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 3 of 4  < 1 2 3 4 > 

Robert Stalla

Nov. 29, 2011, 12:30 p.m.

Economic decisions should be based on efficiency not fairness, since fairness is in the eye of the beholder by definition.  For a meritocracy like America, the basic principle of taxation should be to levy the lowest possible flat tax rate on discretionary incomes to fund the government and let the individual â??outcomeâ? chips fall where they may.  One way to do this would be to have a standard deduction based on household size that would more or less equal nondiscretionary spending requirements at the subsistence level for households, a deduction for state and local income taxes and property taxes, which are nondiscretionary claims on income, and apply a flat tax rate to the rest. Net capital gains should be taxed at the same flat rate after indexing them for the cumulative amount of inflation over the period of the gain.

Better yet, repeal the 16th Amendment and go back to the system of the original constitution by assessing the states based on proportional population and let them act as the laboratories for determining the most effective form of taxation.

Kirk Nace

Nov. 29, 2011, 12:25 p.m.

Why is it that a system cannot be created, simply, wherein a baseline year, say 1950, is determined to be the year at which the U.S. was financially neutral.  Those who were of voting age at that time would have “allowed” today’s situation to be created under their watch, and as a result, they would pay a tax of, let’s say 2% on EVERTYHING they purchase:  cars; food; services; houses; investments; etc.

Someone who has only been of voting age for a shorter period of time would be subject to a lesser tax in proportion to the debt that has grown under their watch.  These percentages could be adjusted periodically and those who allowed the nation’s economic situation to decay the most, would pay the most.  This concept could also be extended to their estates. 

Imagine how differently people would vote if the price they paid for EVERYTHING was tied to how fiscally responsible those they elected actually were.

Larry Dunbar

Nov. 29, 2011, 11:49 a.m.

Hi, John Maudlin,

I have just read the â??Its all Very Taxingâ? by Howard Marks.  He describes part of the vast clap
about government polices very well.

Marks ends his article With â??We should all throw our support behind the common good and not
just our individual interests. Many of the tax trade-offs Marks describes would be resolved if the
â??This most basic pointâ? is followed. I. e., â??promote the exchange of goods and services.â?
 
If policies (monetary and fiscal) were changed to maximize the increase in goods and services,
unemployment would be minimized and tax collections would increase resolving current
problems.  This is the least painful choice.


Thanks for your any choices for â??Outside the Boxâ?, Larry Dunbar, PhD

Ralph Casale

Nov. 29, 2011, 11:32 a.m.

A good commentary, but still a cart in front of a horse.  Before ‘debating’ on how to distribute the tax burden on individuals, we need to come to a consensus on sustainable levels of government spending and consensus levels of taxation.  What % of GDP do we want reliant on government spending?  We need counter-cyclical legislation wherein every bill that would increase spending or taxation above the ‘consensus’ levels must also include a mechanism or scheme for returning to those levels (or range), and consequences for not having done so.  To use the Bush tax cuts as an example, the failure was less using them initially as it was not letting them expire as planned (depriving us of the use of them again) or making them contingent on maintaining spending levels (overspend and lose the cuts).  Legislation that intends to economically stimulate needs to have contingencies (we’ll give, but only if ...).  Punting things forward and pretending you are still on offense must not occur, like talking about a job bill and making paying for it someone else’s (supercommittee?) issue. 

Second, we need to get comfortable with a corporate / individual mix on taxation.  Why do we expect ‘the wealthy’ to be ‘job creators’ when corporate taxes are higher than individual taxes.  This is a bit of Apples to Oranges, but I do believe is in the psyche of those considering starting a business, or what type of business they might start.  What about capital gains (and dividends), should these be below corporate tax rates?  How does that inspire reinvestment?  If we are going to use the tax code to provide incentive, as I think we should, we need to decide what we want to provide it for, and starting businesses should be very high on that list.

Then, by all means decide on how to tax individuals and in what proportions (income, wealth, etc.).  We never want to discourage earning ‘the next dollar’, as I think we did in the past, but am hard pressed to feel is the case now.  Rather we want to encourage / discourage the use of that dollar.

Jim Joneson

Nov. 29, 2011, 10:33 a.m.

Not a bad article.  Perhaps a bit biased, but at least it makes an attempt.  There’s a couple of things that might benefit from discussion, though.  One - the preservation of “our” way of life - perhaps we should stop and think for a moment that it’s not everybody’s way of life?  As mentioned, marginal taxes for the ultra-wealthy have been MUCH higher in the past, and yet business got done in this country.  And of course, every time someone starts mentioning tax increases, the ultra wealthy start threatening to pick up and leave.  Well, at this point I say LET ‘EM.  Where are they going to go?  China?  Millionaires over there are fixin’ to come here.  The thing is, the wealthy in this country have a pretty plum position - and it’ll remain pretty darned plum compared to the rest of the world even if their taxes go up.  AND - compared to the lower half (who don’t pay any federal income taxes, but you damned well better believe they pay TAXES - regressive taxes - sales taxes, gas taxes, etc.) - and the difference here is - you tax the lower half more, they don’t get to EAT - you tax the upper half more, and maybe they don’t get to go out on their yachts as often.  I’ve lived all over this big world - and I’ve got to hand it to you - the upper middle class and upper class in this country can be a bunch of truly sick puppies when they want to.

shahab chaudhry

Nov. 29, 2011, 10:30 a.m.

hardly a fair and balanced article on the subject and by no means a “scholarly” type article. The author is clearly writing from a certain bias, which is fine as long as it is not represented as “fair and balanced”.  And as someone else mentioned, how can you seriously consider takling the debt without looking at the overweight portion of our federal taxes going to military spending (and to no appreciable benefit).

