Archive for the ‘corporate privilege’ Category

Yes, LVT falls on the rich

In case anyone doubted it, Bloomberg reports that real estate prices in vacation areas favored by the wealthy, such as Mount Desert ME and the Hamptons on Long Island, continue to rise even as prices generally have dropped.  And, yes, these are land prices, not house prices:

[B]illionaire Mitchell Rales bought a $5.5 million estate and tore it down to build a $25 million mansion

The only specific figure given for the wealthy enclaves is a rise of 14% in Southhampton, and the period to which this applies isn’t specified.

One hopes that local assessors are closely monitoring and responding to these trends.

Banksters vs. Patent Holders

The Capitol Hill site Roll Call reports that a proposed bill would make it harder for holders of “business process patents” to sue banks which they claim are infringing.  Frankly I do not understand the details, what a “government review of the patent’s validity” means, since I thought patent examiners review all applications before a patent is granted.  An opposing lobbyist is quoted as saying “This is nothing less than an earmark for big banks disguised as a new government program.”  One presumes that bank lobbyists have something equally cogent to say, but somehow that didn’t get into the article.

Unfortunately, it seems very unlikely that both sides could lose this one.

New horizons in corporate subsidies

I thought it was a scandal when, years ago,  businesses were given subsidies– free money– in exchange for doing the community the favor of employing people.  I thought it was a bigger scandal when retailers were allowed to retain sales taxes, paid by their customers, to pay for capital equipment used in their business. I thought it was about the biggest possible scandal when (more…)

Inside Job gets outside

Prize-winning documentary Inside Job was posted for free download at archive.org a few days ago.  It was withdrawn late yesterday or this morning, but in the interim I had a chance to watch it. It was pretty much as I expected: A very well-documented expose of the forces which brought down the world economy, emphasizing that they have been rewarded, not punished, for doing so, and essentially escaped prosecution (some paid fines amounting to a small part of their takings.)  It’s well put together, director Charles Ferguson seems to be a skilled and persistent interviewer, getting on-camera answers even from some of the guilty parties.  Ominous music reflects our ominous economic future, lots of shots showing the Manhattan skyline, other centers of wealth, as well as foreclosed houses and abandoned developments.

As a documentary with a point of view, this film says “The guys who drove us off this cliff and unpunished and still in charge,” which might lead one to suppose that, if only they could be caught and punished, perhaps our long-term future would become brighter.  These guys own the government, of course, so exactly how a prosecution would work isn’t clear.  Elliott Spitzer’s experience, reported in the movie, does not make one optimistic.

The problem, as I see it, is that Inside Job doesn’t tell the story from the beginning.  I would represent the principal causes of the global financial crisis as the five connected items below

5  Regulatory capture and control of the government

4  Concentration of financial power

3  Securitization

2 Loans against capitalized rent

1  Private collection of economic rent

 

IJ describes 5 quite well, addresses 3 and 4, but doesn’t get into the fundamentals.  As long as, and to the extent that, we have private collection of economic rent, we will continue to suffer from economic crashes.  Inside Job needs a prequel explaining the root cause of the problem.

Carbon trading speculators don’t want to lose money…

… so consultants Accenture have recommended that permits be withdrawn as needed to prevent prices from declining. (The stated purpose is that a higher price encourages investment in “decarbonization.”)

Lambert’s Law of Rent

“All rents tend toward fraud”

Lambert has proposed this as “Lambert’s Law,” but since there appears to already be a “Lambert’s Law” in the field of physics, we could name this one “Lambert’s Law of Rent.”  Based on, tho not directly derived from, the Law of Rent.

Lambert goes on to assert that “a parasitic class of rent-seekers has paralyzed and hollowed out the economy,” which sounds correct to me.  Lambert’s post (which actually is not about economic rent) is here.

The logical conclusion, of course, is that public policy should seek to collect for the benefit of the community those rents that cannot be eliminated.

Just because they’re “Nobel” prize winners doesn’t mean they’re wrong

Washington’s blog says:

Virtually all independent financial experts say the size of the big banks is hurting the economy

and fortunately George Washington been keeping (documented) count.  It’s a total of 30 (mostly individuals but including a few coherent small groups), of which at least three have received the “Nobel” prize.

So why does “the market” cause such large banks to exist? Perhaps because correlates of bank size include political influence and chief executive salary.

