Showing posts with label Pragmatic Capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pragmatic Capitalism. Show all posts

Saturday, April 19, 2014

The One Chart Which Best Explains The Reason For The Growth Of Income Inequality In The US
















The chart comes from The Motley Fool, here, and has nothing to do per se with the subject of the current debate about income inequality occasioned by the US tour of French economist Thomas Piketty promoting his new book Capital in English translation.

But the chart offers a little appreciated explanation for why income inequality has grown in the United States: the tax code of the United States itself treats income unequally, giving preference to long term capital gains. Key here isn't just that rates increase progressively and are unequal, but that capital gains income is at all levels taxed unequally compared to ordinary income, at lower rates. Is it a surprise then that one form of income would tend to grow more than the other in order to take advantage of the lower rates?

Ordinary income has been taxed at extraordinarily high rates off and on since the First World War while long term capital gains have been taxed at comparatively much lower rates off and on just about as long, as a favor to the few who have historically been able to play in that sandbox. It shouldn't surprise us though that the half of the nation which over time has joined the investor class has benefited disproportionately from this arrangement.

It has been a principle of conservative economics from the time of Reagan that if you want less of something, tax it. Well that's what has happened to ordinary income, where wages have been stagnating for some time while gains from investments have soared. You push here, it comes out there. Ordinary income tax rates have come down and stayed down since Reagan's revolution, it is true, but the differential between ordinary income tax rates and long term capital gains taxes has remained, favoring the returns from capital.

Cullen Roche here takes the view that we should raise taxes on long term capital gains, especially for the top 0.1% where he believes most of the inequality shows up:

The solution, in my opinion, is simple and based on a relatively widespread misunderstanding. We currently tax “investment income” favorably. The rationale for this is that we want to incentivize “investment”. That makes sense except for the fact that very few of the people transacting on secondary markets or obtaining dividend payments are actually promoting investment. In fact, one could argue that dividends disincentivize firms from using profits in a more innovative manner. And transactions on secondary exchanges only finance investment in the case of secondary offerings. Otherwise, buying stocks and bonds is a simple allocation of savings and does not remotely resemble the financing of investment. Why these forms of income are tax advantaged makes very little sense in my view. So a higher tax rate on dividends and secondary market transactions seems to make a lot of sense in my view.

I beg to differ. The tax code as it stands is doubly offensive in that it not only favors one form of income over another but that it also discriminates against income as it grows. To make the tax code "fair", it should treat all income the same way. If we equalized all tax rates to 10% irrespective of level or source or time, there would be so much opportunity to make money in this country that yours truly, Cullen Roche and Thomas Piketty would all have something far better to do than write about this, and you something far better to do than read about it.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Have Households Started To Borrow? Probably for cars.

PragCap thinks so here, but it's only been up $169 billion year over year. The monthly rate of vehicle sales annualized is up 1.6 million units over the same period. Could be that. Subprime, loan to value in excess of 100% and longer terms are all up in the space, according to Reuters here just in recent days.

Friday, April 13, 2012

"We’re the best horse in the glue factory"

So says Gary Shilling, quoted here.

But he understands the fundamental fact that there's really no there there:

"Consumers have a lot of reasons to save as opposed to spend. They need to rebuild their assets, save for retirement. A lot of reasons suggest that they should be saving to work down debt as opposed to going the other way, which they have done in recent months. So if consumers retrench, there is not really anything else in the U.S. economy that can hold things up.”

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Housing Prices Still Need To Fall Much More

And they will.

TPC at Pragmatic Capitalism shows three charts here which demonstrate historically where we've been and where we are with respect to supply, demand and price.

From the peaks, demand for new homes is off nearly 80%, while prices of new homes are off only 25% and represent levels last seen in 2003.

Supply of existing housing is up over 70%, however. The current drop in supply to 10.5 months is seasonal but is still something like 160% higher than it was at the end of 2003. Clearing this inventory remains unemployment's doppelganger.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

QE (Quantitative Easing): How to Bailout Banks by By-Passing Congress

TPC at Pragmatic Capitalism makes a persuasive case that we have government of the banks, by the banks, and for the banks:

[I]f you’re a bad bank with a few trillion dollars in bad mortgage paper you’re delighted if a AAA rated entity [The Federal Reserve] comes in and swaps those assets out with their highly rated paper. This is exactly what the Fed did in 2009 and make no mistake – it was hugely successful in clearing the credit markets and altering the composition of bank balance sheets. This was Mr. Bernanke’s goal after all. He was simply trying to clear the credit markets and improve the banking system and he believed that would ultimately fix the problems in the US economy. Unfortunately, he misdiagnosed a household balance sheet recession as a banking crisis. QE1 provided liquidity in the credit markets and it gave the banks some much needed breathing room. Unfortunately, the impact on the real economy was far more muted.

The author points out that QE II is now necessary because the banks are going to be in trouble again very soon as the next leg down in housing ensues.

Don't miss the rest here.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

2010 Consumer Contraction Worse Than 2008

Read the data for yourself here at Pragmatic Capitalism, but don't miss the second half of the entry which discusses the genesis and meaning of "the new frugality" and the devastating consequences of the Fed's war on the average American through ZIRP (zero interest rate policy):

On Wall Street and inside the Beltway there are no perceived victims of low interest rates, because low rates result in obscene spreads between the real cost of institutional borrowing (essentially zero) and the real rate of consumer lending (18% to 24% on real-world short term loans). Meanwhile every barrier possible has been raised to prevent those lower rates from propagating to those most in need of longer term relief.

Down with debt! Down with the Fed!