On the Ethics of Taxation, and the Redistribution Debate

"We are guided by the immutable principles of economically sound tax policy which say that: Taxes should be neutral to economic decision making, they should be simple, transparent, stable, and they should promote economic growth.

In other words, the ideal tax system should do only one thing - raise a sufficient amount of revenues to fund government activities with the least amount of harm to the economy."

Scott Hodge, President, Tax Foundation in his testimony to the CBO on The Need for Pro-Growth Tax Reform.

My goal in writing this is to find a little common ground. It's become apparent that neither side is content with the current tax system. It was made for politicians, connected businessmen, special interest groups, lobbyist, etc.... While the tax burden was broadened under Reagan, since then we have seen about 15,000 amendments to the tax code. All special favors, from all different areas of the political spectrum. I doubt anyone believes their party is innocent, and at best there may be a handful of politicians that didn't participate. I think most of the Tea Party would agree that the politicians aren't going to act too eagerly to create a growth friendly tax system at the cost of political power. I think that leftist activist would be smart to reform their party, to find up and comers who still have their country's best interest at heart, and get rid of the old who are masters of rhetoric, yet slow to act for the American people.

More importantly, I think it's important to establish the ethics of taxation. Right now the one thing most people have in common is that they go to work to earn a living and provide for their families and when that check comes the money is theirs. They earned it, they know how best to spend it. Nobody has a right to it more than they do. This is common across the spectrum, with the majority of America, and if you agree with this you would be right. On the other side, as a civilized nation we have to incur certain costs to ensure our safety and to provide infrastructure to create a nation of prosperity. There are costs associated with the desired acts of government that we have to collectively pay for. For this reason taxation is necessary, and in many aspects, should be looked at as an honor to pay. The question always comes down to who should pay for it, and what it should encompass.

The Individual

There are several ideas for tax reform being floated around right now. At first glance I find a flat tax to be appealing. It doesn't debate fairness, and actually becomes economically non-existent to the earner, as it's taken away equally from everyone's income. It assumes that all people benefit, therefore all people should be honored to shoulder the burden together. However, I tend to lean to something more similar to Paul Ryan's plan. It takes into account that not all earnings are equal. For instance, there are a certain amount of earnings needed just to clear the poverty line. There is another level where you become a home owner, buy healthier groceries, own newer cars. Even still another level where you find yourself with great health and life insurance, you max out your 401k, Social Security, and IRA every year. You have investments and savings, and enjoy a certain amount of fiscal security that will take care of you in hard times without yet reaching a level of extravagance.Then there's a level that would encompass everything beyond.

Paul Ryan takes those different levels into account. There are two tax brackets, basically flat, with a few simple deductions. A person living in poverty would effectively pay nothing. A small percentage would be placed on earnings in excess of the deductions, until they reach a certain comfort level. A higher rate would be placed on wages in excess of that point. Again, a flat percentage. Deductions are used only for determining where that level is. A single person with no children does not need to earn the same as a married man with 3 kids to meet those same financial points in life.

I'd be willing to bet that most people would look at this system as fair. I've intentionally left out numbers, but assume that if that is the controversy involved in the reform that we have found ourselves on better ground than we currently stand.

For Corporations

I have two criteria for corporate taxation. The first is that all corporations be taxed the same. No tax preference, no subsidies, no more use of a competition killing regulatory process. There is a use for regulations, but it should be clearly defined, and made fair for competitors across the industry, and start-up companies. It's one thing to preserve blue-sky's and green pastures, it's another to ensure your company adds billions in profits while disabling the threat of competition.

The second is that we set the percentage low enough to export more than we import. It's growth friendly reform, and debt is a huge problem for our country.

For the most part, we aren't taxing corporations. History shows that a corporate tax is more of a consumer tax. Also, if you assume that a company is going to earn a certain percentage in profit, than a higher tax percentage would increase the expectation of profit, as it would increase the earnings needed to meet that percentage.

Again, I've intentionally left out numbers. The Paul Ryan plan does this by taking the current effective tax rate, and applying it across the board. The more left leaning special interest groups for tax reform like The Citizens for Tax Justice believe you should reform the tax code, but leave the tax percentage at 35%. As long as they're the same we will see growth. If we lower it enough, we will see a surplus in foreign trade. However, the numbers are debatable, and not even close to the most important factor in corporate taxation.

One thing I have a problem with is the argument that closing certain loopholes is a start. This typically involves one party cutting out loopholes for the opposing party's supporters, while preserving their own. This is business as usual in Washington, and how we got into this mess in the first place.

