All Posts By

Yanire Guillén

Taxing Billionaires Won’t Reduce Taxes For The Middle Class

By | Finance & Markets | No Comments

Article published in ZeroHedge

In a world of populist policies, the notion of taxing billionaires to alleviate the financial burdens of the middle class stands as a tempting narrative. Advocates tout it as the quintessential solution to income inequality, promising a redistribution of wealth that lifts the masses from their fiscal woes. However, this narrative, so alluring in its simplicity, crumbles upon closer examination, revealing a multitude of complexities and pitfalls that belie its benefits

Central to the fallacy of taxing billionaires lies a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of government spending and deficits. Proponents of this approach often overlook the inconvenient truth that as most governments increase spending even when tax receipts rise, deficits soar to unprecedented heights, burdening future generations with a mountain of debt and always increasing taxes for the middle class.

Taxing the rich is the door that leads to more taxes for all of us. The case of the United States is evident. No tax revenue measure is going to wipe out an annual two trillion dollar deficit. Therefore, the government announces a large tax hike for the wealthy and disguises it with more taxes for everybody and higher inflation, which is a hidden tax.

The notion that taxing billionaires will miraculously alleviate this fiscal strain is akin to applying plaster to a gaping wound—it does not even provide temporary relief, and it fails to address the underlying malaise.

A seminal paper by Alesina, Favero, and Giavazzi (2015) delves into the implications of government deficits on economic growth. The authors argue that persistent deficits not only crowd out private investment but also lead to higher interest rates, reduced confidence, and ultimately diminished economic growth. This underscores the importance of fiscal prudence in addressing long-term fiscal challenges and the evidence that tax hikes are not neutral.

Billionaires mostly hold their wealth in shares of their own companies. This is what is called “paper wealth.” However, they cannot sell those shares and if they lost them, their value would decline immediately.

The redistribution fallacy comes from three false ideas:

  • The first is the notion that billionaires do not pay taxes to begin with. The top one percent of income earners in the United States earned 22 percent of all income and paid 42 percent of all federal income.
  • The second error is believing that wealth is static—like a pie—and can be redistributed at will. Wealth is either created or destroyed. Confiscating the wealth of billionaires does not make the middle class or the poor richer. We should have learned that lesson from the numerous examples in history, from the French Revolution to the Soviet Union.
  • The third mistake is to believe that the economy is a sum-zero game where the wealth of one person is the loss of another. That is simply false because wealth is not “there.” It must be created through an exercise where all parties win in exchange for cooperation.

The world must strive to create more wealth, not limit those who generate it.

Consider the recent clamour for increased government intervention and spending, particularly in the wake of global crises. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted governments all over the world to enact a flurry of fiscal stimuli, ostensibly intended to soften the blow of the economic fallout. Yet, as the dust settles, we find ourselves grappling not only with the immediate ramifications of increased government spending but also with the long-term consequences of ballooning deficits as well as persistent inflation.

Who came out as the loser of the redistribution and stimulus frenzy of the past decade? The middle class. It has been destroyed by persistent inflation created by printing money without control, rising debt and deficits and constantly bloating government size in the economy, which in turn creates two taxes for the middle class and the poor: inflation and rising indirect taxes.

Critics of this approach have long warned of the dangers of irresponsible government spending. Taxing billionaires will not stop this trend of excessive bureaucracy and irresponsible administration of public services; in fact, it may accelerate it, as we have seen in so many countries, and certainly will not reduce the tax wedge on ordinary citizens.

History is replete with cautionary tales of nations brought to their knees by unchecked fiscal excesses. From hyperinflation to sovereign debt crises, the ramifications of fiscal irresponsibility are manifold and far-reaching. And yet, in the face of mounting pressure to “tax the rich,” policymakers seem intent on repeating the mistakes of the past, heedless of the inevitable consequences.

But the fallacy of taxing billionaires extends beyond the realm of fiscal policy—it strikes at the very heart of economic prosperity. At its core, capitalism depends on investment, entrepreneurship, and innovation—all of which are at risk from excessive taxation. The narrative that vilifies billionaires as greedy hoarders of wealth overlooks their crucial role in driving economic growth and prosperity.

