admitted to a House committee that the administration is not interested in lowering gas prices.
Chu, along with the Obama administration, regards the spike in gas prices as a feature rather than a bug. High gas prices provide an incentive for alternate energy technology, a priority for the White House, and a decrease in reliance on oil for energy.
David Harsayni wrote about this very conundrum five days ago. Now we better understand why Obama nixed the Keystone Pipeline project. As I mentioned earlier, a project of this magnitude moving forward has an immediate effect on the markets by changing the traders’ expectations of future supply. Having more oil available in the marketplace contributes to lower prices for consumers. So when the project was tabled, the markets reacted accordingly.
I guess the White House knows what’s best for us better than we do.
A new poll released from The Hill shows the following —
Three-quarters of likely voters believe the nation’s top earners should pay lower, not higher, tax rates, according to a new poll for The Hill.
The big majority opted for a lower tax bill when asked to choose specific rates; precisely 75 percent said the right level for top earners was 30 percent or below.
This sounds a lot different than the Administration’s continuous assertion that the people want the rich to pay more taxes; ergo, we need to tax them more! It’ll be interesting as we keep an eye on this trend in the coming election months as the anti-rich rhetoric ramps up.
A major theme of Obama’s reelection campaign is centered on taxes. On the one hand, he decries the unfair “Bush tax cuts for the wealthy”, while on the other, he creates new tax credits to purportedly help the recovery. Both are emotional appeals aimed to garner votes. Such policies reveal — once again — how economically ignorant our President is.
The rates currently in effect have been in force for more than 8 years, and what is now being urged by Obama is an increase in the highest marginal rates to what they were before the “Bush tax cuts of 2003”. Obama does not know his economic history. In what way was the 2003 change even a tax cut? It really wasn’t. At most, it was a very slight reversal of the major tax increases that had been put forth in the preceding fifteen years.
To put it into perspective, the last major change to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) was a revenue neutral change in 1986, whereby the entire Internal Revenue Code was revamped. That brought down the tax rate, eliminated deductions and reduced tax shelter type benefits. This served as a flat tax adjustment which indisputably was responsible for the strong economic growth that followed, because, at that rate, it wasn’t worth the time, energy, and expense to shelter money elsewhere. But after we made this major positive correction, our legislators went right back to business as usual with new tax laws and changes.
The new 1986 IRC set the maximum tax rate at 28%. Through the government’s inability to keep promises (which was to reduce rates in lieu of changes to deductions), both the Democrats and Republicans participated in breaking promises in the ensuing years.
We saw the rate increase from 28% to 31%, as the first President Bush broke his“read my lips” promise. Through the Clinton administration, the maximum rate went from 31% to 35% and then to 39.6%. All in all, the maximum tax rate increased 40%. Bush’s tax cuts then, were not tax cuts at all – they were simply a reduction of the 40% tax hikes, down to a more modest 25% increase in the rates, from the base set made in 1986. The margin cuts of 2003 simply eliminated the last of three successive rate increases, each of which had broken the implicit pledges made in the overhaul.
Now in recent months, there has been a renewed call to clean up the tax code that has gotten out of hand in a mere twenty-five year span. What needs to happen is similar to what happened in 1986 — lower the rates, but get rid of deductions for special interests (such as special allowances for the oil and gas industry, “green” initiatives, and other crony tax benefits). In sum, make the code shorter, simpler, and more beneficial for economic growth.
The reality is that Obama will try to get reelected by saying that the economy is still weak, so he must do something about jobs. He has proposed a plethora of new credits to purportedly help the situation, such as employment credits, business credits, etc, but they’ll only worsen the byzantine code.
Even Obama’s commissions have argued in favor of cleaning up the tax code. Why make it more convoluted with more credits? Quite simply, they sound good to the average taxpayer, who will reward his “sensibilities” with their vote. What he doesn’t tell you is that such tax credits are merely government spending run through the tax code. More spending and deficit is only going to continue to hurt our anemic recovery. Unfortunately, such a fraudulent plan only puts his own ambitions ahead of the best interests of his country.
{I}f you don’t ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American…
This folks, is our Treasury Secretary. Of course, it’s not like Geithner is serious about reform. Remember his argument that the debt ceiling just needs to be extended? I took him to task for that. We still have no real desire to make the spending cuts that are so desperately needed, especially since the current plan is clearly to find more ways tax the rich.
When the Budget Control Act of 2011 increased the debt ceiling last August, Congress, the administration, and outside analysts believed that this increase would allow federal borrowing under the limit well into 2013,” the center’s analysts wrote. “Due to unexpected circumstances … that belief appears increasingly likely to have been misguided.”
I’m sure Timmy will be a good American and do everything in his power to make sure that doesn’t happen until after the elections.
A quick little snippet coming from the AP — a new poll shows that more Americans would rather cut spending than raise taxes
56 percent to 31 percent, more embraced cuts in government services than higher taxes as the best medicine for the budget, according to the survey, which was conducted Feb. 16 to 20.
