If there’s one thing our titans of industry can’t stand, it’s uncertainty.
We’ve seen that excuse trotted out over and over again to explain why they’re not hiring and why they ought get their way politically.
The Journal goes page one today with a story on the hash that our increasingly sclerotic political system has made of the tax code, which is now packed with temporary provisions at more than twelve times the rate of the late 1990s.
This is oviously inefficient and causes uncertainty for businesses and individuals. But it seems to me that the Journal overplays the case somewhat. For instance:
Now Congress, taking up a deal worked out between the Obama administration and Republican leaders, is poised to turn the whole personal income-tax system into something of a temporary structure. The plan embraces a broad range of provisions—an extension of Bush-era rates, a new estate-tax formula—but for only two years. A payroll-tax cut in the bill is for a single year.
This depends on how temporary “temporary” is. The Bush tax cuts were temporary from the get-go, too—planned to sunset in a decade or less. Moreover: Even if one Congress passes a permanent tax change, the next one can overwrite it if the political winds shift. Remember when Ronald Reagan passed the biggest tax cut in history and then had to scramble the next year to pass the biggest tax hike in history?
The bigger problem here is that the uncertainty thing is something of a Republican trope that gets trotted out by U.S. Chamber of Commerce types to oppose any sort of Democratic policy, including tax issues. Remember all the carping about how financial reform was supposedly killing the economy because of the “uncertainty” the debate caused?
Here’s the Chamber’s house organ in September:
Uncertainty over taxes and regulations is stalling a strong economic recovery and a faster pace of job growth, U.S. Chamber officials said during an annual Labor Day briefing.
Chamber Chief Economist Marty Regalia said that Congress should extend the tax cuts adopted during the Bush administration to calm jittery businesses.
The only uncertainty Big Business had during the Bush administration was just how far the government could bend over backwards for them.
Watch the anti-tax basis of the uncertainty trope reveal itself in consecutive paragraphs of the Journal piece, first implicitly and then explicitly (emphasis mine):
For smaller companies, tax uncertainty could be an incentive to expand overseas rather than in the U.S., according to Tom Duesterberg, president of the Manufacturers Alliance, a group representing medium-size firms. Companies “can’t wait until all these [tax] questions are resolved,” he says. “They are not going to wait until all that definitively happens. They have to deploy cash, please their shareholders and expand and grow.”
Billy Hoffpauir, a developer in Lafayette, La., says he has been trying to sell some real estate because “with the current uncertainty, I am unable to quantify the risk to make long-term investment decisions.” If he finds buyers, he says, he would be likely to plow the cash into “other interests, probably overseas,” because some foreign countries have more favorable taxes and regulations. The tax situation is the overwhelming driver in his business decisions, Mr. Hoffpauir says.
Hmm, my BS detector is flashing red here with Mr. Hoffpauir. It seems much more likely that the market and the down economy are the real issues for just about anybody looking to unload real estate these days—not taxes.