By focusing solely on redistributive measures, policymakers risk undermining the very foundations of prosperity upon which our economic system rests

Moreover, the notion that taxing billionaires will somehow level the playing field and uplift the middle class is predicated on a flawed understanding of economic reality. In truth, the global mobility of capital renders such measures largely ineffective, as the ultra-wealthy can easily relocate to jurisdictions with more favourable tax regimes. This not only undermines the efficacy of taxing billionaires as a revenue-generating mechanism but also exacerbates the very inequalities it seeks to redress.

Indeed, the unintended consequences of excessively taxing the rich are manifold and far-reaching. From reduced investment and job creation to economic stagnation and decline, the repercussions of such policies are felt across society. And while the rhetoric of wealth redistribution may sound appealing in theory, the reality is far more sobering—a stagnant economy, diminished opportunities, and a dwindling standard of living for all.

So, where does this leave us? If taxing billionaires is not the panacea it purports to be, what alternatives exist to address income inequality and alleviate the burdens of the middle class? The answer lies not in punitive taxation but in prudent fiscal policy, targeted policies, and a renewed focus on fostering economic growth and prosperity for all.

Primarily, we must recognize that fiscal responsibility is not a luxury but a necessity. Governments must exercise restraint in their spending, prioritize efficiency and accountability, and resist the temptation to paper over fiscal deficits with ill-conceived tax hikes and money printing. Only through disciplined fiscal management can we hope to secure a prosperous future for generations to come.

Second, we must recognize the vital role that entrepreneurship and investment play in driving economic growth and prosperity. Rather than demonizing billionaires as the root of all evil, we should celebrate their contributions to society and create an environment that fosters innovation, entrepreneurship, and wealth creation. This means reducing regulatory barriers, incentivizing investment, and empowering individuals to pursue their entrepreneurial ambitions.

Finally, we must understand that opportunities provided to citizens, not the size of the government, are what define true progress. Rather than relying on the state to solve all our problems, we should empower individuals and communities to chart their own course to prosperity. This means investing in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, providing a safety net for those in need, and fostering a culture of self-reliance and personal responsibility.

In conclusion, the fallacy of taxing billionaires lies not in its intentions but in its execution. While the notion of redistributing wealth may sound appealing in theory, the reality is far more complex. By succumbing to the allure of punitive taxation, we risk stifling economic growth, undermining prosperity, and perpetuating the very inequalities we seek to redress. Only through prudent fiscal management, targeted interventions, and a renewed focus on fostering economic growth can we hope to build a future that is truly prosperous for all.

Socialism does not redistribute from the rich to the poor, but from the middle class to politicians.

The fallacy of massively taxing billionaires is another trick to promote socialism, which has never been about the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, but the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to politicians.

 

Activism Is Destroying A Competitive Energy Transition

By | Oil & Gas, Technology | No Comments

This week, the Biden administration has halted the approval of new licences to export US liquefied natural gas (LNG), a moratorium that is likely to alter billions-dollar projects plans, according to Reuters.

This decision will already mean increased coal consumption in Germany and a global problem in an already tense market such as that of LNG.

However, I would like to quote the New York Times, which explains to us the extremely technical and industrial process that has been used to make such a decision.

Quote: “Before the decision, White House climate advisers met with activists such as Alex Haraus, a 25-year-old Colorado social media influencer who led a TikTok and Instagram campaign to urge young voters to demand that Biden reject the project”; Fascinating.

This is just one example of a larger problem. Stupidity reigns in the world of energy policy.

In the hands of sectarians

We live in a time when a bunch of sectarians who don’t understand anything about industry, energy and competitiveness influence populist politicians who make decisions without the slightest knowledge by assigning a kind of “ideology” to energy sources without understanding the complex chains that facilitate the transition.

We live in a world where a sixteen-year-old climate activist captured the minds of politicians by traveling from the UK to America by boat to avoid pollution only to send the crew by plane to bring the boat back.

We are in the hands of sectarians who think that solar and wind power are manufactured with dreams and installed by singing John Lennon songs

Even in China, they hallucinate with a West that wants competitive, cheap, abundant, and environmentally friendly energy, but refuses to mine rare earths, lithium, and prefers to slow down its decarbonization process and burn coal rather than develop renewable fuels or use natural gas or nuclear energy, which is essential for a competitive energy transition.

