by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
When President Obama took office in 2009, the United States ranked as the 6th best country in the world in terms of economic freedom. Now, in the last year of his term, the United States doesn’t even rank in the top ten anymore.
This year, the Index placed the United States as the 11th most economically free country. This is a significant loss. As noted by the Index, “Economic freedom is a crucial component of liberty. It empowers people to work, produce, consume, own, trade, and invest according to their personal choices.”
Five countries were ranked as “FREE”, meaning they scored 80-100% Those countries are: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Australia.
Rounding out the top ten are: Canada (6), Chile (7), Ireland (8), Estonia (9), and the United Kingdom (10). With the United States ranking 11th, we have our worst score ever recorded. 8 of the last 9 years have seen losses of economic freedom; with this ranking, we have essentially lost a decade worth of economic prosperity progress.
“For much of human history, most individuals have lacked economic freedom and opportunity, condemning them to poverty and deprivation.
Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom.
The Index analyzes 186 countries. Economic freedom is based on 10 quantitative and qualitative factors, grouped into four broad categories, or pillars, of economic freedom:
1) Rule of Law (property rights, freedom from corruption);
2) Limited Government (fiscal freedom, government spending);
3) Regulatory Efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom); and
4) Open Markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom).”
Only time will tell if we will regain our freedom or continue to lose it. Much depends on a new President and changes in Congress in 2016.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAX TIPS, TAXES
The article written by Josh Zumbrun of the Wall Street Journal on December 31, entitled, “Tax Rate for Top 400 Taxpayers Climbed in 2013,” should have been fairly straightforward with interesting data on that particular tax demographic. Unfortunately, the author distorts some aspects of the tax code, which makes the article a bit suspect and disappointing.
Zumbrun begins by gleefully announcing that “Tax rates on the 400 wealthiest Americans in 2013 rose to their highest average since the 1990s, after policy changes that boosted levies on capital gains and dividends.”
Here’s the first major problem. Tax rates may have risen in 2013 — but not because of rate increases on capital gains and dividends; several other tax changes also affecting the wealthy happened due to the Fiscal Cliff negotiations. Some of these include 1) The top marginal rate increased from 35 percent to 39.6 percent; 2) a phase out of personal exemptions; 3) a phase down of itemized deductions; 4) an increase in the death tax.
However, the author fails to mention those in an attempt to focus solely on capital gains.
This is especially evident in his next section. “Over the years, these taxpayers have devised strategies to collect more of their income as capital gains—profits from the sale of property or an investment—and dividends.” Unfortunately, the author has a total lack of understanding of capital gains. He erroneously, like many others, writes as though capital gains are income and thus lumps capital gains discussions together with income discussions. But that distorts the tax picture and tax strategy.
Capital gains are unusual in that the taxpayer has the ultimate decision as to whether and when to sell his asset (stock, his business, a work of art, etc.) The higher the tax rate, the LESS likely he is to sell, seeing as he will only be able to enjoy or reinvest what is left of the proceeds AFTER TAX. History has borne this out – capital gains tax collections go down in the periods after increases, and go up in the years after decreases.
The actual impact of raising the capital gains rate is also devastating to the economy. By discouraging the sale of assets, there is reduced capital available for new projects and opportunities, reducing job creation and wages, and resulting in lower revenue collection.
Furthermore, with higher capital gain rates, the expected after tax rate of return on new projects will go down, assuring that fewer of them will go forward.
But none of this seems to matter to the author. By alluding to “strategies to collect more income as capital gain profits” and describing how, with impending rate increases, “many of the highest earners sold assets before the deadline to avoid higher taxes, leading to a huge surge in income in late 2012,” the author is subtly suggesting that these actions are somehow wrong, underhanded, or unfair.
Juxtaposing that with his opening statement about how tax rates rose on the wealthiest Americans in 2013, the author seems to be dipping his toes into the class warfare playbook of “taxing higher income earners more is a good.”
