Select Page

Even the French are Fleeing High Taxes


au-revoir
Last week, I wrote about the population shift from the northeastern states to other parts of the country due to the high taxation. It seems that the Yankees aren’t the only ones concerned enough with crushing taxes that they are willing to relocated — the French are too.

From the Independent:

“France’s unemployment rate is hovering around 10 per cent. As for high-earners, almost 600 people subject to a wealth tax on assets of more than €800,000 (£630,000) left France in 2012, 20 per cent more than the previous year. Manuel Valls, the Prime Minister, announced in London this week that the top income tax rate of 75 per cent would be abolished next January after a number of business tycoons and celebrities moved out.”

Hélène Charveriat, the delegate-general of the Union of French Citizens Abroad, concurs. Charvariat noted that the “young people feel stuck, and they want interesting jobs. Businessmen say the labour code is complex and they’re taxed even before they start working. Pensioners can also pay less tax abroad.”

Though the repeal of the 75% is a start, the loss of French citizens to other parts of the world is going to hamper economic recovery in France. I wrote about this probability in 2012 when Hollande first proposed his “rich tax” scheme. The Laffer Curve effect has been proven here in France as it did in England last year: namely, that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point will be counterproductive for raising further tax revenue.

As we can see, high taxes drives away citizens who wish not to hand over to the government the money they have saved and earned — just to see it misspent and frittered away.

Joe Biden Gets the Economy Wrong


Biden-says-he-jumped-gun-on-gay-marriage-455x354
While stumping for Democrat candidates in Oregon, the Vice President shared his thoughts on the current economy with voters. And he got it very wrong.

“Economic growth has replaced the income that was lost during the recession, but the gains went primarily to taxpayers on the top. I think we should make them start to pay their fair share. Take the burden off the middle class”

Economic growth has not happened. Since Obama began his presidency:

The national debt has skyrocketed from $10.6 trillion to $17.8 trillion
Homeownership has decreased from 67.5% to less than 65%
Labor participation has fallen from about 66% to 63%.
Food stamp use has increased from 32 million to 46 million participants

Lost income has not been replaced: Since Obama began his presidency:

Median incomes have decreased from about $54,000 to $51,500.
The number of Americans who consider themselves middle class has dropped nearly 20%

Gains did not primarily go to taxpayers on top:

“The top 20 percent of earners accounted for 51 percent of all income in 2013, unchanged from 2012 and up slightly from 49.4 percent in 1999″.

Of course, Biden used his (wrong) economic talking points to pull out the old class-warfare playbook and insist that the rich “pay their fair share”.

Finally, if Biden is concerned about taking the burden off the middle class, he needs to start with the government. As I said earlier this week, the middle class has been the most devastated by Obama’s policies. Job growth and small business sustainability have been decimated by government regulation, taxation, fines, and lawsuits meddling in normal business practices. The middle class can’t get good jobs anymore, businesses have failed, growth is tepid, and everyday Americans are rightfully discouraged.

Obama Tries to Claim the Economy


Obama biz pic
Suddenly, Obama is everywhere talking about economic policies again. He is the mastermind behind the growth in corporate profits. He is the reason for the current stock market highs. He has single-handedly reduced unemployment to its lowest rate since 2008. He is Obama!

And yet, the middle class is repeatedly telling Obama that they feel left behind.

Why such disparity? The Administration can try to attribute these recent “successes” to Obama, but it only shows that they have a laughable cluelessness about what is really happening as a result of his economic policies.

Major corporations are doing well because they have enough size and stability to weather the storm created by Obama’s terrible business policies. This has included minimizing employment and trying to be as lean and efficient as possible. Mom-and-pops, on the other hand, have not the luxury to be as resilient.

The stock market is high only because major corporations have continued to persevere by changing the way they do business. Because of the government policies — including over-regulation and excessive taxation — companies have been forced to operate on the skinny just to survive. By doing so, profits are able to be maintained and the stock market reactive to that.

