Steve Moore was interviewed by John Catsimatidis this morning.
Larry Kudlow was on the radio with John Catsimatidis this morning.
Ralph Benko has a timely piece today at Forbes.com:
According to the report of one Kemp insider, Reagan, on the verge of his presidential campaign, came to seek Kemp’s endorsement. The Reagan campaign’s purpose was to prevent Kemp from entering the race too, splitting the conservative base. Jack Kemp offered his endorsement in return for Reagan’s endorsement of the Kemp-Roth 30% across-the-board tax rate cut.
That policy was controversial among both Republicans and Democrats. It was famously attacked by Reagan’s chief rival for the 1980 presidential nomination, George H.W. Bush, as “voodoo economic policy.” Reagan, on the advice of his then-top advisors, reportedly intended to check Kemp’s box, pocket Kemp’s endorsement, and never mention the tax rate cut again.
Until, that is, President Carter attacked Reagan’s endorsement of Kemp-Roth as irresponsible. Reagan rose to its defense. Carter doubled down. So did Reagan.
And Dan Mitchell for the win!
Our friend, Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania discussed tax reform, including SALT deducations, with John Catsimatidis on The Cats Roundtable. Listen to the discussion here (less than 10 minutes long).
Earlier today Larry Kudlow was a guest on The CATS Rountable radio show with host John Catsimatidis.
☕ John Catsimatidis talked with Arthur Laffer this morning on his radio show, The Cats Roundtable.
☕ John Catsimatidis also spoke with Grover Norquist of Americans For Tax Reform.
☕ John Tamny has a new article up this morning as well.
Former Senator Bill Bradley has an important and timely piece in the Sunday New York Times. As someone who was part of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, he has some good knowledge to share.
With seven respected committee members backing the bill, Bob Packwood cajoled, threatened and persuaded others on the committee to embrace it, outmaneuvering senators who wanted higher rates and real estate lobbyists eager to protect tax shelters. There were a few perilous moments. We came up short on revenue at one point, increasing the deficit in a supposedly revenue-neutral bill. Initially we missed our agreed income-distribution goals. But in the end, the bill passed committee 20 to 0; and then, after a big battle on I.R.A.s, it passed the Senate 97 to 3. That kind of vote really used to happen.
– – – – –
The final bill chopped the top rate to 28 percent from 50 percent, closed nearly $100 billion a year in loopholes, taxed labor and capital at the same rate, and gave low-income Americans one of the biggest tax cuts of their lives. Most people got to save more of every dollar they earned, corporations were treated more equally, and the wealthy ended up paying a higher share of total income tax revenue because they’d benefited disproportionately from the loopholes we’d eliminated.
– – – – –
Over the years, bill after bill has chipped away at the changes we made, and people today once again see unfairness everywhere in the code. Tax liability appears to be totally random. Loopholes cost over $1 trillion, and equal incomes don’t pay equal taxes. The question is the same as in 1986: Can our leaders put principle and country over politics and party, and work together for the common good?
Given the extreme polarization within and between the parties, the odds are against success. Legislating is a very human experience in which trust and mutual respect play critical roles. But 1986 proved that when both are present, big things can get done.
A. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond Times-Dispatch has some interesting things to say about tax cuts, he takes a swipe at the Laffer curve along the way, that mistake aside, he does make some valid points.
Most discussions of tax policy overlook a crucial initial condition: the ownership of the money before the government confiscates it. That is a moral consideration, or at least it ought to be. Pundits go on at great length debating whether the government can afford to let people keep a bit more of their own money. Very few ever ask whether the taxpayer can afford the high cost of government.
– – – – –
Any discussion of tax policy ought to start with the recognition that taxation entails taking the earnings of some people for the benefit of others. We need some level of taxation; government can’t function without it. But the level should be kept as low as possible.
– – – – –
This is, indeed, a question about greed. But not in the way it is normally framed. As George Mason University economics professor Donald Boudreaux once said, it’s an odd value set that considers “I want what’s mine” to be selfish and greedy but “I want what’s yours” to be selfless and noble.
Over the next two decades federal spending is set to soar from 20 percent of GDP to 28 percent, and much of that spending growth is on automatic pilot. Nobody ever asks how that spending is going to “pay for itself.” Given that taxes already cost Americans more than food, clothing, and shelter combined, maybe they should.
Larry Kudlow was a guest of John Catsimatidis on The Cat’s Rountable, here is the podcast.
☕ Our friend Dan Mitchell is back to educating folks using the Laffer Curve.
And if I can use those example to teach them the basic lesson of supply-side economics (if you tax something, you get less of it), hopefully they’ll apply that lesson when contemplating higher taxes on thing they presumably do like (such as jobs, growth, competitiveness, etc).
Here’s a list of “successful” leftist tax hikes that have come to my attention.
- The big drop in soda purchases after a tax on sugary drinks was imposed in Berkeley.
- The big drop in home sales after a tax was imposed in Vancouver on purchases by foreigners.
- The big drop in tobacco sales after a big increase in D.C.’s tobacco tax.
- The big drop in soda purchases after a tax was imposed in Philadelphia.
☕️ Also, John Tamny has a new column at Forbes.com:
What will those jobs performed by we humans be? Those who can predict now what is a certainty will be billionaires many times over, and possibly trillionaires for seeing what is presently opaque, but also inevitable. So while it’s impossible to predict what our work will look like in the future (was anyone “demanding” the internet in the 80s, or Uber in the 90s?), the automation and robots that Gates decries are the certain sign of exciting new forms of work in the future, much as Gates’ software version of the robot gifted us with exciting and new forms of work in the 80s, 90s and beyond.
One prediction from this writer is that as automation of everything becomes the norm, so will it increasingly become the norm that humans will be able to combine work with what they’re passionate about. My next book is titled The End of Laziness, and with good reason. A robot-driven future will be one defined by an erasure of laziness as more and more people get to do what they love thanks to automation rendering the getting of life’s necessities (and much, much more) immensely cheap.
Gates wants robots to be taxed in order to help the elderly and others less capable of getting by in today’s world, but then it’s robots that are already doing what governments can’t. The same Google that automated away the telephone operator has made it possible with Google Maps for the blind to navigate cities, and then Google’s driverless cars will increasingly make it possible for the elderly to get around without relying on other, younger humans.
☕️ Man on the Margin also has an interesting post today:
☕️ John Catsimatidis interviewed Larry Kudlow on Sunday on his radio show, The Cat’s Roundtable. Here is the podcast: