Quantcast
Real Crash 2014
tax
Draghi Hits Savers To Salvage Faux Recovery
Posted by Peter Schiff on 06/18/2014 at 2:20 PM
On June 5th, Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank (ECB), announced a package of measures, including a policy of negative interest rates, aimed at encouraging or even forcing Eurozone banks to increase their lending to businesses.Although previously imposed by Swiss banks on their depositors, this will be the first time that a central bank has charged negative interest rates. The package also contained a reduction in Base Rate, a further major new Long Term Refinancing Operation (LTRO), a reaffirmation of 'Forward Guidance' to indicate low interest rates for the foreseeable future, and hints that the ECB might in future engage in Bernanke-style Quantitative Easing (QE).
 
Taken together, the total package is manna from heaven, or money for nothing, for the neo-Keynesians now holding power in most Eurozone governments. However, to Austrian School economists, it amounts to a political acceptance by Germany of a further postponement of the price of economic reality. It raises the eventual price to be paid in future for the illusion of economic growth today. In the meantime, the package likely will discourage savings, while perhaps encouraging imprudent lending, mal-investment, an asset price boom and currency distortions due to a carry trade based on low cost euros.
 
Stock markets rose strongly on Draghi's news. Amazingly, the 2.58 percent yield on 10-year Spanish government bonds fell below that of 10-year U.S. Treasuries. Given the continued structural problems that plague the Spanish economy, this fact indicates persistent delusions in markets.
 
It is hoped that charging a negative interest rate of 0.10 percent on bank deposits with the ECB will encourage banks to lend their excess deposits to other banks (in the interbank market) or to lend to corporate or retail borrowers. It is a desperate measure to force banks to take more risks. One of the unforeseen results may be the further development of the so-called "carry trade."
 
Given the relatively low cost of borrowing euros vis-à-vis other currencies, many investors could be tempted to borrow euros to purchase higher yielding currency (either for an interest rate spread or to use the newly raised funds to invest in the host country). For example, an investor may borrow euros, exchange them for British Pounds and invest the proceeds in the London property market, inflating further what the Bank of England has warned is a dangerous property bubble. In addition, upwards pressure is exerted on Sterling rendering British exports less price competitive. Of course, this suits Eurozone members such as Germany.
 
Although Draghi's decision to drop the interest rates on the ECB's  massive 400 billion euros Long Term Refinancing Operation (LTRO)has received less publicity, its impact may be just as great. The lower LTRO rate may encourage further risky lending and dubious investment. In the short-term such lending will conceal current bad loans, boost speculation and financial markets. The future costs of default likely will be socialized. But, by then, it is to be hoped that those bankers and politicians responsible will have been promoted or moved on!
 
In addition, the continuation of ultra low interest rates, under QE, will erode savings further and even discourage the ethos of saving in favor of current spending. The discouragement of saving in favor of current synthetic growth appears to be politically deceptive and deeply destructive of a healthy economy.
 
Furthermore, some would argue that, with bond markets at record highs, most banks are at far greater risk than appears at first sight. Already, Eurozone banks are far more highly leveraged than their American counterparts. As such, they are especially vulnerable to a dramatic rise in interest rates and a collapse in government bond prices.
 
Mario Draghi is acknowledged widely for his PR ability. However, more prudent observers see him more as a conjuror. While his policies have not attracted as many headlines as the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing program, the full roster of the ECB's liquidity injectors is perhaps more  injurious to economic growth. Draghi has joined and even exceeded the central bank 'monopoly money' policies of the United States, Great Britain and Japan.
 
It's a shame. The ECB could have been a beacon of sanity in an otherwise insane world.  
 
John Browne is a Senior Economic Consultant to Euro Pacific Capital. Opinions expressed are those of the writer, and may or may not reflect those held by Euro Pacific Capital, or its CEO, Peter Schiff.
 
Subscribe to Euro Pacific's Weekly Digest: Receive all commentaries by Peter Schiff, John Browne, and other Euro Pacific commentators delivered to your inbox every Monday!
 
Order a copy of Peter Schiff's updated illustrated economic parable he co-wrote with his brother Andrew, How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes - Collector's Edition, and save yourself 32%!






