Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, August 24, 2011


For my best bud Carl who is vacationing with his family "down south" at this very moment!

Nashville and Memphis... not bad!

Posted by at

4 comments:

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576518274100145458.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[Make no mistake, folks,] a "Value Added Tax" (VAT) is the ideal choice for those whose goal is to refinance government sufficiently to allow it not only to continue "business as usual" but also to expand on a grand scale.

[The authors of this piece] estimate that each percentage point of a U.S. VAT would provide Washington over 10 years with approximately $981 billion with which to launch new spending.

[Yes,] even a small VAT might help reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, but by making reforms to entitlement spending less likely, VAT revenues would also lead to a permanent increase in spending to 24% or more of GDP (compared to the historic average of 20%).

* AND REMEMBER, FOLKS... THAT "HISTORIC AVERAGE OF 20%" IS ARRIVED AT BY COMPRESSING ALL OF "HISTORY" INTO JUST THE LAST FEW DECADES. IDEALLY WE SHOULD BE SHOOTING FOR A FEDERAL SPENDING CEILING OF PERHAPS 16% OF GDP.

Total federal taxes would almost certainly increase to at least 24% of GDP (a 25% rise compared to the "historic" average). As a result of the drag of taxes on growth, we estimate that long-run output would permanently be nearly 3% lower than currently forecast. And, as has occurred in Europe, the VAT rate and revenues would over time inexorably increase - and so would the damage to private-sector jobs and incomes. We estimate that each additional $1 trillion of revenue to the government from a VAT would cost the private economy at least $2 trillion, composed of $1 trillion of taxes and $1 trillion of lost GDP.

[S]ome academics suggest that a small VAT be used to "buy" a reduction in the top income tax rate. But it is naïve to believe that the VAT rate would remain low, or that the income tax rate would not shoot back up.

(*SHRUG*) I AGREE. LOOK AT TOLLS! HOW MANY TIMES HAVE PEOPLE BEEN PROMISED TOLLS WOULD BE REMOVED ONCE A BRIDGE WAS "PAID OFF" ONLY TO HAVE THEM RAISED - AGAIN AND AGAIN - INSTEAD?! (SEE: TAPPAN ZEE BRIDGE)

In Europe, the VAT rate started out in the single digits in France in the 1950s. But because the VAT funds Europe's ever-expanding welfare state, the rates now range from a minimum of 15% to a high of 25%, and they are heading upward.

(*SHRUG*) SEE...?!

In Europe, the VAT on top of the income tax is a crushing burden. In France, where the VAT rate is 19.6%, total tax as a percentage of GDP is 46%, versus 30% in the United States. Britain now has a 20% VAT in addition to a 50% top rate on its personal income tax, a 26% corporate tax and a host of other taxes. Even if a U.S. VAT remained in the mid-range of rates compared to Europe, it could easily push the total tax burden up to 40% of GDP.

* To be continued...

August 24, 2011 at 8:45 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

In addition to its voracious appetite, the value-added tax is a master of disguise. Because it is levied on the sale of a product at each stage of production - whenever value is added - and at the final sale, the VAT is portrayed as a tax on consumption. The VAT isn't really a consumption tax, however. The truth is that the base of the VAT is the output of labor and capital - and, therefore, the economic burden of the VAT is, like that of the income tax, borne mostly by those who work, invest and produce the most output.

The French once illustrated the VAT with an example: The farmer passes the tax to the miller, the miller passes it to the baker and the baker includes it in the price of bread. Ever since, the VAT has for political purposes been viewed as a burden on the consumer, thereby providing politicians with an excuse for "compensating" large numbers of favored voters with disproportionately large cash subsidies or exemptions. Offsetting consumer subsidies would occur in spades in America, where the tax system has traditionally been preoccupied with "progressivity" and used to redistribute income.

* IN OTHER WORDS, FOLKS, RATHER THAN MORE FAIRNESS WE'D GET LESS FAIRNESS. INSTEAD OF LESS "INCOME REDISTRIBUTION" WE'D GET MORE "INCOME REDISTRIBUTION."

