It is undeniable that people are hurting from COVID. It is also untenable that one of the continued solutions is an ongoing moratorium on evictions. Such a policy would seem to be blatantly unconstitutional.
A national moratorium on evictions picks winners and losers by government fiat by preferring one population (renters) over another population (landlords). The moratorium continues to allow people to live in their spaces without paying what they are contractually obligated to pay, putting the landlord at a loss. Would the same people championing this policy support the government letting people take food from a grocery store without paying for the food? How about taking clothing from a store without paying for it? It is the same thing. Those who argue that there is a moral right to housing would be hard pressed not to agree that this is also a moral right to food and clothing as well. Put it another way, the moratorium allows renters to consume their rental space for free that they would otherwise be purchasing through the payment of rent. What gives the government the right, therefore, to tell people they are allowed to consume their product — be it food, clothes, or rental property — without just compensation?
Originally, the moratorium was declared as a hedge against a perceived health hazard, namely that if people are evicted, they could contribute to the spread of COVID, and from this line of thinking was the flimsiest constitutional justification for the policy. If therefore, the government wants to assume the responsibility for avoiding an even bigger health emergency, it is only just that the government should cover the cost of the loss or rent to the landlord or guarantee that the rent is paid. You can’t have it both ways. The current policy is utterly ludicrous and puts many landlords at financial risk and ruin.
A company will try to use its available funds to best improve its business, such as by expanding its operations, hiring additional workers, opening new factories and offices, research & development including creating new products, paying down debt, or acquiring new companies. But when it decides that it has more money than it could put to good use in its business, it can use the money in various ways. It could pay dividends. But another option is to buy back some of its shares on the open market. But progressives somehow believe that they know better about a company than the company itself and want to dictate what a company can choose to do with its own cash, especially with regard to buybacks.
What seems like a rather mundane topic for the average person is actually very important, particularly because several progressive Democrats such as Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders are threatening to prevent buybacks and will soon be in a strong position to influence policy. Unfortunately, because they are so economically ignorant, their policies could have a negative impact on the broader economy.
In a widely-publicized NYTimes Op-Ed last year, Schumer and Sanders penned a missive against buybacks, calling them “corporate self-indulgence.” Their solution is a bill to forbid buybacks unless and until companies first do things such as “paying all workers at least $15 an hour, providing seven days of paid sick leave, and offering decent pensions and more reliable health benefits.” In other words, Schumer and Sanders openly demand these preconditions to be met before a company can even engage in a buyback program. They have decided that they know better about a company’s needs more than the companies themselves. The hubris here is astounding.
A company has a duty to use its money in the most responsible and productive way possible. Getting the most out of available resources creates the best possible outcome for the economy, the company, and its workers. For instance, if the best use of money is to expand and increase R&D in its industry or build more shops or hire more workers, they will do it. But if this option is not worthwhile, that is, will not produce an adequate return on investment – for reasons such as a lack of growth in the industry or excessive government regulation – then the best option may be to buyback shares or pay dividends. In doing so, they are taking cash out of the company to give to the shareholders who will look for better opportunities. Sometimes this option is absolutely necessary in order to make the company stay both relevant and solvent for the sake of the company and its workers.
Freedom is at stake here, both philosophically and economically. Not only should a company have the freedom to do what it wants with its own money, but it won’t have the freedom to grow if the government is interfering, rather than allowing the free market figure out where to go. This is the worst of both worlds. Buybacks are an important tool despite those who wish to restrict buybacks under some progessive bloviations not rooted in economic reality.
The current national moratorium on evictions (which is likely to be extended yet again) is problematic for several reasons. The CDC (of all agencies) issued its rule without any particular act of Congress granting it the power to do so under the auspices of a generic “public health and safety” threat. What’s more, the federal eviction ban essentially overtakes any and all existing laws between tenants and landlords at the state level.
Because of the moratorium, landlords are now unable to follow any due process it has with regard to removing a tenant who has not kept up his or her end of their housing contract. Furthermore, landlords have no recourse to replace or remove a tenant by legal means until the end of the moratorium, a date which keeps changing. If a landlord violates the moratorium, he faces fines and/or possible jail time.
But perhaps the most egregious aspect of the eviction moratorium is that landlords are still responsible for maintaining payments to their banks and mortgage lenders on their rental properties. In fact, in some parts of the country, lenders have the ability to foreclose on them because they are not owner-occupied residences. What if the government told grocery store owners they had to provide their food for free as a means to alleviate hunger? Or tell a doctor he has to treat people for free as a means to provide universal access to medical services. How is it that the government is allowed to tell one set of citizens that you cannot enforce your own contracts and must provide services for free, while simultaneously not providing any sort of restitution for the hardship?