Tags:  ECBfederal income taxincome taxtaxtaxes
PERMALINK | ADD YOUR COMMENT | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
Irwin Schiff's motion to the Supreme Court.
Posted by Peter Schiff on 06/16/2014 at 1:00 PM

My father makes a powerful case that the IRS has been collecting the income tax in violation of law, multiple Supreme Court decisions, and the U.S. Constitution.    At the very least his efforts provide compelling evidence of the sincerity with which he holds his beliefs and that his conduct was in no way criminal.   My father is 86, practically blind, in failing health, yet is still fighting for a cause he wholeheartedly believes in.  He is proceeding without a lawyer and despite his physical limitations and the limited computer access provided in federal prisons, he still managed to put this comprehensive motion together.   Read it yourself and share it with as many people as you can.  My father would appreciate your assistance in making sure that his message is heard.   Even if the courts ignore it, let's try and make sure that the American people do not.    Thanks for your help. 

 





Tags:  federal income taxincome taxIRSIrwin Schifftaxtaxes
PERMALINK | ADD YOUR COMMENT | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
Supreme Error
Posted by Peter Schiff on 07/03/2012 at 10:09 AM
In the wake of my last commentary on the horrendous Supreme Court decision upholding Obama’s health care plan, several people have pointed out that I erred in saying that the income tax is a “direct tax.” While it is technically correct that the Court ultimately declared it to be an excise, not a direct tax, it is important to understand how it arrived at that opinion and why the decision has no practical relevance to the way the tax has been enforced.   Just as it has done with Obamacare, the Court concocted a technically constitutional pathway to allow the government to collect a tax in a blatantly unconstitutional manner.

In the 1895 Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust case, the Supreme Court declared the original Income Tax of 1894 unconstitutional because it imposed a direct tax that was not apportioned to the states according to the taxing provisions of the Constitution. For example it said that a tax on rental income is the same as direct tax on the property that produced the income.  In other words, a tax on income was tantamount to a tax on its source.

To get around this, in 1913 Congress passed, and the state governments ratified, the 16th Amendment that authorized a tax on income from whatever source derived without regard to apportionment.    However, in 1916 the Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road that the Amendment “conferred no new taxing power to the Federal government,” and that it “contained nothing challenging or repudiated its ruling in the Pollock case.”  Instead, the Court said that in order to be constitutionally taxed as an excise, income must first be separated from its source.  A few years later in Eisner v. Macomber (1918) and Merchants Loan and Trust v. Smietanka (1921) the Court provided a practical guide to doing just that, by defining income, for purposes of the Sixteenth Amendment, as a corporate profit.

A corporation determines profit by subtracting its expenses from its income. The difference, called profit, could then be subject to an income tax.  So if a corporation has rental income, but derives no profit after backing out all of its expenses, then the rents, and therefore the property, are not taxed.  In that respect, the income is separated from the sources that produced it.  Were it not for this separation, a tax on rents, dividends, fees, etc. would be a direct tax on the sources of income, as described by Pollock, Brushaber, Eisner and Smietanka.  That is why many U.S. corporations can have billions of dollars of income but pay no tax, because they derive no profits from that income.  This proves the income tax is, in reality, a profits tax.  The problem is that the modern income tax is not merely being levied as an excise tax on corporate profits, but as an unapportioned direct tax on the personal income of every American.    This is precisely what the Supreme Court has repeatedly held to be unconstitutional.   Yet lower courts have serially ignored the reasoning behind these Supreme Court decisions and have allowed the Federal Government to impose a tax in the precise manner that the Supreme Court ruled it lacked the constitutional authority to do.

The Founding Fathers made it difficult for Congress to levy direct taxes because they considered the more easily avoidable excise taxes to be self-correcting as to abuse.  They also wanted to make it more difficult for poorer states to vote for taxes that would be paid disproportionately by wealthier states.  As a result, they believed that during peacetime the Federal Government would rely primarily on excise taxes and would resort to direct taxes mainly during wartime.

To levy an apportioned direct tax on personal income, Congress would first have to decide how much it wanted to raise and then assign each state its pro-rata share. So a $1 trillion dollar income tax would require Mississippi and Connecticut (each with about 1% of the U.S. population) to pay about $10 billion. However since per capita income in Connecticut is 80% higher than it is in Mississippi, federal income tax rates in Mississippi would have to be 80% higher than the rates in Connecticut.  This makes it less likely that Mississippi would support such a tax. But given the way the income tax is currently enforced, Mississippi happily votes for levies that fall predominately on residents of wealthier states. This is precisely what the Constitution was written to prevent.

Just as a tax on land based solely on its rental income is the same as a direct tax on the land itself, a tax on individuals based solely on their decision not to buy health insurance is a direct tax on individuals.  To get around this, Chief Justice Roberts ruled that the new healthcare tax is indirect because not everyone will have to pay it. However, the percentage of people ultimately subject to a tax does not determine into which category it falls.  Less than two percent of Americans were subject to the original income tax, yet the court still viewed it as a direct tax.

