Cutting taxes by means of inflation adjustment vs. reducing regulatory subsidies to state borrowings?

Sir, Sam Fleming reports “The Treasury has been examining the merits of adjusting capital gains taxes for inflation” “White House push to cut taxes for rich faces thorny obstacles” August 3. 

Fleming points out that the “initiative could cost $100bn or more over 10 years” and “Estimates from the Congressional Research Service suggest as much as 90 per cent of the benefits would go to the top 1 per cent of households.

Steve Moore, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation opines: “It would be good for the economy. This is something we as free market people have been talking about for a long time.”

I am for free-markets, and I defended with great enthusiasm even more extensive inflations adjustments when they were introduced in Venezuela some decades ago, clearly before its current anti-free market regime came to power.

That said I would now use this occasion to ask, are such inflation adjustments, which reduces tax income, really compatible with the 0% risk weight assigned to the quite sizable US debt for the purpose of the capital requirements for banks?

That 0% risk weighting, de facto subsidizes US public debt, and which, on the tune of some 21 trillion in debt, could easily represent $100bn or more over 10 years.

If I were to choose, both from fairness and a free market perspective, I would much rather cut the bank credit distortions in favor of the sovereign than the inflation adjustment.

Just for a starter that would allow all to see better what the real unsubsidized interest rate on government debt is, and that should be useful, except fro those who do not want that to be known. 

PS. With a 0% interest rate, a 2% inflation target, how can regulators argue a 0% risk weight for a sovereign? That is of course unless they are from Venezuela or Zimbabwe, and only think of honoring public debts in nominal terms with the printing machine.

@PerKurowski

While central bankers ponder moving their targets, we should ponder the need of moving them out.

Sir, I refer to your “Central bankers ponder moving the goalposts” August 26.

Stock and bond markets are important but the banks are most often the financiers of the first stages of growth. So while regulators, with their risk weighted capital requirements, insist in distorting the allocation of bank credit to the real economy; impeding sufficient flows to what has been deemed as risky, like SMEs and entrepreneurs, there is no chance in hell that QEs, negative interests or whatever else central bankers might concoct will work.

Some want to make up for the regulatory risk aversion by designing special financing facilities, for instance to SMEs. That’s would be the wrong way, that would just make everything more complicated and even less transparent.

Frankly, when I read about what options central bankers are pondering, it all sounds like a Lilliput and Blefuscus debate, 2% or 4%, break the egg on the larger or on the smaller end. Perhaps, if they cannot get their act together, and before they take us further up the huge mountain of debts they talk down as quasi-debts, we should seriously ponder the need to move them out. 

Inflation targets, nominal value of GDP and such, means little for most on Main Street. For instance, as a grandfather, I would welcome some central bankers that would target future employment rates, in decent jobs of course; and were willing to index their respective retirement plans to my grandchildren’s success, and to the value of the pension and retirement plans of those of their generation.

Sir, the independence of central bankers, cannot signify they are not to be held accountable for what they do.

@PerKurowski ©