They want to replace a mildly progressive tax with a decidedly regressive tax and make the argument about fairness? You can have an articulate argument about whether income taxes deter economic development. You can have an argument about whether such taxes lead to out migration of people and firms. Heck you can have a philosophical argument about whether society should be able to tax the fruit of your labor (or your trust fund). But you cannot argue with a straight face that replacing an income tax with a broad based sales tax (one that taxes necessities) is fair. That insults people’s intelligence. [David Brunori]
Related Posts
Here’s Why No One Needs to Get Worked Up Over the Healthcare Reform Earnings Hit
- GoingConcern
- April 1, 2010
This story is republished from CFOZone, where you’ll find news, analysis and professional networking tools for finance executives.
The brouhaha over the hits to earnings from the new healthcare law that companies are announcing is much ado about very little.
First of all, the charge is an estimate of future costs and will have no immediate impact on cash flow. And the estimate is unusually large because the accounting rules require costs that would otherwise be reported in the future to be reported now, simply because they are the result of a change in tax treatment.
As my former colleague Marie Leone reports at CFO.com, such “true-ups” over differences in tax and book accounting practices are just that. The real cost will be spread out over many quarters.
More importantly, the hit is the result of a loss of a major taxpayer subsidy. Maybe it made sense before to provide that. But given all the concern about the federal deficit, it seems to me that asking shareholders to bear a bit more of the burden for retiree drug benefits is hardly unfair.
And in the greater scheme of things, the hit may be so small as to have little impact on companies’ valuations, as a Credit Suisse analyst pointed out the other day. General Electric didn’t even break out its estimate for that reason, calling the cost “immaterial.”
The question is whether companies will stop paying for the benefits because of the cost, and that’s unlikely unless they’re willing to compensate for the loss with higher wages, as economist Dean Baker reiterated to me in an email late last week.
“The standard economist view is that the cost of health care comes overwhelmingly out of wages,” Baker wrote. “If they have to pay more in taxes, then it will mostly come out of workers’ pay and have very little impact on their costs and ability to compete.”
If on the other hand, a decline in healthcare costs leads to higher wages, that would mean a stronger economy, so I don’t see how either taxpayers or shareholders will lose here in the long run.
Yes, that’s a big if, but as I’ve said before, the new healthcare law is the biggest effort to rein in costs undertaken to date. Of course more must be done, but the law will provide a big impetus to those efforts.
Hopefully, all this will become clearer as a result of the hearings Rep. Henry Waxman plans to hold next week on this issue, but I’m not holding my breath.
Sir David Tweedie Would Appreciate It If You Quit Complaining About the New Accounting Standards
- Caleb Newquist
- September 1, 2010
This means you PricewaterhouseCoopers. You’re acting like this convergence/IFRS adoption is just happening too fast, well, Tweeds isn’t having it.
As for you companies out there that actually have to keep their books in tiptop shape, Sir Tweeds isn’t so amused by your bellyaching either. And for the love of God, would everyone quit playing dumb:
“Let’s look at what we’ve got out there at the moment – leases, revenue recognition and insurance. If you’re not an insurance company you’ve got two. Big deal,” he said.
“I’m not terribly sympathetic. It’s not as thought these have sprung out of no where, we’ve been working on these, they’ve seen the drafts coming, they know what we’re doing.
Furthermore, maybe if you got some of your people on this instead of writing a comment letter every two seconds, this wouldn’t seem like such monumental task.
“It’s tough, but goodness it’s tough for us too. We can’t keep getting all this advice. We always get conflicting advice. ‘You must have these done by June 2011, but don’t give them to us all at once’,” he said.
Tweedie “not terribly sympathetic” to concerns of standard-overload [Accountancy Age]
Monday Morning Accounting News Brief: PwC Does Something Exceptionally Grimy; PCAOB Alum Heads to EY | 6.10.24
- Adrienne Gonzalez
- June 10, 2024
Good morning! Up and at ’em, it’s another week. The weekend discussion was about tight-ass […]