This moratorium has created intense and immediate deprivation for property owners who now bear the burden of property ownership without means to carry out or modify existing rental contracts. Essentially, the government is engaging in a massive, unconstitutional wealth transfer from one constituent to another. The eviction moratorium is a blatantly unconstitutional abuse of power.
When we have a generation of voters who take their policy lessons from a person who believes that billionaires shouldn’t exist, we are in trouble. What’s more, she boasts of having an economics degree but her ideas are not rooted in reality. Let’s take a look at some of her more unorthodox economic positions:
Green New Deal: AOC created a sweeping bill that puts the environment impact as the basis for economic policy. Not only is this inherently anti-free-market, her objectives of addressing climate and economic inequalities are completely undermined by the staggering cost of her proposal. Estimates fluctuate wildly between a minimum $10 trillion and $93 trillion, which would obviously exacerbate economic inequality by massively increasing American’s debt load on the backs of the taxpayer.
Socialism: While on the subject of the Green New Deal, did anyone notice 8B in her bill? “It is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal (8B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.” It is out-and-out socialism to insist that the government is the chief means of generating wealth and try to do so through policy.
70% Tax Rate: Shortly after taking office, AOC proposed a 70% tax rate on incomes over $10 million aimed at going after wealthy Americans for whom she has utter contempt. After all, during an interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates, AOC explained, “I’m not saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett are immoral, but a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,” But she fails in understanding that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett has earned their wealth through the creation of millions of jobs and products that have improved the lives of Americans and lifted the economy. Yet a 70% tax rate will quite likely limit future entrepreneurs knowing that being successful results in confiscatory taxation.
Rent Control: In an attempt to combat poverty through affordable housing, AOC has proposed a sweeping national rent control bill that would institute a cap of 3% or the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI), whichever is greater, for housing markets nationwide. But this is a classical example of price control; what’s more, it would exacerbate the problem of housing affordability that AOC purports to want to fix. Creating new housing (such as apartments) is the best way to help with affordability, but rent control would create scarcity; housing developers will certainly not build if there is a cap on the amount that could be charged to the consumer-renter.
Investment tax breaks: AOC was viciously against tax incentives for Amazon when they attempted to set up a new, major headquarters in NYC. When New York offered a $3 billion temporary tax break that would result in the creation of 25,000 new jobs for New Yorkers, she proclaimed “If we’re willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district ourselves if we wanted to.” What AOC fails to grasp is that nothing was being given away as if there was $3 billion locked up somewhere. It’s merely taxes Amazon won’t have to pay on in the future, money that has yet to exist and now won’t at all. Even worse are the other benefits that won’t exist now that Amazon decided against New York: besides the 25,000 jobs (many likely going to people within her own district), there’s additional sales, income, and property tax revenue that would have been generated for New York. Of course, AOC later gloated about a “victory” when Amazon decided to simply expand some existing NY office space, adding about 1,500 new workers, as if that will grow the economy better than 25,000 would have.
AOC is indeed economically illiterate. The fact that so many people have such little understanding about economics themselves that they are not laughing her out of office for her ideas is even more troubling.
Alan Blinder is a distinguished economist who insists on misleading the public about economic matters. The latest affair is found in Blinder’s Op-Ed, “A Speedy Recovery Depends on More Aid: Will Trump Deliver?” wherein Blinder deliberately misleads his readers about the economy and the road to recovery. Here are some of his statements:
“Mr. McConnell is a roadblock to more relief funds.” It wasn’t McConnell, but Pelosi who refused to talk. McConnell put forth a relief package but because it did not include the extra state and local bailout funds desired by Pelosi, Pelosi would not even consider it. Yet, Blinder omits this. The assertion that McConnell is the one who is a “roadblock” is not only a difference of opinion, it’s an outright lie.
“Senators and the public need to understand that it was CARES and the rest that propped up the economy “artificially” as the virus was pulling it down.” The economy is not artificially propped up. It is well on it’s way back to where it was prior to COVID. In fact, just a paragraph prior to this one, Blinder notes that the recovery has been V-shaped, yet he suggests here that the relief given by CARES somehow wasn’t real relief. And if relief packages are indeed “artificial props”, why does he want another one? But what’s even worse is that Blinder, an economist mind you, believes so much in the CARES Act, but if anything, CARES restricted economic growth in the economy by paying people not to work and reducing incentives to work, so the recovery that we have experienced is despite the CARES Act, not because of it.