On Redistribution

I thought it was important to include in this blog certain factors on the debate of redistribution. As soon as you mention it people get up in arms as to how we have to take care of the poor. It doesn't even come close to encompassing the problem, or take the time to realize that we are better left helping the poor through education and job finding programs, rather than life long use of government tax dollars. Reform that would effectively reduce poverty, and increase tax revenue when accompanied with a growth friendly economy. A system where everyone with a desire to win, actually does.

But, here is the real problem with redistribution. It all goes back to the beginning of the blog where I pointed out how the tax dollar is earned by our fellow Americans who go to work each day trying to provide for themselves and their families. It's an honor to pay to make our country great, this honor drastically changes when it's no longer valued as another person's hard work. The problem doesn't begin with the poor. That completely neglects to address the billions a corporation may receive in tax incentive, or the use of Imminent Domain to take away another person's right to property for a company to then acquire it for his own purposes. Practices in redistribution that literally choose who the winners will be by giving all kinds of advantages to political contributors, and giving an unfair edge against their competitors. I doubt you will find many voters, on either side of the spectrum, that would call this a good thing, but watch a politician talk, listen to what he says. It doesn't take long to find evidence of this in practice..

I would be dishonest to not address the poor though. I think it's a false argument to assume that a person deserves money simply because they are poor. It's true, people need help, and as a productive society, and one that amplifies the American Dream, I do believe actions should be taken to ensure that all people seeking success and opportunity were assisted in doing so if need be. We should strive to maximize individual success, and help out our fellow man. Providing effective programs that would do so would pay America back through economic growth, and should be looked at honestly. Ultimately, the only way to cure poverty is through education and a career field. Financial assistance would be more than reasonable while a person was gainfully engaged in the process, especially if no other means of income were available.

This is an area full of controversy. I do believe in the importance of helping the poor. I think it should be carefully considered in how we choose to do it. Since the time war was waged on poverty the numbers have actually increased. Productive methods could do the opposite, and again, everyone wins. The process isn't as important to my point, as the growth created through reforming the government management of corporations would work wonders in decreasing the number of those living in poverty. However, it's an important process to look at in the long run. At some point, all entitlements will have to be looked at honestly, and long term plans will need to be enacted to ensure their longevity and effectiveness for their desired goals.



I'd love feedback on this, especially from those who sit on different sides of the political spectrum. While it should be obvious that controlling spending is key to the long term economic health of our country, It's the reform of taxation, subsidies, and the regulatory process that would lead to immediate growth.

Crony Capitalism: Our President and his Parent Companies

So, by chance I happened to catch a tweet by Sen. John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) which said, "Tax reform, anyone?" Followed by a link to a special report by the Tax Foundation (@TaxFoundation) titled: "Behind the Headlines: What Do Corporations Pay in Income Tax?" One of the first things that stood out to me was that in 2008, 1,937 corporations earning $2.5billion+/yr. pay 68% of all tax revenue at an effective tax rate of 21.2%. However, the report references an analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice (@taxjustice) titled, "Analysis: 12 Corporations Pay Effective Tax Rate of Negative 1.5% on $171 Billion in Profits; Reap $62.4 Billion in Tax Subsidies. This points out that the effective tax rate of the $2.5billion+/yr. group is heavily reduced by large companies paying little or no taxes.

For a quick reference the corporations on this list are: General Electric, American Electric Power, Dupont, Verizon Communications, Boeing, Wells Fargo, Fed Ex, Honeywell International, IBM, Yahoo, United Technologies, and Exxon Mobil. 

After months of hearing Barrack Obama talk about oil subsidies it wasn't much of a surprise to see an oil company make the list, but it's interesting to find that they are the lowest corporation on the list. They actually improve the effective tax rate by paying 14.2% on $19,655 profit over the last three years. GE makes the top of the list with an effective tax rate of -61.3%. This stood out to me. You don't have to be a political junkie to know the relationship between President Barrack Obama, and Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE.

GE

Not only did Obama appoint Jeffrey Immelt to be the head of his jobs council, he actually sat next to Michelle Obama during Obama's recent speech touting his American Jobs Act. It pays to be friends with Barrack Obama. While receiving $4.7 billion in federal subsidies, and enjoying a 0% tax rate, they have decreased their US jobs by 36,000 people. Under the Paul Ryan plan for Tax Reform, GE would owe $1,930,500,000, but under the current plan we place the burden on smaller, less connected businesses. BTW, the difference in what they receive with Obama and what they would pay under the Ryan plan is $6.630,500,000. That actually only leaves about $1 billion in profits over 3 years, and that hasn't factored in other taxes. Based on those numbers, the success of GE is completely dependent on shady accounting and political connections. This is Obama's idea of a strong American business! Good thing he's picking the winners! (Unless of course you're Solyndra)

 After considering the facts around GE's incredible tax benefits, I remembered a Huffington Post article I ran across titled, "Obama's Close Ties to CEO's Whose Firms Dodge Taxes." This list goes on to name GE, Honeywell, Ford, Boeing, Verizon, eBay, Qwest(CenturyLink), Dow, Motorola, and International Paper. That claimed that 3 of the top 5 on my list closely tied to our president. As well as Honeywell, who is 8th on the list, and enjoys a -0.7% average tax rate over the last 3 years.