This becomes readily apparent in the second half of the article, where the author brings up how the “capital-gains rate has become a prominent feature of 2016 presidential candidates’ tax proposals” — pointing out that top Republican candidates such as Cruz or Rubio would seek to lower the rates.
He also helpfully includes quotes about the wealthy and capital gains, and all the tax revenue they bring in. ““It’s not chump change,” said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank. Capital-gains taxes bring in more than $100 billion in some years “and almost all of it is realized by people with very high incomes,” he said. In 2013, the 400 households earned 5.3% of all dividend income and 11.2% of all income from sales of capital assets.”
Thus, using 2013 as a bellweather year for higher tax rates for the wealthy, the author tries to correlate it with capital gains — in order to suggest to the reader that higher capital gains taxes on the wealthy is an economic good. This is where he is woefully incorrect. What could have been an interesting article was sprinkled economic ignorance and a subtle agenda.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Last month, Hillary Clinton revealed an idiotic idea in her tax plax that would yet again target American businesses. Clinton proposed creating an “exit tax” for companies that might try to merge with another foreign company. While that concept is ridiculous enough in and of itself, the writers at the Wall Street Journal, Richard Rubin and Lauren Meckler, were just as ridiculous.
Where in the article do they discuss the fact that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35%? And where do they discuss the fact that we are the only major country in the world that taxes companies both on their domestic and foreign earnings? Nowhere.
In the present environment, U.S. companies face enormous tax obstacles compared to foreign companies. The United States government lays claim to foreign-earned income and also forces them to pay higher tax rates than other foreign companies on the income they make in foreign countries — putting American companies at a severe disadvantage in the global economy.
We’ve created a system that tempts companies to move their HQ abroad or merge with other foreign companies in order to stay solvent and competitive, and now we want to threaten companies or erect more impediments to stop more American businesses from leaving our country? We should be incentivizing them to remain in the United States by lowering the corporate tax rate or remove the tax on foreign earnings! Our tax code and tax rates are simply not competitive anymore.
But Hillary Clinton doesn’t think that. And clearly, neither do the journalists at the WSJ. This article is just dripping with the suggestion that somehow, these companies OWE the government even more of their hard-earned money and/or are not legally or ethically paying their fair share. For instance: “The U.S. taxes companies on their world-wide earnings but allows them to claim foreign tax credits for profits earned abroad and defer U.S. taxes until they bring the money home. That system and the 35% marginal corporate tax rate encourage companies to earn money abroad in low-tax countries and leave it there. U.S. companies now have more than $2 trillion in stockpiled offshore profits that haven’t been fully taxed.” See the word choices? They set up the idea that companies are somehow acting underhandedly.
If that isn’t enough, look how the authors label the Tax Policy Center: “non-partisan.” Now, anyone even remotely interested in economics knows that the Tax Policy Center is decidedly left-leaning. To state otherwise and label it “non-partisan” is at best, naive, and at worst, duplicitous.
Let’s look at some more: “Clinton’s tax would apply to some transactions structured as foreign takeovers of U.S. companies aimed at getting around the rules.” No businesses are “getting around the rules!” Both foreign mergers and inversion are perfectly legal; there’s no loophole or deceptiveness in such business transactions. The only “rules” that businesses are “getting around” are the actual corporate tax laws that make doing business in America on a global scale so insufferable and unjust.
And finally: “The big attraction for companies has been accumulating future profits outside the U.S. tax net.” The US tax net is already enormous! The tax code is so discriminatory against our own American businesses, it makes it harder for our companies to compete and survive and thrive on an international basis. Yet Clinton wants to widen the net further with new taxes and put an even greater stranglehold on companies.
Businesses seek to sell a product and be competitive, not to comply with a draconian, exorbitant tax code. Businesses and investment capital are fleeing the United States in droves and the solution by Hillary Clinton is to tax them further. The fact that this obtuse proposal was backed and perpetuated by these writers at the Wall Street Journal is shameful.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAX TIPS, TAXES
The Wall Street Journal put together an excellent editorial yesterday on the intersection of Obamacare and immigration.
