|
|
Home
|
Some Quick Thoughts on Tax and Regulatory Policy – From a Competitive Analysis Viewpoint |
 |
 |
 |
|
Written by Skanderbeg
|
|
Tuesday, 15 April 2008 20:18 |
|
I’ve been promising this for a long time, and I got provoked into doing a rant-comment over at RedState yesterday, and today seemed liked the perfect day to be tackling this topic – even if it’s in a “quick hits” fashion. What I wanted to do here is give some perspective from the viewpoint of someone who is actually involved in international business and executive-level decisions – and this includes decisions about where to locate various activities. This is quite different from the kind of “policy wonk” stuff one normally encounters – which tends to be remote from the edge of the sword, and ends up sounding like a discussion of the tuning mechanics of steam engines. These are critical issues in the face of real global competition at all levels of the game. The message from the front lines is not good – more people need to genuinely realize how badly uncompetitive our tax and regulatory regimes have become. Too often, what is being said is just so much blinkered blather about making that situation even worse - rather than better. To those who think that none of what follows matters, think again. Our present personal income tax system is a disaster. At one point c. 1986 we actually had reformed things down to only two brackets - but since then the reactionaries have been ratcheting it the other way. Meanwhile, the places that really want to get their economies growing have adopted a simple flat-rate income tax. This idea has spread like wildfire, now being adopted as far afield as Mongolia and Albania. Why not here? I'm not here to argue philosophy or "fairness" - it just works. Why an entire political party (and a good part of the other one) is mindlessly wedded to the notion of becoming more like the sinking ships of western Europe escapes me. The present corporate tax system is similarly disastrous. The rate is bad enough - it's now about the worst in the world. Even France now has a lower rate. But what's worse is that it's extremely easy to run afoul of some lovely rules (unique to the U.S.) on overseas income - which is thusly taxed in the country of origin back in the U.S. This is insane - and that's not a philosophical comment. What's the point of putting up with this kind of nonsense when you can figure out ways to not do so? If you want an example of what the competition is up to, consider this: Estonia does not tax corporate income. Instead distributions of corporate income, such as dividends, are taxed. If you’ve never visited it, that whole site is worth the trip just to see how truly “progressive” (meaning that they want progress rather than stasis) some places are. (It often occurs to me that we could easily move all our business interests to Estonia – they'd be happy to have us, and our balance sheet would improve instantly.) This kind of stuff usually touches off a nerdy-wonk style arguments about philosophy and macro-level-thought and "fairness" – however, the whole problem isn't philosophical but practical - it just works. Arguing about its philosophy and "fairness" is like arguing about the “fairness” of "F = ma".... Another thing that has to go is the dreadful Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) millstone. The direct effects - much higher costs of complying with the laws - have been much discussed, but we need to worry more about how this blob is messing up the whole system of creating and launching new companies - which is where a disproportionate share of both growth and innovation come from. To put it simply, SOX greatly raises the cost and aggravation associated with taking a company public. Risk capital investments are predicated on the implied return of getting to an "exit" - either an initial public offering (IPO) or a sale of the company. If the IPO window is gummed up, that changes the calculations drastically - the focus has to be put more strongly on "sale of the company" exits (and, believe me, you get a different animal via that route - they tend to be much less innovative and ultimately of much lower potential), or the whole thing never happens in the first place. This is a business form of abortion - all kinds of "children" are eliminated but you never know what you missed (at least specifically - the general crater is discernible some 20 years later). A side-consequence of all this is that more and more of the IPOs and listings are migrating away to London, where the reporting requirements are much more sane. The last thing I'll mention is the need for either repeal or drastic reform of the Williams Act - since it's being (mis-)used in counterproductive ways that were unforeseen at its time of origin. But that’s a bit arcane, so I’ll skip that discussion for now and see if anyone requests it. I’ll just close again by making an appeal to reason. These aren’t philosophical issues of a dorm-room bull session. These are real-life, sharp-sword issues. Given what I see first-hand all over the globe, I’m just asking that we view these things from the perspective not of philosophy, but of competitive analysis. |
|
|
Conservatism as Moral Imperative |
|
|
|
|
Written by r2streu
|
|
Thursday, 08 May 2008 16:13 |
|
This ended up being a sort of free-form, train-of-thought sort of thing. It may end up massively edited... but I wanted to get your opinions on it. Anyway, it's also posted at http://www.independentthinking.tk . Here it is: In July of 2003, a group of Berkely researchers for the American Psychological Association did a study on what makes a Conservative. Rather unsurprisingly, after basing their “research” on the fairly specious definitions to be found in “fifty years of literature,” they basically decided that Conservatives are narrow-minded, bigoted fearmongers by nature or psychology. That Conservatism, in other words, was a pathology rather than a set of values. I’m not going to spend this post dispelling the moronic notions put forth in this five-year-old study; if I recall it was fairly deftly dispatched at the time. But I did come upon this study again the other day, and it got me thinking: why am I conservative? What is it that makes being Conservative make so much sense to me? It is that question I’ll try to answer. I like to tell people I tried being a liberal once, while I was in college. I found out I felt neither guilty for my own position in life, nor entitled to anyone else’s. As glib as this is, there’s also a lot of truth to it — and it cuts to the heart of my position of Conservatism. In contrast to the mainstream (and incorrect) view of Conservatism, I am not judgemental or pessimistic. I’m not wealthy by any financial standard. I’m not distrusting of, nor biased against, those of other races or genders. I’m also not a fan of NASCAR, just to eliminate all stereotypes. Instead, I am something of an optimist. Although I usually consider myself a realist, the fact is, I believe the best is always possible. I’m quick to give my trust (though not as quick to give it back once I’ve been burned), and quick to believe in people. True to stereotype, I am an Evangelical Christian, which goes a long way to explain my concern