Verizon & Boeing

According to the HuffPo article the CEO's of Boeing and Verizon both served on Obama's Export Council. Their tax rates averaged -2.9% and -1.8% over the last three years. Recently Verizon made the news asking for favors from the president on patent wars. Must be nice!

American Electric Power & Dupont

So I figured I might as well do a little research. See what ties the other companies had to our president and I was a little shocked by the results. It turns out that in 2004, eight states decided they wanted to take preemptive steps against climate change, and sued 5 power companies to cut plant emissions. Through the requests of AEP, DuPont, and others, Obama actually stepped in to try and throw out the suit. On top of that, Obama has been quite generous to DuPont and Monsanto by giving them high ranking positions in the FDA and agriculture areas of government. To be honest, I didn't think DuPont would be tied to Obama, and to learn he is in so close with Monsanto, well that actually made me pause. If you've ever watched a documentary involving the production of food in America, you have seen the left's opinion of Monsanto and DuPont. According to these documentaries the companies have used some pretty shady practices through the courts and lobbying to expand their profits while crippling farmers. One of the more famous cases involves seed patents that make it illegal to save seeds from last year's crops, and then going after farmers with any trace of their crops on the their land. While my knowledge on this is limited, the point remains that these are interesting bed fellows for a liberal president. AEP has enjoyed an average tax rate of -9.2% and DuPont -3.4% over the last 3 years.

Between AEP and DuPont, Barrack Obama shows a great willingness to put campaign finance well before political ideals.

These examples aren't the rule. Most corporations pay much higher rates. According to the Tax Foundation's report, which I linked to originally, businesses profiting between $5 million and $2.5 billion pay between 29.6 and  32.5%. The companies listed are the epitome of crony capitalism. They create arguments for politicians like Obama to claim corporations aren't paying their fair share while increasing benefits to their friends, and sticking it to the other guy. I'm of the opinion that the leftist elite use their base to hold down competition in their industry. The Paul Ryan plan decreases taxes on the corporations paying in excess of 25%, and increasing taxes on the well connected companies relying on the government to prop up their earnings.With a corporate wide effective tax rate of 26%, the burden would spread evenly, while maintaining revenues, and decreasing costs on the private sector.

To quote Scott Hodge, from the Tax Foundation, in his recent testimony to the House Budget Committee, "Taxes should be neutral to economic decision making, they should be simple, transparent, stable, and they should promote economic growth.


In other words, the ideal tax system should do only one thing - raise a sufficient amount of revenues to fund government activities with the least amount of harm to the economy."

By simplifying the tax code we decrease the cost of paying taxes, change the focus of business back to production rather than complex accounting, and encourage entrepreneurship in every industry. We also preserve the ideals of our parties by removing a powerful tool that leads politicians to sell their ideals for a better funded campaign. It still leaves plenty of areas for government reform, but it would be huge for encouraging economic growth.

How different would things be?

How much different would the government look if it was understood that every dollar spent represents the hard work of another American? That no matter how important you think those programs are, or how helpful they may be, they come at a cost to someone else. This isn't to say the government is unnecessary, or to say we shouldn't help our fellow man. It's to say that in all aspects of government, the taxpayer should be considered and respected. The dollar spent has a name, it has a past, and while the government has a right to take it, it shouldn't take it halfheartedly.

How different would the debt arguments be if people realized that every dollar spent wasn't just the hard work of another American, but the hard work of our future generations? Some day the debt will reach a point where paying on the interest rates will no longer be sufficient. At some point the debt has to be paid down, and the government will have to decide between taxing the citizens more, or reducing spending on programs. Those programs may serve a great purpose, they may be needed, but far from achievable. It's now expected of my generation to support every poorly structured government program until it's collapse. To pay for the Social Security and Medicare of Baby Boomers until they bankrupt our country and then what? How long will it take to pay off the debts accrued? How many generations? What will they use to help the old or the poor? What will they get in return for a lifetime of paying into a system that no longer exists?