First, starting in 2016, employers with 50 or more full time employees are required to offer health insurance for each of their workers, or else pay a penalty of $3,000 per each person who fails to receive proper Obamacare coverage.
So what happens with the undocumented immigrants allowed to stay under President Obama’s Executive Action? The numbers are estimated to be upwards of 5 million people.
“The government’s petition says that the executive action intended to provide ‘work authorizations’ so that undocumented immigrants could find jobs in the U.S. without working illegally for less than market wages, which might harm American workers. But wait: Employers aren’t required to offer ObamaCare coverage or subsidies to these immigrants. The statutory language in the Affordable Care Act says that only ‘lawful residents’ are eligible, and the government’s petition specifically notes that the immigration action does not ‘confer any form of legal status in this country.'”
Therefore, the immigrants (with deferred deportation), are exempt from Obamacare. While that may be good for the taxpayer, it is not necessarily good news for the worker. From a purely financial perspective, companies could easily save the $3000 penalty cost per worker if they hire and employ an Obamacare-exempt immigrant instead of a citizen/resident subject to the Obamacare rules.
The Wall Street Journal sums up the scenario nicely:
“Suppose businesses subject to ObamaCare employ only 40%, or two million, of the up to five million immigrants covered by the president’s executive action. At $3,000 an employee, businesses would save about $6 billion a year. Companies already dealing with the added expense of operating in the Obama economy — burdened by regulations, high taxes and other barnacles — would find those savings hard to pass up.”
Exempting employers who hire these immigrants from the law’s penalties gives the immigrants a distinct market advantage over U.S. citizens. That flies in the face of the president’s statement that his executive action would not “stick it to the middle class” by allowing these individuals to “take our jobs.” It is also contrary to the government’s statement that the executive action would make it less likely that these undocumented immigrants hurt American workers by “illegally” working “for below market rates.” They could still work at below-market rates, only it would be legal.
All of this was inevitable. The root problem with ObamaCare is that one party rammed it through Congress without a single Republican vote, while the law’s supporters didn’t even read it, let alone vet it through congressional committees. As a result, ObamaCare as written was unworkable, and the administration has had to repeatedly amend it by constitutionally dubious executive fiat.
Now this flawed law is clashing with yet another constitutionally dubious executive action that the administration couldn’t be bothered to pass through the legislature.”
The Obama Administration may yet decide to grant Obamacare to these immigrants currently exempted. But for the time being, since their status presents a situation may wreak havoc in the business world, leaving the current court injunction against the immigration order in place is the only suitable solution until the Obamacare-immigration situation is sorted out. Otherwise, expect the economy to continue to weaken from this latest threat.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
With open enrollment for Obamacare beginning in a week, the Wall Street Journal outlines some of the major failures of this legislation to attract enrollees. Obamacare is severely behind target, which in turn affects costs for premiums for subscribers and costs to the government for subsidies. The Wall Street Journal suggests that within a year, by 2017, the need to overhaul and/or replace Obamacare will be necessary. Read their thoughts below:
ObamaCare’s image of invincibility is increasingly being exposed as a political illusion, at least for those with permission to be honest about the evidence. Witness the heretofore unknown phenomenon of a “free” entitlement that its beneficiaries can’t afford or don’t want.
This month the Health and Human Services Department dramatically discounted its internal estimate of how many people will join the state insurance exchanges in 2016. There are about 9.1 million enrollees today, and the consensus estimate—by the Congressional Budget Office, the Medicare actuary and independent analysts like Rand Corp.—was that participation would surge to some 20 million. But HHS now expects enrollment to grow to between merely 9.4 million and 11.4 million.