Income tax rates don’t matter

Lots of discussion lately about income tax rates, pointing out that individuals reporting high incomes once were subject to marginal federal rates in excess of 90%, whereas today that rate never exceeds 35%.  And corporate incomes face federal tax rates of 39.3%, higher than most other countries. Various ignorant or deceptive interests use these figures to make all kinds of arguments, such as that America’s rich are undertaxed, or American corporations are overtaxed.

But the secret, that all lobbyists know, is that income tax rates don’t much matter.  When wealthy Americans were subject to 90% taxes, they didn’t really have to pay them.  Instead, accountants and lawyers and various other shysters put together all kinds of partnerships, trusts, and other mostly imaginary constructs, which were used to legally hide or redefine income into something else.  It was a bother and an expense, but way cheaper than paying taxes.

As for corporations, they have all kinds of manipulations available to reduce their taxes, as I discussed two months ago.  (If individuals figured their taxable income the way that corporations do, we could deduct all our expenses for food, clothing, medical treatment, and practically everything else).  If a few corporations appear to pay taxes in excess of the federal rate, it is due to state income taxes, local real estate taxes, other nonincome taxes, or special circumstances.

What brings all this to mind is this post, which provides two nice examples to illustrate my point.  Read them if you have the patience, but the basic point is that corporations are able to entice many very intelligent, experienced people to devise ways to avoid taxes that legislators intend (or at least pretend to intend) to impose.  They are opposed by many very intelligent, somewhat less experienced (and less well-compensated) people employed by IRS and other agencies, many of whom hope in the future to be employed by the corporations.  The net result of taxing incomes, especially corporate incomes, is that many of the most intelligent and creative people, who might be providing goods or services that people need or want, are instead playing word-games with each other.

I would appreciate if someone would explain to me how a land value tax could possibly waste 1/10th of the brainpower absorbed by this useless, destructive system.

Car plague and bankster plague intersect

I have long tried to avoid any dealings with the various tentacles of Chase Morgan Stanley, figuring somehow or other I would be injured by them.  Apparently, at least in Colorado, some (or all?) of their staff are exempt from prosecution for assault.  Google finds only two reports, one from the UK Daily Mail , one from the Vail Daily, local to the event.

In case these links disappear, the first three sentences from the Daily Mail story give a pretty good summary.

A financial manager for wealthy clients will not face charges for a hit-and-run because it could jeopardise his job, it has been revealed. Martin Joel Erzinger, 52, was set to face felony charges for running over a doctor who he hit from behind in his 2010 Mercedes Benz, and then speeding off. But now he will simply face two misdemeanour traffic charges from the July 3 incident in Eagle, Colorado.

And from the Daily Vail:

Erzinger, an Arrowhead homeowner, is a director in private wealth management at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney in Denver. His biography on Worth.com states that Erzinger is “dedicated to ultra high net worth individuals, their families and foundations.”

Erzinger manages more than $1 billion in assets. He would have to publicly disclose any felony charge within 30 days, according to North American Securities Dealers regulations.

The decision to drop felony charges was made by the local prosecutor, over the victim’s objections.  One infers from the articles that the Erzinger will pay some monetary restitution.

More details from the Daily Vail:

Erzinger drove all the way through Avon, the town’s roundabouts, under I-70 and stopped in the Pizza Hut parking lot where he called the Mercedes auto assistance service to report damage to his vehicle, and asked that his car be towed, records show. He did not ask for law enforcement assistance, according to court records.

Erzinger told police he was unaware he had hit Milo, court documents say….

Meanwhile another motorist, Steven Lay of Eagle, stopped to help Milo and called 911.

It appears that neither the perpetrator nor the victim is British, so it’s kind of curious why the Daily Mail covered this.  Or maybe more curious why only one paper in North America did.

ht Naked Capitalism

Corporate income tax is evil

We know that because “Don’t be evil” Google pays almost no corporate income tax.   This Bloomberg/Business Week article outlines how they do it.  It involves Dutch, Irish, and Bermudan subsidiaries, and is apparently quite legal.  In addition to playing international transfer-pricing games, of course, corporations can take advantage of various incentives and loopholes built into or discovered in the tax code.

Naturally, I am mentioning this to point out that a land value tax cannot be avoided, as long as land transaction, description, and payment records are public. (And, I might add, as long as there are some reasonably free news media, and some members of the public who pay at least a little bit of attention.) There is never any question as to which jursidiction land is in, and there is no need for incentives to attact land.

'
I support the OCCUPY movement