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court has a history of giving the government latitude to get around the Constitution.  Instead of looking at the intent of legislation (even when the legislators are alive to be asked), or even its practical effect, the Court looks for any legal technicality upon which to base a ruling of constitutionality.  That is what happened with the income tax, and is now occurring with the Affordable Care Act.  Had the Supreme Court been more forthright with the income tax, the country would not now be suffering from a destructive and pervasive tax that was originally intended to be a small levy targeted only at the top 1% of American earners.

Remember, the Court’s sole rationale for ruling the exactions in the Affordable Care Act are taxes rather than penalties was its belief that the taxes are too low to actually compel anyone to buy health insurance.   This made it consistent with the Court's view that Congress lacks the authority, under the commerce clause, to compel Americans to buy health insurance.   If the Court believed that the tax was actually high enough to leave Americans with no rational choice, Roberts would have ruled it unconstitutional .

The observation that the penalty is too low to work may be the one thing the Court actually got right. However, once the government realizes that it has underpriced the fines, it will certainly raise the tax rate substantially to stop healthy people from rationally dropping their coverage (because insurance companies could not deny them similarly priced coverage after they got sick).   Just as they routinely do now with respect to the income taxes, the lower courts will likely misinterpret the Supreme Court’s ruling and rubber stamp any future rate hikes.  For political reasons it is unlikely that a Constitutional challenge to such an increase will ever make it back up to the Supreme Court.

This leaves us few good options. Unless Congress repeals the legislation quickly we will likely have to live with it for a long, long time. Sadly, despite the Romney and the Republicans’ promises to do just that with election victories this fall, there is virtually no precedent for government giving up a power that it has fought to take. In the end Americans will be forced to purchase health insurance in the manner the Supreme Court just ruled to be unconstitutional.


Tags:  Constitutionobamacaresupreme courttax
PERMALINK | ADD YOUR COMMENT | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
Don't be Fooled by Political Posturing
Posted by Peter Schiff on 07/08/2011 at 1:02 PM

As attention focuses intently on the negotiations to raise the debt ceiling, House Republicans have made a great show of drawing a line in the fiscal sand. They claim that they will not vote for any deal that includes tax increases to narrow the budget deficit. But we all know how the game works in Washington. With the 2012 elections looming the Republican bluster is merely a bargaining chip that they will quickly toss into the pot when they sense a political victory. In fact there are signs that such a compromise is already underway.

 

House Republicans already have the power to avoid tax hikes and force significant spending cuts. All they have to do is refuse to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances. That's it. At that point the only discussion would be where to find spending to cut.

 

But Republicans want to raise the debt ceiling just as much as Democrats, they just want to gain political advantage in the process. They have widely accepted the Democrat stalking horse that a failure to raise the ceiling will lead directly to economic Armageddon. No party wants to be held responsible for such an outcome. Even if the expected Armageddon does not come, the Republicans will be blamed for any problems that follow a no vote on the increase, regardless of the true cause. As a deal is in everyone's political interest, I am convinced it will happen.

 

When it comes, it will be structured in a way that allows both sides to claim victory. Each side will praise the other for putting politics aside and having the courage to work together for the American people. They will announce some kind of ten-year deficit reduction plan, with a seemingly large multi-trillion dollar headline number. However, you can be sure that no real spending cuts will take effect in the early years of the plan. All the real action will be scheduled for the later years of the current decade and beyond.

 

But as in all such plans, actions slotted for distant time horizons have minimal likelihoods of occurring. Unexpected developments (and in Washington all developments are unexpected) always reshuffle priorities. The plan will surely rely on rosy economic assumptions that exaggerate growth forecasts and understate the growth of government expenditures. When reality intervenes, and the assumed deficit reductions never materialize, and the economy continues to stagnate, look for Congress to pass emergency legislation that cancels all bets.

 

The compromise handed down in a few weeks will also likely include the elimination of tax provisions that the left have described as giveaways to businesses. For instance, Democrats will likely get their way about eliminating the "tax breaks" used by corporate jet owners. Expect the depreciation schedule for these aircraft to be lengthened from the current five years to the seven years that is mandated for planes owned by commercial airlines. While the revenue raised by such a move will be trivial, the rhetoric is far more important. And in this case the rhetoric is dead wrong.

