Bashing Obama's Class-Warfare Tax Policy on CNBC

No left-winger to debate in this appearance.

Is Greece's Fiscal Crisis Caused by too Much Spending or too Little Revenue?

It's been a rough couple of weeks for Greece, which has been battered by rumors of government default. Interest rates have been climbing, as investors are nervous about state finances, and the country's debt rating has been downgraded.

Not surprisingly, Greek politicians are dealing with the crisis in large part by further increasing the tax burden. One particularly horrible idea is a 90 percent tax on bank bonus payments. I don't know if lawmakers in Athens have heard of the Laffer Curve, but they're about to get a real-world lesson that will teach them how punitive tax rates lead to less revenue.

For those who wonder how Greece got into this mess, here's a quick chart I put together, based on OECD fiscal data. Don't be bsurprised if America has a similar chart in about 10 years.

The Problem is Spending, not Deficits

Reckless spending increases under both Bush and Obama have resulted in unprecedented deficits. Congress will soon be forced to increase the nation's debt limit by an astounding $1.8 trillion. Government borrowing has become such a big issue that some politicians are proposing a deficit reduction commission, which may mean they are like alcoholics trying for a self-imposed intervention.

But all this fretting about deficits and debt is misplaced. Government borrowing is a bad thing, of course, but this video explains that the real problem is excessive government spending.



Fixating on the deficit allows politicians to pull a bait and switch, since they can raise taxes, claim they are solving the problem, when all they are doing is replacing debt-financed spending with tax-financed spending. At best, that's merely taking a different route to the wrong destination. The more likely result is that the tax increases will weaken the economy, further exacerbating America's fiscal position.

Deficit Commission: Wrong Target, Wrong Approach

Legislation being considered on Capitol Hill would create a supposed deficit reduction commission. If politicians were bound by truth-in-advertising, this proposal would be called a tax increase commission. It creates a mechanism that will - at best - replicate the 1982 and 1990 budget summits, both of which were fiscal disasters from the perspective of those who favor limited government. The inevitable result of a "bipartisan" process is a 50/50 deal of "spending cuts" and "tax increases," but the spending cuts are off the "baseline" (which assumes spending goes up), so even if the changes are real (and they rarely are), they are merely reductions in increases. The tax increases, meanwhile, are real and come on top of all the revenue growth built into current law. Moreover, many of the so-called spending cuts are actually increases in revenue (the "offsetting receipts" charade). Last but not least, this legislation is a stalking horse for VAT (that's what all the talk about an "antiquated" tax system that needs to be "modernized" is all about). What's remarkable about this proposal is how Democrats are almost transparent in their desire to lure Republicans into committing political suicide. As demonstrated by the 1982 and 1990 budget deals, everything is examined through the prism of distribution tables once a budget summit or commission commences and the GOP inevitably comes across as the bad guys who try to protect the rich at the expense of the poor. Of course, if Republicans are really stupid enough to travel down this path, they'll deserve exactly what happens. But some people in Washington are aware that the proposed commission is a recipe for a major tax hike. The Financial Times cites Cato's Chris Edwards in its report:

The push for a bipartisan commission to deal with the fiscal challenges facing the US gained momentum on Wednesday as 27 senators sponsored revised legislation that would create such a task force. The bill, introduced by Democrat Kent Conrad and Republican Judd Gregg, both fiscal hawks, would charge an 18-member group of serving legislators and administration officials with coming up with a plan to solve what they called “the nation’s long-term fiscal imbalance”. ...In a sign that the concept of such a commission is gaining ground politically, anti-tax activists immediately attacked the proposal, saying it would lead to tax increases. Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, published an open letter saying the “commission is unacceptable from a taxpayer perspective” because “it would lead to a guaranteed tax increase”. ...However, Chris Edwards, director of tax policy at the small-government Cato Institute, said a commission was likely to put too much emphasis on tax increases when “long-term projections reveal a spending catastrophe, not a revenue challenge”.

One final comment. It is utterly absurd to categorize Senator Kent Conrad as a fisal hawk. This term supposedly suggests a member who actively pursues deficit reduction. Yet according to the vote rating of the National Taxpayers Union, Conrad's most recent rating is an F. Which is the same grade he got the previous year, and the year before that, and the year before that. Indeed, Conrad "earned" failing grades in 14 out of 17 years, and got a D in the other three years.

Bad News if You Root for the New York Yankees, Los Angeles Lakers, or New England Patriots

Bad News if You Root for the New York Yankees, Los Angeles Lakers, or New England Patriots. A sportswriter at NBA.com explains how higher tax rates will make it even more attractive for professional athletes to sign with teams from zero-income tax states such as Florida and Texas. This is good news if you cheer for the Miami Dolphins or Texas Rangners. But if you support teams from high-tax states, you should be very upset that greedy politicians are making it more likely that your favorite franchise will be at a competitive disadvantage:

With increasing taxes geared to the wealthy and the Bush tax cuts also coming off the books, it may be that the low tax states like Florida and Texas begin to have a big advantage over higher tax states when it comes to NBA free agents. ...Could, in the end, the biggest barrier to the Bulls attracting a major free agent next summer like Dwyane Wade be the health care legislation now being debated in Washington? ...The answer is taxes. The closest anyone seems to a plan now to pay for the changes is to tax the so-called rich. That would include just about every player in the NBA. I know we’re not supposed to feel sorry for rich people and assume they have so much that giving up more doesn’t matter. It does, just as comfortable people in the middle class with two cars and a nice health club membership don’t want to pay more taxes, either, even though they can afford to. So I contacted a tax expert in Chicago, Noel Wilner, president of CBIZ MHM, an accounting and tax advisory company, and asked him to do some calculations. The assumption was single tax payer, the 2011 tax rates when the presumed five percent health care surtax would go into effect with the higher rates that year, salaries of $5.5 million, which is about the NBA average, and $17 million, which would be a high earner like Wade and no deductions. ...The total tax for a $5,500,000 salary and an Illinois resident is $2,568,412. This is made up of $2,142,412 of federal income tax, $261,000 of health care tax and $165,000 of Illinois tax. A Florida resident will have the same federal and health care tax but no state income tax ($165,000). The total tax for a salary of $17,000,000 will be $8,088,412. That is made up of $6,696,412 of federal income tax, $882,000 of health care tax and $510,000 of Illinois tax. A Florida resident will have all the same tax except no state tax ($510,000). In addition, Wilner notes, there is typically an allocation to other states where the games are actually played. But there should be at least a savings of 50% of the state tax for being a Florida resident as 50% of the games are home games. I know almost $9 million after taxes is a lot of money. But with the government adding on another half million dollars penalty to pay for health care and who knows how much more down the road as the rich seem to be set up as the villains in this health care debate, suddenly hanging onto more than $500,000 in state tax may sound appealing. So perhaps someone like Wade sees he can resign with his own team for an extra year under NBA rules and then get that much more in tax benefit, and maybe the money starts becoming too big to decide to leave? With increasing taxes geared to the wealthy and the Bush tax cuts also coming off the books, it may be that the low tax states like Florida and Texas begin to have a big advantage over higher tax states. And then seemingly making it even less appealing to go to a ridiculously high tax state like New York.