In fact, we are in the hands of sectarians who think that solar and wind power are manufactured with dreams and installed by singing John Lennon songs.

I don’t care if this group of disoriented people has good intentions. Hell is full of good intentions. What worries me is that political leaders will destroy any capacity to strengthen the energy industry using rationality.

The combination of arrogance and ignorance

Why do they do that? Because they do not suffer the consequences and because they only use the excuse of climate change and energy transition to impose restrictions on citizens and limit the freedom of individuals.

Activists know that their actions generate more negative effects than positive ones, and that they are threatening security of supply and a competitive transition, but they do not care because their objective is to impose on us supply restrictions and demand destruction while politicians fly private to inform us that coffee drinking is bad for climate. You and I care about the environment, they care about control and repression.

The combination of arrogance and ignorance is expensive and does not accelerate investment and technological development, but rather slows them down

Instead of listening to the companies and engineers, who are the ones who invest and solve the problems that the decarbonization process entails, they are penalised, insulted, and given the power of decision to people who believe that our future should be to return to the prehistoric era (it is not a joke) while flying in private jets announcing the climate emergency.

Anyone would understand that if we want to advance technology, energy independence and at the same time ensure affordable and continuous supply, we need to facilitate investment, provide companies with a stable and predictable regulation, taxation and legal framework, and maximize the return on investments already made as we develop all the technologies that will help us as new forms of storage, production and transmission become industrially viable.

You may believe that thanks to activism, progress is being made in the energy transition.

The reality is that activism has made coal, which had almost disappeared from the energy matrix, to return to Europe with a vengeance, and on the way they have achieved higher consumer tariffs. Socialism always destroys what it pretends to protect.

 

Massive Money Printing Will Accelerate as Debt Soars

By | Finance & Markets | No Comments

The U.S. federal government published a December deficit of $129 billion, up 52% from the previous year. The private sector recession is clear as expenses continue to rise while tax receipts decline. If we look at the period between October and December 2023, the deficit ballooned to a staggering $510 billion.

You may remember that the Biden administration expected a significant deficit reduction from its tax increases and the expected benefits of its Inflation Reduction Act.

What Americans got was a massive deficit and persistent inflation. According to Moody’s chief economist, Mark Zendi, the entire disinflation process seen in the past years comes from exogenous factors such as “fading fallout from the global pandemic on global supply chains and labor markets, and the Russian War in Ukraine and the impact on oil, food, and other commodity prices.” The complete disinflation trend follows the slump in money supply (M2), but the Consumer Price Index (CPI) should have fallen faster if deficit spending, which means more consumption of newly created currency, would have been under control. December was disappointing and higher than it should have been.

The United States annual CPI (+3.4%) came above estimates, proving that the recent bounce in money supply and rising deficit spending continue to erode the purchasing power of the currency and that the base effect generated too much optimism in the past two prints. Most prices rose in December, and only four items fell. In fact, despite a large decline in energy prices, annual services (+5.3%), shelter (+6.2%), and transportation services (+9.7%) continue to show the extent of the inflation problem

The massive deficit means more taxes, more inflation, and lower growth in the future.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects an unsustainable path that still leaves a 5.0% deficit by 2027, growing every year to reach a massive 10.0% of GDP in 2053 due to a much faster growth in spending than in revenues. The enormous increase in debt will also lead to extremely poor growth, with real GDP rising much slower throughout the 2023–2053 period than it has, on average, “over the past 30 years.”

Deficits are not a tool for growth; they are tools for stagnation.

Deficits mean that the currency’s purchasing power will continue to vanish with money printing and that the real disposable income of Americans will be demolished with a combination of higher taxes and a weaker real value of their wages and deposit savings.

We must remember that, in Biden’s administration’s own estimates, the accumulated deficit will reach $14 trillion in the period to 2032.

This unsustainable level of fiscal irresponsibility will also lead to more massive money printing. The Federal Reserve will have to lead with larger federal fiscal imbalances than seen in crisis times, even considering estimates that assume no recession or crisis. So, if a crisis hits, the situation will simply explode.