 

There are no subsidies for corporate jet owners. The fact that corporations are forced to depreciate jets over a period of five years, rather than being able to fully deduct the expenditure immediately, is not a subsidy but a penalty. Just because commercial airlines are penalized more does not mean other corporations are getting a subsidy.

 

Republicans are also likely to cave on higher taxes on the rich. Some of these increases will be disguised as merely closing loopholes and others will just impose income caps on deductions. But do not be fooled. Some of these moves will bite deeply on the engines of our economy and make it even more difficult to run a profitable business in this country.

 

The new political spin echoed in Democrat talking points in coast to coast is that the rich are paying the lowest taxes since 1950. The bogus statistic results from the meaningless fact that federal tax revenues currently "only" constitute 16% of GDP. However this figure is rendered meaningless when considering the inflated nature of today's GDP figures, and the exclusion of rising state and local taxes. When it comes to tax burdens, GDP means nothing.  What counts is what percentage of income taxpayers actually fork over. Those numbers tell a different tale.

 

Today a married couple with a combined income of $250,000 (assuming each spouse earns 125,000) will pay about 40% of their combined incomes in Social Security, Medicare, and federal taxes, if they take the standard deduction. (I have included as part of their incomes and taxes the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid on their behalf by their employers - which in reality are borne by the employee anyway. I then added that figure to their incomes, and divided the total tax paid by that higher income. I did not factor in this year's one time 2% payroll tax holiday.)

 

Compare that to a household in 1950 that earned $25,000 per year (the approximate equivalent to $250,000 today). Assuming all the income was earned by the husband, which was the norm at the time, the total tax take using the standard deduction and including both the employee and employer social security taxes, would have been just below 22%. In other words, despite claims that taxes are at their lowest levels in 50 years, today's high earning couple pays over 80% more in federal taxes than their 1950 counterpart!

 

My guess however is that the real difference is even greater. In both instances I used the standard deductions to arrive at taxable income. But the 1950 code was far more generous than the current code in its allowances for tax shelters. As a result, my guess is that the typical couple making itemized deductions in 1950 paid less than half the amount of their modern equivalent. Of course back then there were also far fewer states imposing their own income taxes, and those that did generally had much lower rates than what prevails today. Local sales and property taxes were also lower.

 

It is interesting to note that about 45% of the total federal tax paid by this modern couple went to Social Security and Medicare. In 1950, Social Security represented less than 1.5% of their total federal tax (Medicare did not yet exist). If you just compare income taxes alone, the modern couple pays 24% in tax and the 1950s couple paid about 21.5%. It is no accident that advocates for higher taxes fail to mention this issue.

 

The debt problem does not stem from low taxes, but from high spending. I do not expect a deal to lift the debt limit will make any meaningful impact on either. Unfortunately both taxes and spending are likely to head higher in the years ahead. Americans should prepare for the sad reality.



Tags:  debt ceilingdeficitstax
PERMALINK | ADD YOUR COMMENT | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
Five Bitter Pills or One Sweet but Deadly?
Posted by Michael Pento on 11/03/2010 at 10:35 AM

It seems the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve is of the belief that diluting the dollar is the cure for everything from a recession to male pattern baldness. And like other snake-oil salesmen before him, Mr. Bernanke is heavy on promises and light on results. Here are five prescriptions that money printing can't fulfill:

  1. Lower the corporate tax rate. The US corporate tax rate is the second highest in the developed world, after Japan. Lowering this tax would help American businesses compete with foreign corporations and unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of our workforce. In addition, lowering taxes on capital goods purchases and retained earnings would also encourage expansion projects, new hiring, and therefore general business development.
  2. Reduce crippling regulations. There isn’t a much better example of the current environment of excessive red tape than the number of “Czars” running around the White House: 28, at last count. Ronald Reagan had just one. These sub-cabinet level offices simply advise the President on how to further fetter American businesses and launch umpteen “independent probes” every time an issue comes up. But even officials not given the Imperial Russian title are busy making life hell for small- and medium-sized businesses because there is too much power in Washington.
  3. Learn to compete with foreign workers. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, and mandated benefits and regulations add even more to the cost of employment. We need to repeal these laws and allow wages to adjust freely to market conditions. Initially, incomes may drop, but if we also lower taxes while reducing the rate of inflation, workers' real disposable income may actually increase. Meanwhile, as our economy's underlying strength is rebuilt, American workers will finally be able to compete with foreign workers on a level playing field. If we ignore these reforms, high-quality jobs will continue to flow overseas.
  4. Improve America’s educational system. According to a recent report put out by the National Academies of Science and Engineering, the US ranks 21st in science and 25th in math out of 30 industrialized nations. And, according to the World Economic Forum, the United States' K-12 education system now ranks 48th in the world. How can our workers compete in the 21st century without the necessary technological skills to fill highly paid positions? We need to dramatically reform our public educational system by injecting a massive dose of free markets into the mix. Whether this involves charter schools, private schools, vouchers, or a combination, public schools must be forced to compete for students and funding. If consumers were given a true choice by offering tax credits to those parents that opt-out of the public system, it would go a long way towards establishing an environment that purges mediocrity and rewards excellence.
  5. Balance the federal budgets. Balancing a budget simply means spending only what you take in as revenue. If we were to adopt that simply strategy, it would ensure that: tax rates would never have to rise sharply just to service debt, the Fed would never have to print money to 'monetize' the debt, interest rates would be lower, and spending that benefits one generation would never be paid for by generations to come. A stable currency, low taxes and the ability to pay down debts are necessary ingredients for a growing workforce and a viable middle class.

