Outside the Box

It’s All Very Taxing

November 29, 2011

Today's Outside the Box is something a little different for me. Howard Marks of Oaktree Capital Management has produced a most excellent summary of the problems inherent in "all things taxing" in the US. He delves into not only the specifics but also some of the philosophy of taxation. This is a balanced piece in which he tries to present all sides and arguments, giving us a very real picture of the dilemma we face, and leaving us to draw our own conclusions. Whatever we do going forward, including nothing, the outcome with regard to taxes is going to be difficult if not painful for most of us. We talk about everyone paying their fair share, but what does that mean? The answer is that it means very different things to different people.

 

This goes hand in hand with my contention that we face very difficult choices, and none of them are pain-free. I have my preferred methods and choices, and you have yours, and your neighbors have yet more divergent views. But we must make the tough decisions, or the market is going to treat us as roughly as it is Italian debt. If we let it get to that point, the choices will be even more limited and painful.

 

This is a longer than usual OTB but it is very good, and I suggest you send it on to others, as it provides a framework for discussion and understanding the positions that others in our society might take – people of good will but with different understandings of how the world works and what is "fair." Often, their views will not be based on the same rationale as yours or mine, and thus they will come to different conclusions.  But soon we will all make some very important decisions (at the polls) about who will make those decisions for us. Let's choose wisely.

 

Right now, I am going to choose to hit the send button and go along with my daughter Tiffani to dinner with Art Cashin, Rich Yamarone, and Barry Ritholtz, and see what wisdom they may impart. With Art, you can always count on learning something, and on hearing some wonderful stories. I am sure we will also debate the end of the euro, among other pleasant dinner topics. I live for such moments. I will report back.

 

Your enjoying a beautiful day in New York City analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Like Outside the Box?

Then you'll love John's premium publication, Over My Shoulder. Each week, after sorting through vast amounts of economic, political, and investing news, John sends Over My Shoulder subscribers his pick of the week's most important commentary and data.

It's your opportunity to get the news John thinks matters most to your finances.

Learn More About Over My Shoulder


It's All Very Taxing

The issue is simple: the U.S. government generally spends more than it brings in . . . and recently, a lot more. For years Congress was willing to serially raise the federal debt ceiling and monetize the deficit. But this past summer, some legislators balked. When the early August deadline for an increase in the ceiling arrived, our elected officials kicked the can down…

Discuss This

33 comments

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

Comments

Page 2 of 4  < 1 2 3 4 > 

Jim Joneson

Nov. 29, 2011, 6:15 p.m.

Justin -

Again on the “fairness” - seems just about as fair as a man being compelled to pay for another man’s war (or two!), another man’s exploitation of insider stock tips from bought gov’t officials, mortgage fraud, reckless derivatives trading, etc.  Seems to me when you tot up the costs to society, the effective rate charged to the wealthy really needs to be MUCH higher just to pay for their cost to society…

john Mani

Nov. 29, 2011, 6:03 p.m.

Every Wage earner should pay at least some federal tax so that they will have a vested interest in how the country is run.  The present system exempts 50% from paying federal taxes—in essence receiving federal
benefits paid for by the tax paying 50%. This is a redistribution of wealth.  The wealthy should pay the greatest proportion of federal taxes.  If the present system continues the non paying 50% will grow into the majority
and certainly will vote to continue to increase the tax burden on the minority.  This will destroy America.
The biggest problem is: how to arrange a tax system fair to all.

Jim Joneson

Nov. 29, 2011, 5:23 p.m.

Ah yes, Mr McCarthy - perhaps you’re correct - perhaps it’s not “fair” for one man to pay for another man’s breeding habits.  Or, for that manner - any other pathological habit - such as buying homes on credit.  I assume, therefore, that you are against any child tax credit or tax exemption, and against all home mortgage deductions.  I assume, as well, that neither you nor any of your progeny would so debase themselves as to attend public schools.

Plus, given that cutting funding for schools and sex education programs will, necessarily, increase the number of children born to poor families - perhaps we should adopt the most expedient solution to the problem of young children in the streets by adopting Mr. Swift’s age-old proposal…

John Innes

Nov. 29, 2011, 4:55 p.m.

