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 4 of 4 ‹ First  < 2 3 4

alan guillaudeu

Nov. 29, 2011, 8:48 a.m.

It is always puzzling to me that if the major problem for our country is health care, why haven’t we focused on the single goal of cutting health care costs by 50%?  With a single goal, we can then discuss the thousands of ways to cut the cost of health care.  Health care is failing because of economics, so we have to change our policies in order to cut the cost.  And yet no we have no major changes in the way we handle health care.  In a nutshell, the problem with health care is the pricing structure.  Change the pricing structure and health care costs decline.

Also, with all of this focus on taxing the rich, why don’t people talk about going back to the Reagan tax rates on everybody?  The reality is that with all of the tax credits for solar, education, work, earned income, housing, etc., we have all been pigs at the trough.  Now our feeding has to end, and we have to get back to work.

Craig Cheatum

Nov. 29, 2011, 6:52 a.m.

It seems that the author has missed some of the big fish in the room.  National security spending now consumes half of federal revenues (defense + intelliigence+Va affairs + homelland security).  I don’t think most people are aware of this or that anyone could have ever imagined it might happen.  How do we pay for it?  Do the “haves” benefit more than the “have nots”? 
the reality is you can’t spend this kind of money unless the “haves” agree to pay for it since everyone else have nothing to give and nothing to lose.  Should we sell Defense Bonds?  Should we have selective service to create awareness of a community responsibility in terms of cost and national patriotism?  At present it seems like this spending doesn’t even exist.

The trade deficit is a defacto tax on everyone.  How do we effectively reduce this unwanted cost?

Corporations pay only 10% of federal revenues (although tax rates are way too high) whereas some of our competitors pay a much higher proportion.  China is the extreme, where corporations pay 50% of national revenues and they have no individual taxes (largely because they don’t have any way to track individuals).  Should we have a corporate tax and how much?

Jack O'Donnell

Nov. 29, 2011, 6:04 a.m.

A little note on the subject for your free contemplation time.

First comes some questions.

1. Why does government not charge for things it supplies at prices people are willing to pay? I.e.—is there something wrong with profitable selling of valued items?

2. Why not charge for the things that the government can legitimately charge for at rates that result in the greatest rate of growth in the value of the things it charges for? I.e.—is there something wrong with the process of raising and lowering prices to determine the optimum price for things or services offered for sale?

3. Why not finance the cost of government first by selling these things and services at prices people will willingly pay for before imposing taxes that they are naturally reluctant to pay?

Think it can’t be done? Perhaps you can guess the value of limited liability? You might even think of a few more items of value government provides that could also be suitably priced.

I can give details if you’d like.


â??Tax Privilege, Not Peopleâ?

http://tinyurl.com/yc7yxp6

Page 4 of 4 ‹ First  < 2 3 4