Unlike the snake oil of printed money, these genuine therapies take time and effort, and sometimes have painful side effects. The quack remedies offered by Dr. Bernanke promise to cure all ills with no effort on the part of the patient.

If the measures I propose are established in concert, we would lay the groundwork upon which to rebuild the country’s goods-producing sector. If allowed to flourish, manufacturing can create the needed jobs to lower the long-term unemployment rate and restore the county’s economic vitality.

The Fed's plan, by contrast, has only one predictable consequence: inflation. Indeed, Bernanke has already been remarkably successful in sending asset prices higher. Not only are most commodities soaring in dollar terms, but the broader measures of the money supply have started to surge as well. The compounded annual rates of change in MZM and M2 over the last month are 13.3% and 9.1% respectively. The prices-paid component of the September ISM manufactures survey jumped to 71, and the YoY increase in the PPI is 4%. Sure, we can look to the Dow or the stabilization of home prices and say the Fed's magic is working, but just because the headache has gone away doesn't mean you've cured the stroke. We can look to the inflation indicators to see that the Fed has failed to stop the bleeding.

Remember, the Fed is now printing dollars to purchase the bulk of US Treasuries at auction, in a process called debt monetization. It is that process of the Fed expanding the money supply to subsidize federal debt that is causing domestic prices to surge. It will not be very long before the consumer acutely suffers from this dangerous policy. On this point, history is clear: inflation has caused the destruction of every middle class and every economy that has sought it as a solution.

There are no quick fixes to our current economic predicament, but there are fixes. It's up to the American people to decide they've had enough of Ben 'Rasputin' Bernanke and they're ready for some tough medicine. When that happens, I've got some great specialists to recommend.

Michael Pento



Tags:  Ben BernankeeconomyeducationfedinflationQE 2regulationtax
PERMALINK | ADD YOUR COMMENT | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
Tax Cuts Won't Cut It
Posted by Peter Schiff on 10/18/2010 at 10:50 AM
Congressional Republicans and Democrats are engaged in a heated debate over which Americans deserve not to have their taxes raised, with both claiming that some form of tax cut will stimulate the economy. The primary point of divergence is what type of cuts will be most likely to get Americans spending, and whether the wealthy will wastefully save their extra cash or use it to create jobs.  This debate is academic. If a stronger economy (rather than pre-election posturing) is really the goal, then tax cuts alone will fail.
 
The real impediment to economic growth is not taxes, but the government spending that makes high taxes necessary in the first place.  Given the widespread, but erroneous, belief that spending is the root cause of economic growth (rather than saving and investment), it may shock many to know, especially my fellow Republicans, that of all the three means to finance government - taxation, borrowing, and money creation - taxation is the least destructive over the long term.
 
I will discuss this topic in depth tonight on the debut broadcast of The Peter Schiff Show, my new weekday radio show on WSTC in Norwalk, CT. Streamed over the Internet from 6pm-8pm Eastern time, every weeknight at www.schiffradio.com.  
 
Despite the visceral sting on April 15th, taxes have the virtue of being honest, direct, and most importantly, visible. By transferring purchasing power from one group to another, taxes take a pie that has already been baked and change how it is sliced. But taxes do create dangerous disincentives if they are abused. Raise taxes high enough and society's most productive individuals may stop working; keep raising them, and the public may riot. As a result, a government that relies primarily on taxes tends to be one that lives within its means.
 