Thankfully, a majority of Americans have more sense than our Administration these days
The Wall Street Journal reported today that in Obama’s budget, the corporate tax rate on dividend taxes would triple. What kind of tax rates are we looking at? 44.8% (currently 15%).
President Obama’s 2013 budget is the gift that keeps on giving—to government. One buried surprise is his proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends, which believe it or not is higher than in his previous budgets.
Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6% that will kick in next year. Add in the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions, and the rate hits 41%. Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8%—nearly three times today’s 15% rate.
Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%.
To whom does this high tax rate apply? Millionaires and billionaires, of course. Remember them — the ones classified by the IRS who earn $200K/year? AKA “the wealthy”.
The WSJ goes on to show how both retirees (who received most of their income from divideds) and stock holders (the burden of extra taxes will be shared by all shareholders, regardless of income).
Of course, the real problem with such a budget item is that increasing the tax rate in order to increase tax revenue flat out doesn’t work. IRS data from 1990-2009 clearly shows that when the dividend tax rate was reduced to 15% in 2003, tax revenue skyrocketed. Someone at the White House forgot ignored the data.
Additionally, reports from the UK released today show that the newly implemented tax rate did not generate the kind of revenue it expected (it dropped). As I have written on this topic before, the reaction by Britons upper income earners is not surprising:
Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate.
One can only conclude that Obama’s dividend proposal is aimed to further drive a wedge between the “millionaires and billionaires” and the middle class. It makes it look like he’s doing something to those rich corporations. In reality, he knows that his electorate likely won’t realize how this policy would hurt many, many Americans. Let’s hope, for the sake of our economy, that such a devastating proposal will not come to fruition.
One idea might be a “pocketbook protection” plan, which would work as follows: If the average price of gas exceeds $4 a gallon, an additional, automatic payroll tax cut of 1 percent would kick in, as much as $50 per month, per person. The cut would stay in place for at least 90 days; it would disappear when the price fell below $4.00 per gallon.
There are three advantages to this approach. First, because the plan is of limited duration and is capped at $50 a month, its cost is relatively modest — about $5 billion a month, or $20 billion total, assuming the usual four-month gas-price surge. Second, because it isn’t a reduction in gas taxes, it doesn’t weaken any incentives for fuel conservation or efficiency: All workers get $50 to soften the blow of higher gas prices, but the less fuel they use, the more money they save. And third, the relief provides the greatest relative help to lower-income workers who need gas to commute and feel the price pinch the hardest.
Ripple Effect
Admittedly, by decoupling the tax relief from gas-tax collections, the pocketbook protection plan does give some benefit to workers who don’t drive. But any such windfall is modest, and even these non-drivers will need help dealing with the ripple effect of rising gas prices on the costs of other goods and services that are transportation-dependent.
The plan could be almost entirely paid for with a modest, no-loopholes surcharge on corporate taxes on profit derived from the higher gas prices. The administration would be able to avoid pejorative terms such as “windfall” or “excess” profit tax, because the tax is neither confiscatory nor punitive. With higher gas prices, oil companies will make record profit — and a partial surcharge will still leave that profit at record high levels. In other words, the plan isn’t vulnerable to suggestions of creeping, soak-the-rich redistribution. It would leave in place all incentives for oil companies to increase production, do more research and development, and explore alternative fuels. But a modest surcharge would help fund at least a partial pocketbook protection program to make sure the cost of the oil companies’ gain isn’t excessive pain for the rest of us.
So, instead of helping to lower gas prices via domestic oil projects like the Keystone Pipeline (which would also give jobs to Americans), one suggestion is to cut the payroll tax when gas prices are high (underfunding Social Security), and pay for it by a surcharge on corporate taxes. All in the name of “political peril”. Not economic peril — Obama’s political peril.
There are plenty of reasons for the high prices, and lots of reasons to expect a big price surge in the spring, said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for Oil Price Information Service.
“Early February crude oil prices are higher than they’ve ever been on similar calendar dates through the years, and the price of crude sets the standard for gasoline prices,” Kloza said.
In addition, several refineries have been mothballed in recent months, he said, and some of those refineries “represented the key to a smooth spring transition from winter-to-spring gasoline.” The annual change in gasoline formulas is mandated by pollution-fighting regulations.
However, one overlooked fact regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline is that its rejection by President Obama has directly affected rise of gas prices in recent weeks. Although the pipeline (and ANWR, and other major oil projects) have multi-year lead times, the very fact of a project of this magnitude moving ahead has an immediate effect on the markets by changing the traders’ expectations of future supply. Having more oil available in the marketplace contributes to lower prices for consumers. So when the project was tabled, the markets reacted accordingly.
This administration has once again shown to its hostility toward domestic oil while pandering to the environmentalist electorate. The rejection of such an important project — with the capacity to offer significant work for Americans — only hurts our economy further.