There is a serious problem with the word “entitlements” as used in this article. Tax deductions and exemptions promised by the government to various commercial segments become, over time, ‘entitlements’ that are fiercely defended by those segments. In contrast, Social Security and Medicare require contributions from workers. These contributions will not pay all future costs partly because the government favors “mild” inflation to make it easier to pay future government debts, and therefore these contributions have shrunken in value by the time a contributer will receive benefits.

My contention is that it is fair to shrink entitlements only if all entitlements, including tax deductions and exemptions to commercial segments, are shrunken as well.

Christopher Huseby

Nov. 29, 2011, 2:51 p.m.

Lies, d_lies, and statistics. Yes, federal income taxes are progressive.  However, as of FY10, they represent only 42% of US Federal Tax Receipt. Social Insurance, or Social Security and Medicare, primarily, represented 40% and are highly regressive.  (Figures courtesy of CBO).  Net net, we have as close to a flat tax in America as has ever been seen, especially when considering so-called sin taxes for gasoline, alcohol, and tobacco.

Now, I am certainly sympathetic to modifying behavior and promoting positive results through the tax code.  But by that measure, it certainly seems like by slashing top marginal rates and eliminating the estate tax, combined with allowing unlimited expenditures in the political process, is setting up a permanent oligarchy of families hoarding capital. Or, had it been the case in the past, it would have set us up to be forever ruled by the Rockefellers, duPonts, Morgans, and Roosevelts.  And then, like Europe, we would not have had the social mobility that allowed Thomas Edison, W. Edwards Deming, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc.

This author expects us to look at his carefully limited hyperbole and conclude that taxes are unfairly progressive. He might as well as just looked at capital gains taxes and concluded that to be fair, since they are primarily paid by high wage earners, that they are too progressive.

Finally, I will note that the structure of tax expenditures completely excludes the trillions of hidden bailout money laundered to the highest earners through the bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG.  Truly net net, I would surprised if the $1mm earners and corporations actually paid the lowest overall taxe rate since 2008.  For reference, total individual tax receipts were about $3T from 2008-2010, but AIG/Fannie/Freddie were more than $300B, and even more hidden was the $8T Fed bailout.

Richard Guldi

Nov. 29, 2011, 2:43 p.m.

The fact remains that a large part of the current deficit results from the Bush Tax Cuts which averaged $100,000 each year for the wealthy class with many getting over $1,000,000 annually.  That’s a lot of money over ten year!  Now each of my grandchildren owes an additional $300,000 national debt (not to mention the $300,000 they owed in 2000).  I am sickened to think that the wealthy increased their share of national wealth by driving up a deficit that my grandchildren can never repay.

William McCarthy

Nov. 29, 2011, 2:43 p.m.

Interesting read. And, based on the comments “fairness” is indeed in the eye of the beholder. My sense is that all this talk of a flat tax is a waste of time. It will never happen. American’s like the fact that someone else is paying more in taxes. As for a Value Added Tax (VAT) or national sales tax, its a bad idea. Stimulates growth in the informal off the books economy and promotes more gaming of the system further undermining confidence in government and social cohesion.

As a tax payer my preferred fix is on the spending reduction side as opposed to the revenue side.  The entire public sector needs to go through the rationalizing process that the rest of the economy has experienced. And, I work in the public sector. Its funny how creative folks can be when the largesse stops. This will take the form of union givebacks, pension “reform”, and staffing reductions. The wailing and gnashing of teeth will be awesome to behold.

And, I can’t resist a jab at the fairness issue. How is it fair for one man to be compelled to pay for another man’s breeding habits? And, every other social and behavioral pathology operating in our society. We have folks that need help and are not getting that help because the treasury is being drained to underwrite profligacy and all sorts of nonsense. I am confident that this is one of the mysteries that will never be solved during my lifetime.

All in all, I expect that we will “muddle” through with tweaks here on spending and tinkering there on taxes papered overed with monetization induced inflation. Of course, there will be a cyclical reduction in defense spending. About the fourth or fifth in my lifetime without the demise of the Republic.