“Americans are suffering from the tragic results of the Trump administration’s malign neglect of the virus.” Nothing could be more politically upside down. Trump was the first to restrict travel while the Dems screamed it was wrong to do so. Likewise, his vaccine programs have been aggressive enough to produce multiple vaccines that are now being implemented in the public. Blinder puts the blame on Trump, yet it was the states, not Trump, who imposed the lockdowns — many excessive and some still ongoing — that have shuttered industries and businesses. Some of these will never recover, yet the economic consequences of prolonged shutdowns are real, and rest squarely on the shoulders of states.
“State and local governments, which are on the front lines in the battle against the virus, urgently need several hundred billion dollars in federal aid. They must balance their budgets.” Here’s the biggest falsehood. Blinder fails to mention that many states and local governments were in economic dire straits prior to COVID as a result of profligate spending and fiscal mismanagement, and this irresponsibility directly affects those particular governments’ recovery efforts today. The states with the biggest budget problems pre-COVID are the ones begging for the biggest bailouts. They are also the ones who have implemented some of the harshest and irrational lockdowns that have made things even worse. What’s more, these same governments have steadfastly refused to institute common sense restrictions on themselves such as freezing pay, furloughing workers, etc. It’s egregious, but Blinder just wants to paper over that part by calling for “balanced budgets.” None of these people who spent recklessly never cared for balanced budgets prior to now. And without changing spending habits nor making drastic cuts to the budget in the future will go right back to being in the hole.
“These folks have pretty straightforward needs: cash income, food, shelter and health care. The federal government knows how to provide these things.” This is cringe-worthy. Blinder forgets that it’s the American people who are the source of economic prosperity and he forgets that it is their taxpayer money earned through hard work and ingenuity.
This article reveals that Blinder really is a shill for the Democrats, and used his column to mislead people into believing that bailing out states and local governments is the only way our economy is to be “saved.” But it makes virtually no economic sense to spend massive amounts of taxpayer funds to cover up fiduciary irresponsibility. It would be reckless for Congress to commit any more money to such endeavors. McConnell knows this. We know this. Just about everyone knows this except for those leaders and governments who have never shown themselves to be accountable with someone else’s money — which is how they got in their financial budget shortfalls in the first place.
Those are not leaders. Blinder does a disservice to his readers by espousing some of the worst economic fallacies that will ultimately hurt, rather than help, fellow Americans.
One of the most outrageous and economically stupid measures to pass on Election Day came out of San Francisco: a new tax called the “Overpaid Executive Tax.” It’s really as bad as it sounds. This law levies a .1% surcharge on any company in San Francisco whose top executives earn 100 times more than the “typical worker.” It was enacted as a means to fight against pay inequality, but all it does is show how incompetent its proponents really are.
It’s worth noting that this tax applies to both publicly traded companies and private companies within San Francisco and it ensnares both local companies and large companies that conduct business within the city. What’s more, it’s completely arbitrary. What are you comparing when you say 100x or 200x the typical local worker? Does that mean on an hourly basis? Does it mean a part time typical worker compared to a high level overtime executive? Do you include overtime? Do you include benefits? It’s a virtually impossible number to calculate. And even if you did have a number to calculate, why is it 100x and not just 50x? Let’s say you compare a high tech company with a retail company such as a supermarket. The supermarket will have a lot of lower wage workers, whereas a tech company will have a lot of higher paid workers. It’s comparing apples to oranges in an effort to get someone to “pay their fair share.”
I hope this has the economically expected effect of them losing a lot of money and business, which is obviously the opposite of what San Francisco probably wants during a pandemic. Current companies will likely change their hiring plans to eliminate or reduce the amount of lower-lever/lower paid workers. Likewise, companies considering doing business in San Francisco will undoubtedly hesitate or entirely change their mind. Why do business in a locality that is particularly anti-business with such ridiculous rules. Furthermore, this surcharge is basically not a tax, it’s a forced donation (because those affected have the option of leaving if they want to). It puts a responsibility on the company to leave San Francisco because the tax affects all the shareholders of the company. This also means that any company that doesn’t leave San Francisco because the tax applies to them is someone who is ultimately abusing their shareholders to whom they have a fiduciary responsibility.
This tax is utterly meaningless and it just shows that people proposing this are so economically ignorant that they should be embarrassed. The problem is that the people on the Left who come up with such ridiculous ideas are never actually embarrassed by that ignorance.
