Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

yetanotherDave — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Methinks, well said - I suspect you're right on the money. Regardless of His intent, the result is evil. What I wonder is if the evil is an accident of his arrogant stupidity or a diabolical intended result. In the end it may not matter, but it's good to understand your enemy.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

yetanotherDave — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

..."open, democratically established federal programs"...

Ha Ha - very funny. Unless you think that's a good description of crooked back-room deals to channel taxpayers money to favored cronies.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

yetanotherDave — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

I still can't decide if BHO is truly profoundly stupid (as only the enormously arrogant can be) or if he’s very shrewd and just purely evil. Either way it’s obvious that he’s an extremely dangerous hypocrite.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

vikingvista — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Can Keynesian theories discern an economic difference between a free market economy and an economy dominated by thieves? From a purely economic (rather than moral or other social) standpoint, do Keynesians care HOW the money is pushed around just long as it is pushed around?

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

vikingvista — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"When a government taxes, where does that money go? Does it just disappear?"

When a burglar robs your house, where does that money go? Does it just disappear?

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

vikingvista — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"It isn't that simple. The rationale for taxation is that it supports the "governmental" functions that are essential to business."

You forget that the owners of the corporation pay taxes on their income. If the services are provided from general revenue, they can be financed through general taxes. That's no different than the myriad programs your income taxes already support that you have no use for. It's not fair, but it's not exactly a paradigm shift either.

So it can be treated as a separate issue, but I agree with you that rent is preferable to taxes. Even direct billing by the government for its services is preferable. And with corporate profits not being taxed, it would be politically and financially feasible to move in that direction.

The main problem is that the huge influx of companies from overseas would create a labor shortage in this country, driving up wages. Immigration policy is unlikely to keep up. Although an innovative Congressman might propose a means whereby companies can finance the immigration costs of their own employees.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

vikingvista — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"TOTAL TAXATION"

Not all tax structures are created equal. No taxes are fair, but corporate income taxes are particularly unpragmatic as they directly attack the engine of wealth and job creation. And as a surtax on income-tax-paying owners and employees of corporations, they are inequitable.

Unless, of course, you are a Keynesian. Then economic growth is nothing more than spending money. Any spending. By anyone. For anything.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

vikingvista — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"Why though, is the corporate tax a subject of discussion? Does anyone know how much revenue it currently generates?"

12.6% of federal receipts.

http://encarta.msn.com/medi...

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

vikingvista — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Here's a simple law that would stimulate lasting economic growth without having the creeps in Congress pick winners and losers and entrench the current misallocation of resources:

ELIMINATE the corporate income tax.

Since individuals already pay personal income tax, there is no reason why those individuals working for or owning corporations should be inflicted with this additional penalty. Profits that are not reinvested in the company already get taxed as wages, dividends, or ultimately as capital gains--and the rates of these taxes could be equalized to all count as income.

This is already essentially realized for small corporations that structure under Chapter S.

Throw in a law that counts total compensation as an employee's taxable income, and adjust personal income tax rates to make the law revenue neutral, and you will relieve another government-imposed burden on our economy--healthcare inflation.

To make the changes more palatable, cut government spending sufficiently to give everyone a personal income tax cut.

Vote VikingVista in 2010.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

vikingvista — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"Do you really, truly, actually not distinguish between a tax that contributes revenue to open, democratically established federal programs and a banana republic kick-back?"

Let's all have an open democratic vote about whether DK should donate all his assets to Cafe Hayek and then go jump in a lake. I'm sure he'll comply with the wishes of the plurality.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

vikingvista — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"Redistribution."

Okay, so more specifically, what do you suggest we do about it? Post our support for a flat tax on blogs?

I think the original question "what are we going to do about it" meant literally what are you, me, and like-minded people going to do about it.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

vikingvista — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"fairest possible tax would be a tax on government services"

Also, fee-for-service and outsourcing are two good ways for government services to transition toward privatization.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

vikingvista — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"What does all that mean, that you're going to address the "bottom line," or go on spinning your wheels?"

Sorry dg. I don't know what you're talking about. I thought I answered your question.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

vikingvista — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"But what are we going to do about it?"

Education and persuasion. Drs. B and R and much of the GMU economics staff are doing a lot about it. Some of the rest of us are educating ourselves in part by coming here.

What do you suggest we do? Concentrate in New Hampshire and secede?

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

dg lesvic — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Tell the world every chance you get that redistribution doesn't work, that it is completely counterproductive, not making the poor richer but poorer, that to take from the rich to give to the poor does not reduce but increases income inequality.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

dg lesvic — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Here's what we do about it>

Adress the "bottom line."

