pay their full taxes on income earned in the U.S. but their taxes on income earned in Canada would be taxed at Canadian rates.
The number one issue among American voters is unsurprisingly — jobs. If you vigorously try to maximize the taxes that American businesses pay, they will hire fewer people. If you raise taxes on business, they raise the cost of the goods or services they sell, or reduce their expenses, by cutting the number of people they employ.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Law, Regulation, Taxes, The United States | Tags: Judicial Watch FOIA Request, Lois Lerner's Emails, The Department of Justice
Judicial Watch announced today that the lawyers at the Department of Justice are now saying that all federal government emails are backed up, along with other data, in case of a government-wide catastrophe. This means the “missing,” “destroyed” emails of Lois Lerner and other IRS employees are backed up and can be recovered. That goes for the emails of all those other agencies that suffered from a rash of “hard-drive crashes,” are there, just like the tech experts claimed.
The Obama administration attorneys said that this back-up system would be too onerous to search. The DOJ attorneys also acknowledged that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) is investigating this back-up system.
Judicial Watch is not about to let that “too onerous” claim get by. The focus on hard drive crashes has been a diversion. The Obama administration has known all along what the rules are about preserving email records, but has withheld that information in the hopes no one would notice.
I’m torn between Emily Litella’s “nevermind” and Shakespeare’s “The truth will out.”
In Chicago politics, truth can be buried for years, but then somebody goes too far and governors and mayors are sent off to serve some time. This administration seems to believe that bringing Chicago-style politics to our nation’s capitol is perfectly normal.
There have been hints of this backup system, but nothing definite. If it is truly government wide than huge numbers of people must be aware of it. The wheels of justice will grind slowly along. A suit from Judicial Watch, and a demand for a wide range of documents under a Freedom of Information Act request, and a couple of honest judges have created a victory for public accountability.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Energy, Foreign Policy, National Security, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: Economist Interview, Excellent Economy?, Self-Delusion
On his return trip from Kansas City, President Obama granted an interview with The Economist. They said:
The Economist: We see a lot of business people and they do complain about regulation.
Mr Obama: They always complain about regulation. That’s their job. Let’s look at the track record. Let’s look at the facts. Since I have come into office, there’s almost no economic metric by which you couldn’t say that the US economy is better and that corporate bottom lines are better. None.
So if, in fact, our policies have produced a record stock market, record corporate profits, 52 months of consecutive job growth, 10m new jobs, the deficit being cut by more than half, an energy sector that’s booming, a clean-energy sector that’s booming, a reduction of carbon pollution greater than the Europeans or any other country, a housing market that has bounced back, and an unemployment rate that is now lower than it was pre-Lehman—I think you’d have to say that we’ve managed the economy pretty well and business has done okay.
There are always going to be areas where business does not want to be regulated because regulations are inconvenient.
The Economist: But don’t you wish, when you look at things like Dodd-Frank or you look at health-care reform—both of which we supported in principle—that they could have been much simpler?
Mr Obama: Of course. This goes back to the old adage of Churchill—democracy is the worst form of government except for all the alternatives. (Laughter.) It’s messy.
And so could we have designed a far more elegant health-care law? Of course. Would I have greatly preferred a blank canvas in which to design financial regulations post-2008 and consolidated agencies and simplified oversight? Absolutely. But the truth of the matter is, is that we saved the financial system. It continues to be extraordinarily profitable. And essentially, what we did was to provide an additional cushion so that if and when people make bad decisions with large sums of money—which they inevitably do—the risks to the system are reduced.
And on health care, as messy as the whole process has been, here’s what I know—that we have millions of people [insured] who didn’t have insurance before, and health-care inflation is the lowest it’s been in 50 years, for four consecutive years, corresponding to when we passed the law.
So my belief is that if, in fact, we can see a reduction in some of the political temperature around Obamacare or around Dodd-Frank, then it’s an iterative process. We can go back at it and further refine it, learn lessons from things that aren’t working as well, make it simpler, make it better. That does require, though, an attitude on the part of Congress, as well as on the part of the business community, that says you don’t just get 100% of what you want.
Do read the whole thing. Does Obama believe what he says? Is this just something he says for public consumption? Obama, according to The Economist “was buoyed by the recent economic numbers and looking towards his legacy…” Funny, everybody else considered the numbers as a disappointing failure to meet expectations. And Obama’s track record as disastrous. So he heralds his role in saving the U.S. economy.
A new study by the Russel Sage Foundation finds that middle-class Americans are poorer today than they were in 1984. 92,001,000 people are no longer in the workforce, an increase of 11,472,000 since he took office.