One of the most overlooked yet troubling aspects of Biden’s plan is his doubling of the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) tax. GILTI taxes items that generate foreign income and profits owned by American companies with foreign affiliates. This is troubling, because GILTI taxes American companies on income that has virtually nothing to do with anything in the United States. It’s bad enough that the current tax rate is 10.5%; Biden wants to raise this to 21%.
The tax laws of every developed country – except the US – provide that their companies do not pay tax on earnings from outside their country. Thus a German company earning money from activities in China or the UK pay taxes only to that jurisdiction – not to Germany. The US always taxed US companies on earnings from abroad, as soon as that money was returned to the US. That created a pretty stupid situation, encouraging these companies to leave this money outside of the US, and invest it in foreign, non US ventures.
The GILTI tax was created as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) of 2017 as part of the attempt to fix this situation. What the TCJA did was require that all companies with foreign operations have to pay a penalty tax on all the money accumulated abroad, going back to the ‘80s; this rate was low and spread over 8 years. In exchange for it, the idea was that US companies would now be on par with other countries, in a territorial formation. In other words, pay a low tax on the money the US company never repatriated, repatriate it, and then in the future, you don’t pay tax on it, thereby discouraging profit shifting.
But Congress lied. In addition to paying the upfront tax at a low rate and thereby getting a tax for the future, they couldn’t help themselves. They added the GILTI tax, so now it’s taxed whether it’s repatriated or not. And this is bad. Congress reneged a little bit, because the GILTI is a relatively low tax but because it is worldwide, and now they have to pay tax every year on these foreign profits. So companies paid upfront and now they have to pay this tax every year — albeit at a low rate — so now it’s worse.
Now what Biden is suggesting with the GILTI tax is basically fraudulent. People paid that upfront fee so not to have to pay taxes — and now with this proposed 21% rate — is like fraud against American international companies. The 2017 tax act required an upfront benefit that got future benefits, now Biden wants to take away the future benefits.
GILTI puts American companies operating abroad at a competitive disadvantage. The foreign affiliates already have to pay a penalty tax just to be on equivalent footing with other companies abroad (companies that don’t have to pay the GILTI tax here, mind you). GILTI then tacked on a 10.5% tax and now Biden wants to double it — when it should be ZERO.
Biden’s plan to double GILTI goes hand-in-hand with his overall plan to tax U.S. businesses (he also wants to raise the corporate tax rate to 28% and add a 15% minimum tax based on profit reported on financial statements.) Going after businesses is already bad policy and his desire to double GILTI shows his ignorance and his willingness to further erode American competitiveness.
The amount of money Biden’s plan will raise is relatively insignificant (roughly $300 billion over the next ten years) but his attack on businesses is mean-spirited; it hurts our country by making our domestic companies less able to compete abroad in foreign markets. Nevermind that foreign income shouldn’t even be taxed at all! How can Biden justify raising taxes in a way that will make the United States less competitive and will reduce jobs? Increased taxes are a disincentive towards investing and job creation and will only hurt our economy.
Now that Biden has been elected President, it’s important to take stock of what tax changes are likely to be coming. Merrill Lynch did a good job putting together a side-by-side comparison of current tax law in four areas: income, estate, social security, and corporate, and then possible changes in those areas according to Biden’s campaign tax plans. The summary is below.
It is notable that in just about every instance, there will be a tax increase under Biden’s plans. How this will impact the economy, jobs, wages, and investments remains to be seen.
Earlier this year, California passed AB5, a measure that would require companies to reclassify independent contractors as employees. The problem is that the government is yet again intruding on employer-employee relationships under the guise of worker protections. Furthermore, it’s an attempt to put unions even more in charge of things in California while also purporting to provide more revenue to a nearly-bankrupt state, all doomed to failure because of its economic ignorance.
AB5 affects those workers who belong to the gig economy. “Gig economy” is the catchphrase for the portion of the economy made up of freelancers and independent consultants. It’s estimated that 1 in 3 workers now, about 55 million, fall into this category. The gig economy has grown to be very good because it provides much-needed work flexibility and independence that many workers prioritize.
The mechanism by which freelance workers are deemed employees is the “ABC test.” This is the court created formula that companies must apply in order to determine if workers are contractors instead of employees, and it puts the burden of proof on employers. A worker is a contractor if he meets the following three criteria:
1) The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the work’s performance, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
2) The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
3) The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed
There is no economic or business rationale to these tests – they were created solely to destroy the concept of independent contractor by making virtually all relationships that of employer/employee. The IRS, on the other hand, has established criteria for what constitutes a real employee based on behavioral control, financial control and relationship of the parties. It should also be noted that if the IRS follows the AB5 definition of employee for Californians, the employees will be devastated! That is because under IRS tax rules, employees may not deduct any business expenses, which is a critical tax benefit to the independent contractor relationship.