Government borrowing, in contrast, doesn't just move money around from one spender to the next; rather, it taps into society's limited store of savings and directs funds away from private investment and towards the public sector. Decreases in the availability of private investment capital, which is where economic growth really comes from, can be extremely destructive over time. Borrowing also adds another cost that taxation doesn't: interest charges. Just as it costs less to buy something with cash than it does to buy it on credit, it costs society less to pay for its government upfront.   
 
Printing is even more insidious. By creating money out of thin air, government debases the currency, stealing from savers and depriving the economy of a stable unit of account. The inflation that results from an expanding money supply distorts all economic activity and discourages the accumulation of future investment capital.
 
However, borrowing and printing have one huge advantage over taxation: they make it much easier to disguise the true cost of government while surreptitiously pushing the burden onto future generations. So while taxes are political poison, borrowing and printing have always been preferred by Washington.
 
Make no mistake, I am against raising taxes. I would prefer cuts in government spending. Yet, after years of lowering taxes, with the illusory hope that one day spending cuts would follow, I think it's time we tried another tack. Instead of "starving" government, which has proven to be a disaster, we should look to transfer more of the current cost of government to taxation, which might finally create the political will to actually cut spending.
 
To really make this strategy fly, we should revise our abominable tax code in a way that is less destructive to the economy. In particular, taxes should not: discourage hard work and risk taking, impede capital formation, impose high costs for computation and enforcement, favor particular groups or activities, or intrude on individual liberty any more than is absolutely necessary. Given these preconditions, I believe a national sales tax would be ideal. If Congress insists on taxing income, then a flat tax (whereby all taxpayers pay the same rate with no special deductions or credits for politically favored expenses) would be best. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the most harmful system of all: a complex, progressive income tax, with lots of politically motivated loopholes, deductions, and credits, that encourages a raft of unproductive activities, and supports an entire class of unneeded service providers to calculate.  
 
By failing to address the spending side of the equation, neither the Democrats' nor the Republicans' current proposals will provide any genuine stimulus. The President's version will temporarily increase the purchasing power of the middle class, but the gains will come at the price of larger deficits, bringing larger tax increases down the road. By bringing down savings, which President Obama ironically touts as a benefit, the plan will diminish private investment, thereby slowing job growth.
 
While the Republicans' distaste for high taxes is admirable, they fail to see how increased borrowing or printing is worse. Unfortunately, after having been in the majority for twelve years with nothing to show on the cost-cutting side, those Republicans who do advocate for fiscal prudence have little credibility with the voters. Without corresponding cuts in spending, the full benefits of lower taxes - particularly as they apply to the rich - will never be realized. In the current environment, extra savings accumulated by the rich are largely "invested" in government securities rather than private sector ventures. Throwing more money into a government abyss can't help economic growth.   
 
Rather than trying to disguise another misguided round of stimulus in the cloak of a tax cut, we should deliver what the economy really needs - genuinely smaller government. However, to accomplish this, we need leaders who not only understand economics but have the political will to level with the American people about how much government we can really afford.

Tags:  economytax
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
Market and Pres. Obama's Tax Proposal
Posted by Staff on 09/10/2010 at 3:15 PM
Schiff discusses the market, Pres. Obama's tax proposal and more.

Tags:  Obamatax
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
BECOME A PREMIUM MEMBER!
Loop Player
Tom Woods Right Banner
newsletter
MARKET NEWS
Proudly show you are a Peter Schiff fan with this Schiff Head Cap.
America's Coming Bankruptcy - How to Save Yourself and Your Country
Display stickers that send the perfect message.
Join Schiff Premium now and get unlimited access to SchiffRadio.com.
Proudly show you are a Peter Schiff fan with this Schiff Head Cap.
America's Coming Bankruptcy - How to Save Yourself and Your Country
Become a Sponsor
Nothing discussed on the show is an offer to buy or sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any security or instrument or to participate in any particular investing strategy. All securities involve varying amounts of risk, and their values will fluctuate, and the fluctuation of foreign currency exchange rates will also impact your investment returns if measured in U.S. Dollars. Dividend yields change as stock prices change, and companies may change or cancel dividend payments in the future. Investments may increase or decrease in value and you may lose money. International investing may not be suitable for all investors.
Copyright © 2002-2014 SchiffRadio.com. All rights reserved. Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy  |  Acknowledgments
This site is Created and Managed by Nox Solutions LLC.
Support Our Sponsors
Audible.com Ad
The Real Crash updated
The Global Investor
Euro Pacific Weekly Digest