As a result of efficiency, therefore, unemployment is at its lowest percentage because there are no jobs to be attained anymore and people are just simply leaving the workforce altogether. Obama refuses to acknowledge the fact that labor participation is at its lowest rate since 1962. That is the major contributing factor to his “low” unemployment number — not because of job creation as he claims. Americans have stopped looking for work.

Thus, the middle class has the correct assessment because they have been the most devastated by Obama’s policies. Job growth and small business sustainability have been decimated by government regulation, taxation, fines, and lawsuits meddling in normal business practices. The middle class can’t get good jobs anymore, businesses have failed, growth is tepid, and everyday Americans are rightfully discouraged.

Related: “AP’s ‘Fact Check’ of Obama’s ‘Stronger Economy’ Claims Limited to ‘A Few’ Items: Two”

Lou Dobbs Refutes Obama’s Claim that the Economy Has Improved by Every Economic Measure

Are You Better Off Today? Here are the True Facts & Figures From the Obama Economy

Reviving a 30 Year Old Book: The Political Crisis of the 1850’s


Holtbook
Michael F. Holt’s book, The Political Crisis of the 1850’s, was written in the early 80’s, but its content is eerily prescient of today’s political playground.

In this book, Holt offered his not-so-typical thesis of why the Civil War happened. He suggested that is was not slavery, nor states rights, nor North vs South. Instead, Holt contends that it was the breakdown of the 2-party system of government. The breakdown occurred, not because of the differences of the two parties, but because they were so similar, that there was no real difference or robust competition anymore. Therefore, ideological disputes manifested itself in other forms — and ultimately, the Civil War.

A highly recommended read. From Amazon:

“Holt sees the Civil War as representing a breakdown in America’s democratic political process, more specifically the Second Party System of Whigs and Democrats. He demonstrates this system’s success, beginning in the 1820s and 1830s, in confining sectional disputes safely within the political arena. With the breakdown of vital two-party competition in the 1850s, sectional issues increasingly took on ideological dimension, causing, Americans North and South to see in them dangerous threats to cherished republican institutions. No longer manageable within the arena of politics, sectional differences had to be resolved with in the arena of battle.

The Political Crisis of the 1850s offers a clearly written account of politics (state and federal), sectionalism, race, and slavery from the 1820s through to the Civil War, brilliantly combining the behavioral and ideological approaches to political history”

Has anyone else ever read it? Thoughts? If you are a fan of Holt, you’ll also love his magisterial history of the Whig Party, the enormous tome which fleshes out the topics contained in “The Political Crisis of the 1850s“.

High Taxes and Demographic Shift Affect Congressional Representation

shifthappens
I have written on this subject before, and now the effects of high taxes and population migration are playing out in a substantial, political way: the decline of about 40% of Congressional seats in the northeast.

According to the Census Bureau, high taxpayers are moving south. It notes that in the 11 states that comprise the Northeast, population grew at a rate of only 15% over the thirty year span from 1983-2013, while the rest of the nation grew at roughly 41%. The key factor is high taxes. The result is a loss of Congressional seats there.

The American Legislative Exchange Council recently did a comprehensive study on House representation in 1950 from Maine to Pennsylvania, and compared it to current House seats. In 1950, there were 141 House members, but today there are only 85. Remember House seats are based on population — so this change is a 40% loss of power.

Need a dramatic comparison? Texas and California combined together now have more House seats than the Northeast conglomerate. For an area that used to be a political powerhouse, it is becoming increasingly marginalized due to excessive taxes and the ensuing population shift.

In 2011, Reuters had a lengthy article detailing how northern residents were fleeing massive state and local tax hikes. I wrote about the impact of high taxes on New York population loss here in 2012. And the NYTimes reported in December 2013 that Florida was soon to pass New York in population.

High taxes are a major factor in this population and political change, and it will be interesting to watch in the next few election cycles. As the report notes above, “This result is one of the most dramatic demographic shifts in American history. This migration is shifting the power center of America right before our very eyes. The movement isn’t random or even about weather or resources. Economic freedom is the magnet and states ignore this force at their own peril.”