I will have to “rig” for heavy weather, reduce my taxable income and consumption to legally minimize the expropriation of the “product” of my life, time, creativity and effort so that I can do something useful with my meager portion other than let it be squandered by others’ foolishness. Don’t forget that taxation most likely plays a role in John Mauldin’s “velocity of money” considerations.

Good luck,

Justin McCarthy

Mark Carlton

Nov. 29, 2011, 2:33 p.m.

Been in the business for 25 years and have many times been sent the ‘10 best days” sales piece suggesting that staying in the market was the best course.  My nature was always to wonder “what if I had missed the 10 worst days?”.  When I see the oft cited statistics on how much of the tax burden falls on the wealthiest 1%, I always think, “yes, but how much of the wealth do they have?  As we slide down the national wealth equality tables (see: gini coefficient) to where America is now at Central African levels of equality, one has to look at some of the anti-tax arguments (especially Laffer’s laughable suggestion that taxes cause people not to work) and ask whether these are reallt serious concerns.

Really good posts from the readers.  Intelligent and thoughtful.

David Myhre

Nov. 29, 2011, 2:17 p.m.

Hmmm… Every time I read something like this I am reminded of my favorite ‘little book’ HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS.  Life is not fair.  Nor is tax policy or anything else under the sun. Eliminate the term “fair share”.

All one really needs to know about income distribution and its trajectory is in the table :
>> “A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office provided dramatic evidence of the divergent trends in income. It outlined the percentage gain in average inflation-adjusted after-tax income of various income groups between 1979 and 2007:
â?¢ Top 1% of the population in terms of income: 275%
â?¢ Next 19%: 65%
â?¢ Middle 60%: 40%
â?¢ Bottom 20%: 18%  ” >>

I think we can all agree that as things become more complex, solutions to problems become less clear.  And with tens of thousands of pages of tax policy, add the however many thousands of pages of state and local tax policy and the result yields essestially NO clear solutions.

Some things we know.  The rich spend. A sales tax makes sense.  Exempt basic food and basic medical expenses (tax facelifts). No sales tax on used goods.  Let the poor buy all the used furniture, appliances, clothes they want tax free. Get rid of the IRS.  Make tax attorneys find real work. Make ‘tax planning’ an antique concept.

Cut government spending at all levels.  Reduce government size to a sustainable level.

Now, to quibble with statements in the article. ( Can’t cut and paste in this system, so will have to summarize)

1) “in a democracy ... the poor/majority can vote themselves other peoples’ wealth”  That may be true in a democracy, but the current IOUSA is not a democracy or has it been for a very long time. Our “representatives” in DC represent the wealthy campaign contributors that got ‘em there and the only input they get is from the lobbyists hired by the same.

2) the simplistic summary of Arthur Laffer’s curve suggests the author has not read Laffer’s books.

3) the idea that simply not renewing the “Bush tax cuts” would in 10 years eliminate the deficit is idiotic. I won’t bore realists with rehashing the numbers.

I have lived in 3rd world countries. Some aspects are great, but security isn’t one of the favorable aspects.  Current fiscal and economic policy is taking wealth from the 99$ on the bottom and transferring it toi the 1% at the top and is turning this nation into a 3rd world nation.  When the top 1% and their political stooges have gathered all the toys for themselves, this country will be a dismal, dangerous place to live.  Be careful what you wish for.  You might get it…......

Jerry Smith

Nov. 29, 2011, 1:07 p.m.

Good article exploring different views but it missed an important view on the mortgage deduction.  While renters do not get this deduction they do benefit from the interest deduction and the reduced capital gains tax rates that help to subsidize apartment owners.

Overall the tax structure is way to complex and has so many unrecognized unintended consequences that we probably need to start over from scratch.  I support eliminating all “societal improvements” from the tax code and making it as simple as possible.  If any societal improvements really needs to be supported by the government they can be better addressed by direct subsidies which can be more clearly monitored and controlled.

Page 2 of 4  < 1 2 3 4 >