These programs are dangerous to America, and yet trying to confront them now brings out political statements that the right is trying to starve out the old and poor. Reform could make them sustainable, but it's political suicide to do so. It's a joke, but carries serious consequences.

The war on poverty has actually increased poverty. Not only are we losing the war, but for some reason the government wants to justify further growth of these programs. The suggestion of reform earns you the label of heartless, greedy, and/or racist. However, if we were to respect the taxpayer we would structure these programs to lift people out of poverty, to learn what skills they have, to educate them for jobs, and leave them in a financial situation that would increase the number of taxpayers in our country. I'd like to argue that an overwhelming majority of taxpayers would support a system that helped people out for a time, and put them on a path to success.

I'd argue that every government program, including the military, needs to be looked at. The desired goals need to be agreed on, and the necessary structures established. There has to come a point where enough is enough. How big do we need our military presence to be throughout the world? How many wars do we have to fight? How do we pick the ones we do?

How different would our country be if we created these programs to help out our fellow man instead of entertaining every political whim of our elected officials? How different would we structure our programs if we considered sustainability and functionality over next years election or good intentions? How often would we have to raise the debt ceiling? How often would we suffer through another financial crisis?

I'd like to see the day where these questions are answered, long before we are forced to answer them.

Wacky Claims, Hopeless Ideas, and Real Solutions

It seems like there is a lot in the news lately claiming different solutions on how to get out of this mess. Paul Krugman wants you to believe that the government should double their spending. Nancy Pelosi thinks that a massive increase in government jobs will reduce the deficit. For the most part, I disagree with both. First of all, government jobs won't do anything but add to the deficit, but adding them to the current government structure most likely wouldn't help economic issues at all. Assuming we can double our spending, and that it wouldn't be reckless, completely ignores how we got here.


It's odd, because these people, far more educated than myself, seem to want to use their skewed concept of history to say, here is an economic crisis, this is what we should do. This economic slump is due to people not spending, but it's not due to lack of money in the system. The argument from the left on revenues claimed that businesses were sitting on money. That the problem was people weren't supplying, because others weren't buying. So if people aren't buying, how is racking up another couple of trillion dollars a year going to fix anything?


So how did it start? The banks crumbled as a result of massive amounts of government backed, irresponsible loans. Many claim it had nothing to do with Clinton's push for affordable housing. They blame Bush and ignore attempts to squash it before everything went South. None of that really matters now, but for years banks were loaning to anyone with a desire for a new home. Everyone could get approved for homes they couldn't possibly afford. The banks could do this because Fannie Mae would buy those mortgages from them, it was nearly instant profits. As a result of this, housing prices skyrocketed. Neighborhoods were popping up at record rates. Toss into that out of control credit cards, enabling people to entertain lifestyles beyond their means, and you've got a ticking time bomb for the economy. The fact is, credit was handed out too easy, the value of housing and products were abnormally high, then one day the credit bubble burst.


So how do we get out? First, at some point people are going to start spending again. I would actually bet this happens soon. It won't be what it was before. Even if that credit is still available, the culture has now changed. Most likely we'll see the economy grow at a more healthy level, regardless of government intervention. When that happens companies will start producing, and jobs will be created.


What can the government do? In the Republican plan for job growth they call for tax reform. They want a maximum of 25% tax on anyone's income. While at first this looks like a tax cut for the wealthy. The truly wealthy pay 17.9% due to tax loopholes, throw in some lobbyists and you get the prime percentages granted to GE. So closing loopholes would increase the overall percentage to the super wealthy, while lowering it to smaller businesses that were paying the higher rates. It would also clean up the tax code, reducing the government burden to the businesses who's rates would rise.


It would also increase the amount a person actually sees on their paycheck. This additional income would either go to paying off individual debt, or add to an increase in spending. Either way, the economy ends up improving.


So why is the deficit/debt so dangerous? First of all, we have to pay it back eventually, but as the debt to countries like China grows, our power decreases. If you happened to have read my link attached to Pelosi's name, you read how important the subject of trade with China is, and continuing to give them the upper hand, will make it more and more difficult to get out from under their wing. Second, once we finally reign in spending we will have to pay down the debt. Even when Clinton had a budget surplus, it only stalled the growth of debt, it didn't do much to shrink it. As our debt grows, so do our payments, and those payments represent money that could be spent elsewhere. Money that could be helpful down the road. So, not only will increasing spending do very little right now, it will hurt us a lot later. We should be looking for reform, so we can maintain, while reducing spending.


It's not quite time to build, it's prime time to prepare for building, and preparation now will result in better growth for the future.