Friendly banter and witty repartee

MOVING CAPITAL TO SINGAPORE ACT

Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:53 pm

Courtesy guest post by "Gail Wynand" (via email) --

It is currently reported that Obama intends perhaps on Monday, to propose a minimum tax on millionaires, a "Buffet tax," sounding conceptually like a new version of the "alternative minimum tax." It has already been acknowledged that even if enacted into law such proposed minimum tax on the wealthy is not likely to have a significant impact on US tax revenues. It may, however, along with other tax proposals by this administration or as part of current law, have significant economic impacts.

Under the often ignored principle that proposed legislation should be entitled according to its most essential impacts if and when enacted, this new legislative proposal should be called the MOVING CAPITAL TO SINGAPORE ACT.

And the effects will be far worse than a spread sheet calculated loss of anticipated tax revenue. Keynesian economists and adherents are fond of lauding, and spending in advance of occurrence, a supposed multiplier effect as to government expenditures undertaken to stimulate consumer demand. Such a belief is akin to thinking that if one cranks an electric generating device fast enough, more electricity will be created by the stimulative effect beyond the level of increased crank turning effort (a belief that can only be held by one who has never operated an hand cranked generator). On the contrary the evidence is overwhelming that marginal increases in investment are the underpinning of economic growth, including "jobs," and indeed of civilization itself. Marginal investment capital has exponential economic growth impacts when privately directed in a rule of law, private property, freedom to contract, free market, low tax, low regulation environment. By attacking US marginal capital (reserve wealth) -- whether through special taxes, high tax rates, or special regulations -- government impedes capital formation, capital utilization, and growth, and ultimately drives capital to other jurisdictions and or to inactivity.

It is widely accepted that the proposed policy, as with his "American Jobs Act' has little chance of being enacted substantially as proposed. The apparent motive of these proposals (in the case of the AM Jobs ACT a proposal for short term stimulus funded with long term tax increases of precisely the type of high income based taxes that have been resisted and negotiated away three times in less than twelve months) is to provide fodder for a campaign strategy to blunt the current widespread and growing dissatisfaction with Obama's economic leadership. The Obama re-election strategy appears to be an effort to be able to say:

    "Yes, the economy sucks, but you voters would have everything you need if only the bad Republicans would have passed my 'soak the rich' proposals, so it's all their fault and those rich guys that the Republicans are protecting, well you know they are the ones that caused this whole mess."

Time will tell if massive union and trial lawyer money, massive international leftist money -- paid through untraceable small credit card donations -- and mainstream media and cultural propaganda all touting or excusing this cynical message will be enough to keep these radical collectivists and their tyrannical crony socialist policies and associates in power for four more years. If it does succeed, we can be sure that the exponential impacts of the marginal changes in investment will be operating in a negative fashion against the US economy as reserve wealth is moved to safer overseas jurisdictions, but with the certainty that Singapore does not have the structural mass to constitute a long term alternative to a free United States of America, and that while some wealthy individuals may protect themselves by rational action, western civilization will have been put on course for permanent decline.

Re: MOVING CAPITAL TO SINGAPORE ACT

Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:38 pm

Elmo Zoneball wrote:Courtesy guest post by "Gail Wynand" (via email) --

It is currently reported that Obama intends perhaps on Monday, to propose a minimum tax on millionaires, a "Buffet tax," sounding conceptually like a new version of the "alternative minimum tax." It has already been acknowledged that even if enacted into law such proposed minimum tax on the wealthy is not likely to have a significant impact on US tax revenues. It may, however, along with other tax proposals by this administration or as part of current law, have significant economic impacts.

Under the often ignored principle that proposed legislation should be entitled according to its most essential impacts if and when enacted, this new legislative proposal should be called the MOVING CAPITAL TO SINGAPORE ACT.

And the effects will be far worse than a spread sheet calculated loss of anticipated tax revenue. Keynesian economists and adherents are fond of lauding, and spending in advance of occurrence, a supposed multiplier effect as to government expenditures undertaken to stimulate consumer demand. Such a belief is akin to thinking that if one cranks an electric generating device fast enough, more electricity will be created by the stimulative effect beyond the level of increased crank turning effort (a belief that can only be held by one who has never operated an hand cranked generator). On the contrary the evidence is overwhelming that marginal increases in investment are the underpinning of economic growth, including "jobs," and indeed of civilization itself. Marginal investment capital has exponential economic growth impacts when privately directed in a rule of law, private property, freedom to contract, free market, low tax, low regulation environment. By attacking US marginal capital (reserve wealth) -- whether through special taxes, high tax rates, or special regulations -- government impedes capital formation, capital utilization, and growth, and ultimately drives capital to other jurisdictions and or to inactivity.

It is widely accepted that the proposed policy, as with his "American Jobs Act' has little chance of being enacted substantially as proposed. The apparent motive of these proposals (in the case of the AM Jobs ACT a proposal for short term stimulus funded with long term tax increases of precisely the type of high income based taxes that have been resisted and negotiated away three times in less than twelve months) is to provide fodder for a campaign strategy to blunt the current widespread and growing dissatisfaction with Obama's economic leadership. The Obama re-election strategy appears to be an effort to be able to say:

    "Yes, the economy sucks, but you voters would have everything you need if only the bad Republicans would have passed my 'soak the rich' proposals, so it's all their fault and those rich guys that the Republicans are protecting, well you know they are the ones that caused this whole mess."

Time will tell if massive union and trial lawyer money, massive international leftist money -- paid through untraceable small credit card donations -- and mainstream media and cultural propaganda all touting or excusing this cynical message will be enough to keep these radical collectivists and their tyrannical crony socialist policies and associates in power for four more years. If it does succeed, we can be sure that the exponential impacts of the marginal changes in investment will be operating in a negative fashion against the US economy as reserve wealth is moved to safer overseas jurisdictions, but with the certainty that Singapore does not have the structural mass to constitute a long term alternative to a free United States of America, and that while some wealthy individuals may protect themselves by rational action, western civilization will have been put on course for permanent decline.

=D> =D> =D>

Bookmarked.

Full Version