Recruitment for 2015 is roughly 70% of the original projection, but ObamaCare will be running at less than half its goal in 2016. HHS believes some 19 million Americans earn too much for Medicaid but qualify for ObamaCare subsidies and haven’t signed up. Some 8.5 million of that 19 million purchase off-exchange private coverage with their own money, while the other 10.5 million are still uninsured. In other words, for every person who’s allowed to join and has, two people haven’t.
Among this population of the uninsured, HHS reports that half are between the ages of 18 and 34 and nearly two-thirds are in excellent or very good health. The exchanges won’t survive actuarially unless they attract this prime demographic: ObamaCare’s individual mandate penalty and social-justice redistribution are supposed to force these low-cost consumers to buy overpriced policies to cross-subsidize everybody else. No wonder HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said meeting even the downgraded target is “probably pretty challenging.”
The HHS survey shows three of four ObamaCare-eligible uninsured people think having coverage is important—but four of five say they couldn’t fit their share of the premiums into their budgets even after the subsidies. They’re not poor; they tend to have jobs in industries like construction, retail and hospitality but feel insecure financially; and they prioritize items like paying down debt, car repairs or saving to buy a home over insurance.
The law’s failure to appeal to the young and rising middle class is already cascading through the insurance markets. Researchers at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Urban Institute recently published a remarkable study of the industry barometer called medical loss ratios, or MLRs, and the pressure is building fast.
MLRs measure the share of premium revenue that flows to reimbursing medical claims. ObamaCare sets an MLR floor of 80% for patient care, with one-fifth left over for overhead like administration and profits, and the pre-ObamaCare 2010-13 historical trend for the individual market ranged from 79% to 86%.
The researchers found that in 2014—the first full year of claims experience in ObamaCare—average MLRs across all health plans sold on 16 state exchanges roamed from 90% to 99%. Average MLRs in 11 states climbed to 100% or more, reaching as high as 121% in Massachusetts. A business can’t stay solvent for long spending $1.21 for every $1 that comes in.
The 2014 MLRs are used to set rates for 2016 premiums, which are still under regulatory review. But the researchers estimate that to rebound to an MLR of 85%, premiums in the 11 money-losing states need to rise by 10% to 36% in the best estimate and 23% to 52% in the worst scenario. The familiar danger is that as rates rise, more people drop out, and thus rates must rise still higher, as the states that attempted ObamaCare-like regulatory schemes in the 1980s and 1990s discovered.
ObamaCare liberals pose as what-works-and-what-doesn’t technocrats. So perhaps they’d care to explain what it says about their creation that so many rational adults are willing to pay a fine of $695 or 2.5% of their earnings, whichever is higher, for the privilege of not buying an ObamaCare-compliant health plan.
***
ObamaCare will almost inevitably be reopened in 2017, whoever wins the election. The good news is the emerging consensus among Republican candidates about a credible, pragmatic and optimistic alternative. Jeb Bush was the latest to release a plan two weeks ago—and this is a debate that has always deserved to be litigated at the presidential level to create a mandate for reform.
The basic approach is to deregulate insurance and medical practice while replacing ObamaCare’s complex subsidy schedule with a refundable tax credit for individuals who lack job-based coverage. Unchained from benefit and redistribution mandates, insurance products and prices would come to reflect what consumers want. The credit would be sufficient to buy at least coverage for catastrophic expenses if people get sick, and the trade-offs of such skinnier plans might look better to voters priced out of ObamaCare.
GOP reformers also recognize that the Cadillac tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health plans is a heat shield that might let them solve some of the problems of the pre-2010 health finance status quo. Substituting a cap on the tax-code subsidy that helps drive medical inflation is more politically plausible with the Cadillac tax in place than without.
Mr. Bush was shrewd to frame his proposal with the vocabulary of innovation and aspiration. ObamaCare is built on a 20th-century chassis that is ever less relevant to modern medicine and consumer finance. If the law continues to underperform, voters may be open to a new model that puts their choices and needs ahead of the political class’s.