The Obama administration has added $7 trillion to the National Debt, well, actually — $7,060,259,674,497.51 to be precise— but when the number gets that big I have trouble with all the commas.
In 2012, Obama was heavily criticized for delaying (and hiding) major regulation until after the presidential election. Now it seems he may again be delaying another $34 billion of new regulations until after the election. There are mostly regulatory costs imposed by the EPA. Why am I not surprised?
The most extensive is the EPA’s ground-level ozone standard. That one does not currently have a price tag, but when the rule was vetoed by the White House in 2011, it’s cost was put at $90 billion. Then you have the Department of Energy’s new conservation standards for incandescent lamps, projected to cost$863 million per year and raise consumer prices by 40 to 70 percent. Most of these regulations are also major job killers, but the EPA says they don’t have to pay any attention to that. That does not include the Clean Energy Plan regulations which is expected to cost thousands of jobs and raise the cost of electricity sharply.
Gosh. Back in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama called President George W. Bush “unpatriotic” and his policies “irresponsible” for adding $4 trillion to the national debt with the costs of 9/11 and two wars. But that was then and this is now.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Economy, Freedom, Democrat Corruption, Taxes, Capitalism, Regulation | Tags: President Barack Obama, The Great Depression of 1920, President Warren Harding
In January, 2009, when Barack Obama took office, the number of Americans of working age who were not in the labor force was 80.529.000. Since that time, that number has increased by 11,472,000 to 92,001,000 as of July 2014.
The participation rate measures the percentage of the civilian non-institutional population that participates in the work force by either having a job, or actively seeking one. It’s just a snapshot, and subject to revision, but at this state in a supposed “recovery” it should be far better.
President Obama tries to put a good face on it and speak as if the recovery is chugging along just fine, but it really isn’t. Microsoft announced the layoff of 14,000 workers in July. The Army is shedding another 1,500 captains and majors.
A lot of coal-fired power plant workers are going to lose their jobs because of ridiculous regulations that will accomplish nothing at all, and a lot of coal miners as well, as this president tries to shut down the industry that produces nearly half of America’s electricity cheaply and dependably under the illusion that solar and wind can produce a significant amount of expensive energy, if some unexpected miracle just makes the sun stop being diffuse and the wind stop being intermittent.
And just to help out the faltering job market, Obama has issued an executive order allowing the spouses of workers here on H-1B visas to go to work. The next executive order is expected to allow the “children,” who are mostly young men of working age, arriving at our southern border to receive work permits. Doesn’t anyone notice that all these things are connected?
We’ve had lots of recessions in the past. There is a business cycle. As things get better and unemployment eases, the economy starts to grow and offers more opportunity — the better things get, the more risks businesses take. Overworked people get assistants, a new wing is added to the building, new machines are purchased, and so it goes. (I should add here, that also in the news today was the nugget that many of our civil servants are so bored in their jobs that they are spending their days watching porn.)
Most people are probably unaware that we had another Great Depression in 1920-1921. It was just about as deep as Roosevelt’s depression, but Warren Harding treated it a little differently. World War I had left the nation with runaway inflation and a soaring debt. The national debt had increased from $1 billion in 1914 to $24 billion by 1920. (Yes, it was a long time ago)
So what did Harding do? A “stimulus”? A jobs program? “Targeted” tax cuts? Government bailouts for ailing companies? Nope—he cut government spending sharply and rapidly (by almost 50 percent), began cutting tax rates across the board, and allowed asset values and wages to adjust freely as fast as possible. Harding’s administration, Paul Johnson observed, “was the last time a major industrial power treated a recession by classic laissez-faire methods, allowing wages to fall to their natural level …. By July 1921 it was all over and the economy was booming again.”
If you remember your history, it was called “the roaring twenties.”
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Election 2014, Liberalism, Politics, Progressivism, Statism, Taxes | Tags: Getting Poorer, Median Point in Wealth, Recovery? Not in Net Worth.
From the New York Times via Paul Caron, the taxprof:
Median household net worth has fallen 36% since 2003. The typical household is now worth a third less.
Economic inequality in the United States has been receiving a lot of attention. But it’s not merely an issue of the rich getting richer. The typical American household has been getting poorer, too.
The inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household was $87,992 in 2003. Ten years later, it was only $56,335, or a 36 percent decline, according to a study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation. Those are the figures for a household at the median point in the wealth distribution — the level at which there are an equal number of households whose worth is higher and lower. But during the same period, the net worth of wealthy households increased substantially.
Funny, President Obama keeps telling us how much the economy has recovered, and all the new jobs.