 

Navigating the Economic Landscape in 2024

By | Finance & Markets | No Comments

Article originally published in Tomorrow’s Affairs

As we embark on the year 2024, the economic landscape is characterized by a blend of factors, including declining but still elevated inflation, potential interest rate cuts, increasing geopolitical risks, and soaring public debt.

The final quarter of 2023 witnessed a remarkable improvement in market sentiment. The moderation of inflation, strong corporate profits that exceeded expectations, and optimism regarding impending rate cuts all contributed to this surge.

The heightened complacency, evident in the “extreme greed” levels on the CNN Greed and Fear Index, resulted from aggressive rate reduction expectations by central banks and projections of a swift decline in inflation. However, as we move into 2024, parallels with the preceding year become apparent.

Contrary to market expectations, a “soft landing” is not enough to bring about the anticipated year of disinflation; a recession is the necessary catalyst.

An abrupt increase in the global money supply, standing at nearly $107 trillion by the end of the year, remained a bulwark against a recession in 2023, coupled with relentless government spending.

A lag effect

The contrast between alleged tight monetary policy and active fiscal measures has placed the entire negative impact on the private sector, bearing the brunt of rate hikes and declining monetary aggregates.

A manufacturing sector that remains in deep contraction is joined by a services sector that sees how consumers have almost depleted their savings for 2021.

Although inflation declined alongside monetary aggregates, the economic repercussions have been delayed due to a lag effect.

The full-scale impact of the 2023 monetary contraction is expected to manifest in 2024

The full-scale impact of the 2023 monetary contraction is expected to manifest in 2024, leading to a decline in inflation if the economy falters and private sector demand recedes.

However, the notion of a quick slump in inflation with no impact on growth or jobs appears increasingly implausible. Additionally, a looser monetary policy may contribute to commodities rebounding, attracting freshly printed money towards unconventional assets, and making the inflation decline more challenging.

The impact of debt and public spending remains a critical consideration. Will central banks uphold market support? How will taxes and macroeconomic factors shape the global economy? These questions underscore the delicate balance between recovery and potential risks.

A year of stagnation

In 2024, a prudent investment policy is recommended. Central banks are expected to maintain accommodative policies, injecting liquidity selectively. However, anticipated interest rate reductions may not be as significant as expected.

The global economy enters 2024 with less uncertainty. Geopolitical risks seem to have been discounted, and this may be a sign of excessive optimism in a year where global growth is projected to slow markedly, while the Eurozone and Latin America may continue to show worse growth than their counterparts.

2024 will likely be a year of stagnation with elevated public debt

Strong China and India growth will not likely change the weak trend of productivity and growth generated in most developed and emerging economies after years of debt-fueled government spending programs.

2024 will likely be a year of stagnation with elevated public debt. Thus, the expected quantitative tightening is likely to be less severe with a rising global money supply and improved credit conditions.

A risky environment for fiat currencies is anticipated, with ongoing destruction of the purchasing power of the domestic currencies as governments continue to increase their fiscal imbalances.

Gold and bitcoin may help citizens avoid the debasement of currencies without ignoring the large difference in volatility of each asset class.

Global loss of purchasing power is likely to continue even with declining annual rates of rise in consumer prices, with expected global inflation between 3.5% and 4%

Expectations of large rate cuts and even quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve may be too optimistic. In a U.S. election year, substantial changes in monetary policy are not anticipated.

As such, global demand for dollars is expected to rise, creating a favorable environment for dollar-denominated assets.

Numerous risks cast shadows on the economic horizon, including more persistent inflation, unanticipated impacts on business margin and profits, potential currency depreciation in emerging markets, the ongoing China-USA trade conflict, the war in Ukraine and Israel generating widespread geopolitical risk, and the spectre of a black swan event in the debt market causing a credit crunch.

2024 is likely to be very similar to 2023. The long-term trends of weak productivity and GDP growth, high debt, rising government size in major economies, increases in taxes, and erosion of the purchasing power of salaries and savings will continue.

Equities may react positively to looser monetary policy, but the macroeconomic path to stagnation remains.