And what is that?

Boudreaux has told us, Hayek has told us, and Mises has told us.

Redistribution.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

indianajim — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

BO, SS; yes. BO, supply-sider no.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

LowcountryJoe — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

>>But what are we going to do about it?<<

Most armed revolutions end badly. The only thing that seems could work is advocating market-mechanisms to limit governments' ability to spend money since distribution/welfare state plays for many people.

In my opinion, more influential people should begin to openly advocate for decentralizing the taxing authority of the federal government. The federal government will still get revenue it's just that each individual state has to send the check in to leviathan. And, in turn, the individual states tax their residents using whichever tax schemes that they see fit. Effects: local elections become important again; congressmen and senators start getting an earful from local government asshats whenever the federal asshats propose more spending; tax competition amongst the states develops; congressman and senators bicker over how each state will be taxed and more gridlock ensues; a real dialogue about the sovereignty of individual states florishes.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

MU789 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

With a corrupt government official skimming off 20%, at least you know what the final cost will be.

With the government, you have to hope the IRS doesn't come in and decide you made a mistake and owe more. Or worse yet, you go to jail because the IRS code is written by the morons in Congress and even the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee says he can't understand it.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

John Dewey — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

gnatman,

Taxation understates the burden when the government runs huge deficits. The more important statistic is government spending as a percent of GDP. Here's what's been happening to the U.S.:

Government spending - % of U.S. GDP

1910 - 8%

1920 - 13%

1930 - 13%

1940 - 20%

1950 - 24%

1960 - 29%

1970 - 31%

1980 - 34%

1990 - 36%

2000 - 33%

2009 - 45%

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

JohnK — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

However, you can't have a policy calling for organized, predictable corruption.

Yeah you can. It's called government.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

PDR Vet — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

BHO's comparison is ludicrous. In terms of impact on the investment climate, predictability is the most important element. Corruption is less of a problem if it's somewhat contained and a predictable part of doing business. This is why high corruption economies in East Asia seem to thrive nonetheless -- it's more organized. However, you can't have a policy calling for organized, predictable corruption.

Apart from that, why is the focus always on the statutory tax rate? How about the effective tax rate of U.S. corporations? Accounting rules allow U.S. corps to provide two sets of books -- one to investors and the other to the IRS. Naturally, the latter set of books minimizes profits and the the tax bill. Effectively, a huge % of U.S. corps pay no profit taxes despite their profits but you don't know that because investors get the other set of books.

So if you're going to whine about corp tax rates, let's do it in a comprehensive fashion and make sure the accounting rules get fixed (one set of books -- let the corps decide which interests to maximize) and strip out all the deductions, kickbacks, etc. Then you have a case for lowering the statutory rates. Same basic argument goes for personal income taxes. The focus on rates only tells one side of the story.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

gnatman — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

This is all lost on me when I see published information such as this:

TOTAL TAXATION AS A % OF GDP

Showing latest available data.

Rank Countries Amount

# 1 Sweden: 54.2 % of GDP

# 2 Denmark: 48.8 % of GDP

# 3 Finland: 46.9 % of GDP

# 4 Belgium: 45.6 % of GDP

# 5 France: 45.3 % of GDP

# 6 Austria: 43.7 % of GDP

# 7 Italy: 42 % of GDP

# 8 Netherlands: 41.4 % of GDP

# 9 Norway: 40.3 % of GDP

# 10 Germany: 37.9 % of GDP

# 11 United Kingdom: 37.4 % of GDP

# 12 Canada: 35.8 % of GDP

# 13 Switzerland: 35.7 % of GDP

# 14 New Zealand: 35.1 % of GDP

# 15 Australia: 31.5 % of GDP

# 16 Ireland: 31.1 % of GDP

# 17 United States: 29.6 % of GDP

# 18 Japan: 27.1 % of GDP

Weighted average: 39.4 % of GDP

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

Dan Phillips — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Revolt.

Re: Barack Obama, Supply-Sider

Dan Phillips — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

We all sit around and complain how Obama and the Democrats (or Bush and the Republicans) are so corrupt and mean and downright evil. But what are we going to do about it? Has there ever been a government anywhere, at any time in history, that didn't act in the same manner as ours? It's the nature of government to do those things. That's what it does. So the question is: how does humanity get out of this hell we've put ourselves into? What's the answer? Sitting around complaining about it resolves nothing. I imagine our government overlords are perfectly content to lets us point out their corruption as long as we don't do anything about it.