Connecting the Dots

×

Connecting the Dots, Patrick Watson’s online newsletter, now lives exclusively on the Mauldin Economics website.

Please bookmark this page so you can always find his latest take on the geopolitical, cultural, and technological forces decentralizing and disrupting the global economy.

Tax Talks Lead Nowhere Good

November 28, 2017

The US Senate may vote on its tax “reform” plan this week. If it passes, they’ll have to reconcile it with the somewhat different House plan.

I expect they’ll get bogged down at that point, and today’s broken, dysfunctional tax code will stay as it is.

At least we’ll know what we’re dealing with, but we’ll have missed a chance to fix some of the most glaring problems. 

We don’t lack opinions, though. My tax-related articles of the last two weeks drew quite a few reader responses. Today I’ll share some of them and add my own comments.


Photo: Getty Images

Better Ways

Before we get to these responses, here are links to the two articles we’re discussing.

Scroll down on those pages, and you’ll see more reader letters. Those I’m repeating here are just examples (with some light editing for length and clarity).

We’ll start with readers who have different ideas:

What does a citizen have to do to start a discussion about the FAIRtax? I agree that Congress will fail because, ultimately, the special interest service has proliferated beyond consensus. I mean nearly 75,000 pages of tax code and regulations? Stop wasting our time, Congress, and get down to replacing the system rather than trying to tweak it for the hundred millionth time. David B.

The “FAIRtax” is a national sales tax that would replace the current income and payroll taxes. It is appealing in some ways but, as David says, can’t seem to get any traction in Congress.

If the goal is to increase employment, wages, and US export competitiveness, then a VAT that replaces payroll taxes makes a great deal of sense. The US payroll tax has the perverse effect of encouraging companies to spend as little on labor inside the US as possible; replacing the payroll taxes with a VAT would reverse this incentive. Basically, it would increase the overall tax burden on companies that have little or no US labor expenses while reducing it for companies with large US labor costs.

This would not only increase employment and wages, but would have the added benefit of putting Social Security and Medicare on stable ground. Jeff W.

The Value-Added Tax (VAT) is another potentially good idea that US politicians in both parties avoid like the plague. I don’t know why—many countries have a VAT and it seems to work well. Jeff’s point on the present payroll tax system creating perverse incentives is another good reason.


Photo: Getty Images

Makes No Sense

This reader has some provocative thoughts:

The tax reform makes no sense. It increases the deficit, it is regressive, and it will further widen income inequality.

  1. There is absolutely no need to increase the deficit.
     
  2. It is BS that American companies are at a tax disadvantage to other developed-market economies. One should look at overall tax burdens, not marginal rates.
     
  3. US corporations had the most favorable financing conditions in the history of credit over the last ten years and still didn’t invest. Why? Because they only do it when they see demand for their products, and demand has been slow to pick up after the crisis. It is recovering, but still tepid.
     
  4. We should be lowering taxes for individuals so that they consume more and give businesses incentive to expand. Instead, we are doing it upside down—lowering taxes for corporations, assuming they will invest, and the benefits will trickle down to individuals. In reality, the “wealth effect” is ineffective. That’s why QE had so little effect.
     
  5. This is a regressive reform where individuals subsidize corporations, people with savings become richer, and the income gap (and the wealth gap) widens.

We need to think about the political consequences of this. Look south to Latin America for a preview of how democracy works when income distribution gets to extremes. Federico C.

Federico makes a good point about the Federal Reserve’s QE stimulus program. It raised asset prices but did little to stimulate consumer demand, which I think is one reason the recovery has been so tepid.

The current tax proposal is no better on that point. I don’t see it doing much to help consumers and average citizens—which, as Federico says, could eventually become a serious political and social problem.


Photo: Getty Images

Finding Workers

Several readers zeroed in on my point that finding qualified workers is a bigger problem than taxes, according to many small-business owners.

Labor shortage? Can’t find qualified workers? Ever hear of TRAINING people? Companies used to do that. Wonder when they stopped. Tom F.

***

“Business owners say that finding qualified workers is their top challenge right now.” — And they’ve been saying that since I retired, twenty years ago. Interestingly, I heard this comment by a Chinese manufacturing business as well.

So... I sure as heck would like to know how we can create these “qualified workers.” I sure didn’t use any of the skills, other than programming, useful from high school or college. Pretty much anything I *applied* was from the Internet. Why aren't we producing “qualified workers” and why haven’t we been able to do so for at least two decades? Cedric C.