and, yes, compassion, for my fellow man. All these things are why I am a Conservative. I believe Thomas Jefferson was right when he said, “A man is governed best who is governed least.” I believe man — every human, regardless of race, creed or sex, is capable of providing for himself without help from a government entity. Because of this, I believe every individual ought to be responsible for himself and his own family. Indeed, I believe we function at our best when we are unfettered by government intervention. I don’t believe a man ought to be given special dispensation because of race. Being black is not a handicap, and anyone who thinks it is, is a racist. The same goes for being female. Or gay, for that matter. I believe it is not compassionate to foster dependence upon others. Real compassion, I believe, is in allowing a person to make his own decisions with the same opportunity for reward and consequence as everybody else. I don’t believe compassion is forcing others to provide for anyone — rather, when somebody needs help, compassion is providing for them yourself. I am Conservative, because I believe it is the morally correct position. I believe a man’s thoughts, beliefs and actions (so long as those actions don’t adversely and without permission impede another’s freedoms) are between him and God alone. I don’t believe in telling somebody what they can and can’t do within their own persons or households — with exceptions only for that which would needlessly harm another human being. I also don’t believe in forcing members of society to morally justify or accept those positions in others that they find distasteful or immoral. I am a Conservative because my conscience demands it. Slavery in any form — intellectual, moral, political or physical — is evil. I believe the money a man makes is his money, and that when that money is taxed, it is to be for the purposes outlined in the Constitution — and not for anything else. To do otherwise is to make that man a slave. I am a Conservative because I believe life is precious, and must be protected. I believe humanity is the highest life form on earth, and created after God’s own Image. Therefore, at all costs, human life must be sustained. Finally, I am conservative because I believe it is the job of government — the job we, the People, pay them for — to protect us from those who would do us harm. This is the mandate from the people. This is the only morality of government: to keep the peoples’ trust. To keep us safe. Conservatism is for me, a moral imperative. I am Conservative because it is the way that makes the most sense — from an intellectual level, as well as spiritual. |
|
Written by Hooah Mac
|
|
Saturday, 26 January 2008 14:26 |
|
It’s a time honored rallying cry. Who’s with me! ”I’m going to take that hill if it kills me. Who’s with me?” or “Black diamond hah! I’m skiing it blindfolded, who’s with me?” Those that are reading my posts and emails will notice a continuing theme, as I draw parallels between the battlefield in Iraq and the battlefield of ideas. Some people don’t know that for every soldier kicking in doors in Iraq, there are soldiers to handle his pay, recruit his teammates, take care of his promotions, move his food, fix his humvee, count his bullets, plan his activities, examine the intelligence, provide air support, evacuate his wounded, command his battalion, provide his billeting, train him, test his equipment, keep his radio and other commo functioning…and notify his next of kin. In the current wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, those “support troops” are dying in higher ratios than ever before, because in the GWOT, there isn’t really a front line. Though the weapons and tactics may be different, the war we fight at home is strikingly similar. In both cases there is a bloodthirsty enemy who will stop at nothing to destroy the freedoms and prosperity we enjoy. I put my life on the line in Iraq because I love this country more than I love life itself. Not based on nationalism or regionalism or ethnocentrism, but because of what we have here in America - our Constitution and the unprecedented freedom and prosperity it has provided for us. What good does it do for us to triumph over Islamofascism abroad and lose at home to those who only respect that document insofar as they can use it as a tool to enhance their personal power? My goal now is to fight for this country and its Constitution with the same discipline and determination at home as I have overseas. Fred Thompson went out and kicked down doors. Countless conservatives at all levels of government do the same everyday. Fred Thompson went down because he did not have the support he needed. Even the best soldier in the world (You can tell one of these when you see them - they have a stars and stripes patch on their right shoulder.) can’t fight without support. Instead of being support and logistics for frontline conservatives, we have been mere spectators. I will no longer be associated with the sidelines. Going forward, we must recruit and train, we must perfect the weapons (conservative arguments) we must get those weapons to the troops, and we must provide the logistics and support (contributions and GOTV efforts). I am dedicated to doing just that. I will be posting at hickpolitics.com, and I will be using this site to accomplish these goals. I am an American Soldier. I will always place the mission first. I will never quit. I will never give up. I will never leave a fallen comrade. So I ask the question - Who’s with me? |
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 05 February 2008 15:32 )
|
|
|
Written by haystack
|
|
Wednesday, 30 January 2008 22:49 |
Not typically known for being shy, and pleading guilty to all charges of taking far too long to get the first non-Mac post up, let's begin with a look back to a time and a man and an issue that should SCREAM of analogies easily found in the modern day. Further, consider such a speech as Davey Crockett's and how a Liberal mind might react to it, were such a speech given during deliberations over whether to enact the bill authorizing disbursement of public funds in the shadows, ashes, and dust of the 9/11 attacks: "Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. "Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks." Ask yourselves, as you let that swirl around in your brains, whether "Conservatism" would scoff at such words, or embrace them as the rightly sensible way in which an elected Government should confront such dilemmas in the generations to come. Crockett's position here might never enjoy adulation as an example of "Compassionate Conservatism" but perhaps the conundrum we face in the modern day centers around which of these two words holds the emphasis on the intentions of the phrase. Compassion for the electorate vs. Conservatism as it has come to be defined now: "iving as much as possible to as few as necessary to get elected." That's certainly not what Crockett had in mind when he shared his thoughts with Congress. [h/t Janet for the original Crockett link-she's a fronter at my site and an invitee here] |
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 31 January 2008 05:47 )
|
|
|
|
Who's Online
We have 3 guests online
|