Richard Johnson

Nov. 29, 2011, 10:18 a.m.

Reference this article’s citation of the OMD study of after tax income bracket trends for the arbitrarily selected time period of 1989 to 2007. What is needed with the frequent publication of OMB income class statistics such as these is a more detailed analysis of the specific occupants of each % income clss over time. For example, track a statistically significant number of actual members of the 1% group starting at the beginning year (1989 in this case) and note their positions in the assigned % groups and distinct points in time (every 5 years perhaps) over the selected time period. Do this for each of the respective income % groups. How do the specific members of each income group fare over time? What unbiased and statistically significant conclusions could be drawn from expansion of the statistical analysis wherein the specific financial plight (as measured by inflation adjusted after tax income) of individuals in each group is presented. How would current discussions and conclusions be aletered/improved throughout our country by the greater understanding of the facts such analysis would foster? The “American Dream” is centered in a genuine confidence and belief that a person with little or nothing can rise up financially over time to improve his plight and that of his dependents. Without undertsanding the % chance of this occurring through a more detailed analysis and discussion of the statistics as suggested herein, how can we possible decide on the best fiscal design for this country. Pitting nameless and faceless income groups (the infamous 1%) against other nameless and faceless income groups (the bottom 20%) as if they are static bodies of actual people over large spans of time is dangerous, allowing the incendiary poitically self serving rhetoric of class warfare to easily take root. How would the tenor of today’s debate change should the American people perhaps come to learn from such an expanded statistical analysis and resulting discussion that they indeed have a “decent”, believable chance to improve their financial condition? In such a scenario, the liklihood that they become pawns to today’s everpresent political class warfare proponents becomes much less. And given the possible outcomes of such a more thorough statistical analysis, what are the chances that such expanded analysis being conducted by a the supposed non-political body known as the CBO never is allowed to occur? Facts are powerful and very dangerous tools in the hands of ill motivated but highly intelligent, well organized efforts. Proper study and presentation of the facts are enlightening and empowering in a positive manner. There should be a much greater outcry and demand for a more thorough and transparent analysis of the facts.

Dave McKay

Nov. 29, 2011, 10:14 a.m.

Let’s face it, the only “pay their fair share” tax is a flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage tax rate. That’s what we have here in Pennsylvania. Everyone pays a flat 3% state income tax on all income and there are no deductions for mortgage interest or charity or anything else. In fact, there aren’t even any capital loss carryforwards, like there is with the federal tax system!

robert wetmore

Nov. 29, 2011, 10:08 a.m.

An excellent summary of the issues, but it convinces me that, in view of the huge funding deficit of the US, many of the issues are so minute, detailed, and many-sided that they will never be resolved; the debate, therefore,takes on the aspect of being little more than a rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic.

I am surprised that the discussion of a consumption tax did not include consideration of excluding basic household items from the tax (food, housing, medical care) in order to make this tax more progressive (could be made even more progressive by including services such as legal and accounting which are used more by upper income people).  The benefits from an approach that substitutes a consumption tax for an income tax are many-fold:  (1) It is simple to collect, with many fewer payees than the income tax; therefore, collection is more assured (therefore, there is probably a $300 billion or so benefit from the get-go just from reduction of fiddling); (2) the IRS is banished once and for all from prying into the private lives of individual citizens - this is a major expansion of liberty for US citizens; (3) The tax is on consumption, not investment, and as a result confers a huge advantage on the US in competitiveness with other countries in attracting industry; (4) By starting afresh, with this approach the sterile debate surrounding the current code such as deductibility of mortgage interest or charitable contributes, which probably can never be resolved, is swept away.  Of course, the rate would likely have to be very high, but that comes with the territory.

Frederic MARI

Nov. 29, 2011, 9:07 a.m.

1- The Fairness bit. Yes, to a degree, it is in the eye of the beholder. However, if you’re in the very tip top of any given society, that society is basically working out pretty well for you. If a billionaire insists he is not getting more out of society than a poor person, I want that billionaire to be thrown in Somalia and see how he does…

2- The entrepreneurial bit. Small entrepreneurs can keep their handful of millions. I am worried/want to tax the guys running/milking industrial empires.

3- Flat Tax: I am okay with it as long as we introduce confiscatory death taxes. Otherwise, they’re just producing an aristocracy even faster than our own system. That goes with the above point. The OP bangs about entrepreneurship and social mobility. He should be well aware that it has done nothing but going DOWN in the last decades…

4- Which revenue stream to tax? I am happy with simplifying. If all money comes from work, tax income equally whatever form it takes. I suspect it’d be too much of a change but I’d like to discuss actually recognizing that all income is ultimately generated by companies (or similar) and thus just tax those progressively i.e. the small start up doesn’t pay much/at all and the big industrial giant does. While we cancel all other taxes.

5- Reforming Medicaid/Medicare & defense. Sure. No one said those programs were well run. Getting them to be better run and getting some greater supply/ generating productivity gains in the medical sector would go a long way to reduce the overall expected bill.

So there you go. It’s a nice article but it shows its colors a bit too much by insisting that billionaires are the engine of growth… It acknowledges it’s a hard point to make right now and yet it makes it. Several times.

Page 3 of 4  < 1 2 3 4 >