It is particularly frustrating that advocates of AB5 purposefully ignore the fact that the gig economy arose during the weak Obama economy, which was littered with ever-increasing government regulations and crushing legislation such as Obamacare. This combination made it difficult to become a business or stay in business. It was certainly no wonder that businesses sought alternative forms of employer-employee relationships, which is their inherent right to do so. AB5 now undermines those relationships.
Furthermore, AB5 essentially picks winners and losers; large swaths of independent contractors are exempt, while others have restrictions, and still others are not exempt at all. Among those exempt include: “insurance brokers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers, private investigators, accountants, investment agents, salespeople, commercial fishermen, and real estate agents.” Among those partially exempt include journalists and freelance media-makers such as photographers, but they are now limited in their number of contributions to 35 items per year. Those industries not exempt at all include Uber and Lyft, companies who successfully arose as alternative transportation options during the rise of the gig economy.
And yet, there are really no winners here. Certain industries are exempt, but there’s no justification to do that from a logical point of view. The sole reason why some have an exemption is because they have too strong of a lobby or union presence — which is an irrational justification. There will also be a never-ending succession of lawsuits, as workers try to avoid being treated as an employee. The only winners will be the lawyers.
The gig economy has proven to be a resourceful alternative for workers who seek a myriad of benefits, including work independence, flexible schedules, side money, and increased quality of work-life balance. Now that the economy has recovered from the anemic and over-regulated Obama years, governments such as California are happy to cash in on its success while strangling its workers and businesses with unnecessary, burdensome measures. AB5 will ultimately weaken the economy and destroy some businesses in its wake.
Despite what you may have heard from politicians and journalists, trade deficits are not a bad thing… In fact, they almost always indicate a healthy economy.
Some people (including a number of our civil leaders) believe that the United States’ trade deficit is a bad thing. They think that it means that other countries are abusing us. This is just wrong – and economically ignorant. It is the same as saying that a deficit of sugar in your diet is a bad thing. Just wrong.
By definition, a trade deficit is when one country’s people and businesses are buyingmore goods than they are selling to other countries. Rather than indicating negativity or poverty, this highlights that the people and companies in the United States have the wealth to be able to buy more stuff than the poorer people from other countries are able and willing to buy from us. This is reflective of a healthy economic circumstance. Actually, throughout history when the US has had a trade surplus it generally has been in economic recession or depression. Let’s take a look at what a trade deficit actually is, and why trying to eliminate our trade deficit is misleading and ultimately based in ignorance.
Ultimately, basic economics shows that the amount of money flowing back and forth between two countries has to be the same. What changes is the form of that money: capital vs. consumable goods. When the United States has a trade deficit it means that the United States people and companies as a whole are buying more consumable goods from a country than that country is buying from us. That country in turn is using those dollars to make capital or other investments in the US – rather than buying consumable goods from US companies. China is a great example of this. The reason that we have a trade deficit with China is because we have a lot of wealth and we are willing to spend money on consumable goods. By allowing this deficit, we are in fact just letting Americans enjoy what they want to enjoy, creating a high living standard. The Chinese, on the other hand, are willing to forego the current enjoyment of things so that they can invest in their future – by buying US bonds, or investing in US companies (like automobile plants in Tennessee which provides jobs and economic growth to the US). Those in the US have decided – one by one – that they want to buy stuff to make them happy. Let’s let them do that.
Furthermore, a trade deficit is not a US Government deficit, or debt, or anything of the kind. There is no such thing as a “country’s” deficit. It is not the United States government but rather individual Americans and individual American companies that are choosing to spend their money on consumable goods. The deficit just recognizes that in the moment, US individuals and companies are choosing, transaction by transaction, to part with dollars in exchange for stuff that they would rather have. This is an individual choice that is reflective of individual wealth and ability to spend on consumable goods. We must reject the thinking of some in Congress and elsewhere who are trying to stop US people from buying more stuff from China and other countries. This ignorant recommendation is, by definition, hurting Americans and limiting their freedom to enjoy the things they choose.
An understanding of basic economics shows that trade deficits are a reflection of wealth and success and anyone who denies that doesn’t understand the concepts of trade and deficits.