(*SIGH*)

It is disturbing to consider a value-added tax sneaking into our current tax code disguised as tax reform. The outcome will be more spending, a higher combined income tax and VAT tax burden concentrated on a minority of voters, and a spate of special redistributional subsidies and exemptions that would mean higher rates. These higher rates would increase the economic output losses and continue the ongoing transfer of income and capital from the private sector to the government.

If Republicans get sucker-punched by a VAT, America will forever lose the opportunity to reduce spending, cut taxes, grow the private economy, and restore the country's long-term fiscal integrity.

August 24, 2011 at 8:45 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Camden-to-Pay-Students-100-Each-to-Not-Skip-School-128311368.html

The city of Camden (NJ) will be paying almost 70 high school students $100 each to go to school in the first three weeks of the year.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Funded by a grant that must be used by Sept. 30, the city is trying to fight truancy with a new program called I Can End Truancy (ICE-T), reports the Inquirer.

* A FEDERAL GRANT...? (AND EVEN IF IT'S A STATE GRANT, THE STATE GETS FEDERAL GRANTS, SO...) (*STILL SHAKING MY HEAD*)

To receive the promised $100, each of the 66 targeted students must attend classes as well as conflict-resolution and anger-management workshops until Sept. 30.

* ISN'T SEPTEMBER THE TRADITIONAL START OF THE SCHOOL YEAR... WITH NINE MORE MONTHS TO FOLLOW?

"We had talked about it [truancy] for a long time," Camden Mayor Dana Redd told the Inquirer. "We wanted to come up with an innovative model."

* FOLKS... (*STILL SHAKING MY HEAD*)

August 24, 2011 at 1:20 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275396/perry-and-global-warming-jim-lacey

The planet is warming.

(*PAUSE*)

* WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT...

Well, it was until 1998, when the warming trend abruptly ceased.

In truth, it has been warming since 1850, when the last mini-Ice Age ended. In the 161 years since then, the earth’s temperature has increased . . . wait for it . . . 0.7 degrees. (But we can’t even be sure of that, as all the major temperature records have been altered to the point of uselessness.)

(*SNORT*) (*NOD*)

The scientists at Great Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) admit to using statistical sleights of hand to change the temperature record, so as to show more warming. And then, in a total flouting of the scientific method, they tossed out all the original raw data so that no other scientist could check their work. Remarkably, a panel - including a number of persons who stood to gain financially from a global-warming panic or who were personal friends of the accused - found nothing wrong with what the CRU scientists did.

(*SNORT*) (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

Move along; nothing to see here.

* YEP... (*SIGH*)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is responsible for feeding data into the United States’ Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature record has been caught in a number of “unintentional” mistakes. One of my favorites is replicating Russia’s September temperatures as October’s, thereby significantly increasing the global average.

* FOLKS... IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW THIS... (*SHRUG*)... WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT OUR MEDIA?

[T]ampering with the data in such a way is a relatively "minor" fraud compared to the data manipulation the GISS gets away with every day. You see, although the GISS receives temperature readings from thousands of global stations, it uses only a fraction of them. Unbelievably, the GISS still fills out the thousands of spreadsheet cells, using figures from other sources.

(*SNORT*)

So what does the GISS put in a cell that used to have actual data readings?

(*DRUM ROLL*)

Well, it is using a smoothing technique that allows it to use any temperature reading taken within 750 miles of the location the empty cell represents. For instance, rather than use a temperature reading from a mountaintop in Bolivia, the GISS can substitute a reading from the coast of Peru or from a steamy Brazilian jungle. (Does no one in government see how a warming bias might, therefore, be baked into the global record?)

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*) (*DEEP SIGH*)

* FOLKS... THIS IS ONE OF THOSE "MUST READS" WHERE I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU UTILIZE THE LINK IN ORDER TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE FOR YOURSELVES. THERE ARE CHARTS... THERE ARE GRAPHS... THERE'S DATA... (*SHRUG*)

* FOLKS, HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE FROM THE ARTICLE:

The simple fact of the matter is that even if global warming were caused by human activity, the cost of mitigation is far greater than the cost of adaptation.

(*NOD*)

And... if humanity is not adding any significant amount to global warming, then anything we spend on mitigation is not only wasted, but damaging to the welfare of many millions.

August 24, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)