Businesses don’t train workers anymore because they think it’s more cost effective to hire workers who already have whatever skills they need. I think that’s often a bad assumption.

Think about it. Happier and more productive workers should make turnover go down and profits increase. Fewer tossed-aside workers would reduce the need for government safety net programs, so maybe tax rates could go down without increasing the deficit.

But that’s a chicken-and-egg problem I don’t think we will solve here. Nor will we resolve the tax debate. It’s mostly out of our hands at this point.

Quite a few Americans, I among them, feel like we can’t win. We don’t like the current tax system, but we suspect this new idea will be even worse. So we have no good outcomes here.

Federico’s point deserves some thought. At some point, representative democracy stops working when people feel ignored. We got a small taste of that in the 2016 elections.

More and bigger changes are coming. And if you think it won’t affect your investments, you’d better think again.

See you at the top,

Patrick Watson

P.S. If you’re reading this because someone shared it with you, click here to get your own free Connecting the Dots subscription. You can also follow me on Twitter: @PatrickW.

Discuss This

0 comments

We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.

Comments

Mark Carlton

Nov. 28, 2017, 9:44 a.m.

Great work again Patrick!

larry@thedeberryteam.com

Nov. 28, 2017, 9:39 a.m.

I have been listening to this debate for a long time about taxes. I am not an accountant, not an economist and not very good at math in general. What I am is a citizen who believes in a “fair” tax system where everyone participates and no deductions for anything. Why do we have deductions? It is because people in politics want to get something for giving something. It is votes they want. If we had a fair tax system whether it be a national consumption tax or something similar then everyone pays. No need for deductions. Why is this so hard to get done. Politicians need backbones and to finally realize they represent “we the people”.


Use of this content, the Mauldin Economics website, and related sites and applications is provided under the Mauldin Economics Terms & Conditions of Use.

Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited

The information provided in this publication is private, privileged, and confidential information, licensed for your sole individual use as a subscriber. Mauldin Economics reserves all rights to the content of this publication and related materials. Forwarding, copying, disseminating, or distributing this report in whole or in part, including substantial quotation of any portion the publication or any release of specific investment recommendations, is strictly prohibited.
Participation in such activity is grounds for immediate termination of all subscriptions of registered subscribers deemed to be involved at Mauldin Economics’ sole discretion, may violate the copyright laws of the United States, and may subject the violator to legal prosecution. Mauldin Economics reserves the right to monitor the use of this publication without disclosure by any electronic means it deems necessary and may change those means without notice at any time. If you have received this publication and are not the intended subscriber, please contact service@mauldineconomics.com.

Disclaimers

The Mauldin Economics website, Yield Shark, Thoughts from the Frontline, Patrick Cox’s Tech Digest, Outside the Box, Over My Shoulder, World Money Analyst, Street Freak, ETF 20/20, Just One Trade, Transformational Technology Alert, Rational Bear, The 10th Man, Connecting the Dots, This Week in Geopolitics, Stray Reflections, and Conversations are published by Mauldin Economics, LLC. Information contained in such publications is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The information contained in such publications is not intended to constitute individual investment advice and is not designed to meet your personal financial situation. The opinions expressed in such publications are those of the publisher and are subject to change without notice. The information in such publications may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments.
John Mauldin, Mauldin Economics, LLC and other entities in which he has an interest, employees, officers, family, and associates may from time to time have positions in the securities or commodities covered in these publications or web site. Corporate policies are in effect that attempt to avoid potential conflicts of interest and resolve conflicts of interest that do arise in a timely fashion.
Mauldin Economics, LLC reserves the right to cancel any subscription at any time, and if it does so it will promptly refund to the subscriber the amount of the subscription payment previously received relating to the remaining subscription period. Cancellation of a subscription may result from any unauthorized use or reproduction or rebroadcast of any Mauldin Economics publication or website, any infringement or misappropriation of Mauldin Economics, LLC’s proprietary rights, or any other reason determined in the sole discretion of Mauldin Economics, LLC.

Affiliate Notice

Mauldin Economics has affiliate agreements in place that may include fee sharing. If you have a website or newsletter and would like to be considered for inclusion in the Mauldin Economics affiliate program, please go to http://affiliates.ggcpublishing.com/. Likewise, from time to time Mauldin Economics may engage in affiliate programs offered by other companies, though corporate policy firmly dictates that such agreements will have no influence on any product or service recommendations, nor alter the pricing that would otherwise be available in absence of such an agreement. As always, it is important that you do your own due diligence before transacting any business with any firm, for any product or service.

© Copyright 2018 Mauldin Economics