Carried interest and the big lie
As an investment strategy, making private equity and hedge fund managers rich is a probable loser. As a tax policy, it is a guaranteed one.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last week that would raise the taxes that private equity and other investment managers pay on “carried interest,” their share of the takings when a holding such as a startup or turnaround is sold at a profit.
Carried interest is currently taxed at the lower capital gains rate, meaning that many private equity barons can pay less in tax than the people who clean their swimming pools or mind their children. This is patently unjust. Carried interest is compensation for labor, earned income in other words, rather than gains on capital that might be lost.
As you might expect, the private equity industry is not happy: “Remember we manage money for union employees, for corporate employees, for teachers, firemen and the like and our job is to help these unions and pension funds protect their employees when they retire. This is why private equity needs to have the treatment we have to attract the best and brightest to this sector.” Robert L. Johnson, of private equity firm RLJ Companies told CNBC television.
“Many state pensions and corporate pensions are terribly underfunded. You take away the some of the incentive on this industry and its going to backfire on the people who need pensions when they retire.”
The words “self-serving” and “twaddle” come to mind.
Hoping to rescue the pensions mess by paying private equity mangers big bucks is a bit like trying to save the Titanic by tipping the barman well. It will pass the time, he’ll appreciate it, but the ship still has a whacking great hole in the side.
from James Pethokoukis:
5 reasons why Obama will hike middle-class taxes
C’mon, how about some Walter Mondalesque candor from the Obama White House on taxes? Yes, yes, it was 25 years ago this summer that the Democratic presidential candidate self-immolated on the issue at his party’s convention in San Francisco. But surely Americans have become more urbane and sophisticated since then as to what makes for sound economic policy, oui?
[Find out five ways to boost the economy and create jobs]
Nope. If you had any doubt that higher taxes are still poisonous policy in center-right America, all you had to do was listen to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs yesterday. He briskly and precisely walked back the White House from the ambiguous statements made by Tim Geithner and Larry Summers on the Sunday chat shows. “I am reiterating the president's clear commitment in the clearest terms possible that he's not raising taxes on those who make less than $250,000 a year," Gibbs said.
But what’s so clear, Mr. Gibbs? “Commitment” in this context is a schemer’s word, the much-weaker-yet-more-conniving sibling of “guarantee.” Did Broadway Joe express a mushy “clear commitment” to winning the 1969 Super Bowl? Clearly not. In any event, feel free to ignore Gibbs or any other White Housespinmeister who gives the impression that President Obama raising middle-class taxes would be the equivalent of playing himself in a Hollywood biopic -- so unlikely as to be fanciful. It’s not and here’s why it will happen eventually:
1) Obama knows the budget math doesn't work. Put aside today’s budget mess. It’s gospel among center-left wonks (the kind of folks who give Obama economic advice) that structural government spending as a percentage of GDP is headed sharply higher over the long term because of entitlements -- and there’s little that can be done about it. The ratio has been around 20 percent or so the past few decades, and number crunchers forecast a sharp rise to 25 percent (best case scenario) to 30 percent (worst case) of GDP over the next few decades. Tax revenues typically hover around 18 percent of GDP. That gap -- representing $500 billion to $1 trillion a year -- will need to be closed or else cause economic chaos. The possible answers: a) less spending, b) higher tax revenues from higher growth, or c) higher tax revenues from higher rates on the non-wealthy. Oh, and the wonks are convinced “a” is a political impossibility and “b” an economic one. They're wrong, but that's what they think.
[See if Obama's big economic gamble is paying off]
2) Obama seems to prefer tax hikes to spending cuts. Reduced future healthcare spending needs to be a huge part of the budget solution, and ObamaCare doesn't make the grade at this point. Right now the various Obamacrat plans actually make things worse by failing to "bend the curve." What’s more, Obama has proposed nothing as president to make Social Security solvent. And during the campaign, his preferred fix was higher payroll taxes rather than commonsense measures like extending the retirement age or changing how benefits are calculated. Of course, Obama has also proposed raising income, investment, corporate and energy taxes. Cut spending or raise taxes – forObama it’s an easy pick, unfortunately.
CarmA, the money they make off investing their own capital should be taxed at investment rates. The money they make off investing their LP/client’s capital should be taxed at income rates. Easy distinction, no?