by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TAXES
Dustin Howard over at Americans for Limited Government tackles one of the key factors contributing to the rise of corporate inversions: high corporate taxes. I would also argue that another mitigating factor is foreign-earned income, which the United States government lays claim to — and is the only major country to do so. Under U.S. tax law, U.S. companies are forced to pay both foreign- and domestic-earned income, putting them at a global disadvantage.
At any rate, Howard’s piece is a worthwhile read on the equally detrimental effect of high corporate tax rates. I have shared it in its entirety below.
“How should policymakers stop the bleeding of American jobs overseas? There’s one easy answer among many harder ones, and that is to stop making it so expensive to do business in the United States.
Many things price American workers out of competition, whether it be the current mix of trade rules, currency manipulation and other unfair labor practices but the easiest to address domestically is the corporate tax rate. Government’s unwillingness to do with less is making it considerably harder for Americans to even work.
Seriously, why should American corporations pay a 39 percent rate, among the world’s highest, to headquarter here when they can “invert” to Ireland and pay 12.5 percent, less than one third the domestic rate?
If the corporation can keep most of their American workforce and keep 26.5 percent more of their money as an alternative by cutting the corporate tax rate, wouldn’t that a good thing?
Why would the U.S. maintain a policy that discourages business from even being on American soil?
Democrats propose a solution to this phenomenon: punish the innovating refugees that refuse to pay into their racket. They believe in taxing the profits of inverted firms. One problem: extrapolating from a recent study by economist Wayne Winegarden for the Pacific Research Institute, this actually further discourages firms from even retaining their American workforce, and encourages them to simply export their products outright from their new foreign addresses.
Call it a lose-lose proposition, where American workers lose jobs, American businesses leave and revenues drop while the deficit increases; Ireland should chip in and send Democrats a fruit basket.
If taxing inverted companies suddenly sounds unappealing, here’s an alternative: make inversions less attractive as a means of generating profit. The U.S. is a free country, so it looks bad when it punishes corporations for acting in their best interest. Instead, why not lower the tax rate to a more competitive, attractive rate, and then focus rolling back the regulatory state that is literally paid by taxpayers to make businesses less productive?
The first step on this path would be to begin reducing the cost of business with a comprehensive set of tax reforms that clean up our messy corporate tax code, and give businesses a sense of calm when planning for the future.
Besides it’s not like the corporate tax generates that much revenue anyway, at just 10.6 percent of $3.2 trillion of total receipts in 2015, according to the Office of Management and Budget. By far the most revenue comes from individual and payroll taxes.
As things stand, corporations are seeking foreign shores to chart out profitable futures, mainly because the business climate in the U.S. has made itself so volatile that it cannot accomplish that at home. The data supports the notion that punishing corporations that choose foreign domiciles will hurt working Americans more than it will avenge or protect them. The limited government solution is to let individuals choose what works for them, and to tax them at a reasonable rate so they do not move out of necessity.
As stated above, lowering the corporate tax rate is just one part of the solution. America has fundamental problems across the board that put us at a global disadvantage that should also be addressed.
The corporate tax rate is a necessary first step to signal to the world that we are restructuring the policies to make the U.S. more attractive among competitors. Creating jobs in America begins with keeping the economy free and competitive, and that cannot happen without fiscal restraint and limiting government, but also cannot happen if we’re taxing ourselves to the stone age.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TAXES
The following is a short version of a recent talk by Ben Eisen regarding the minimum wage issue as a poverty-fighting tool. It is undeniable that the percentage of full-time workers in poverty is much less than part-time workers. “He explained – using sound economic theory and admirable coverage of empirical findings – that the minimum wage is as effective a tool for fighting poverty as is gasoline as a tool for fighting fires.
One of the stats that Ben cited is that only three percent of workers who work full-time year ’round live below the poverty line, while sixteen percent of workers who work only part-time live below the poverty line. (I can’t recall if Ben’s stats are for Canada or the U.S., but because the general trend no doubt holds in nearly all countries, whether Ben’s specific stats are for Canada or the U.S. doesn’t matter for purposes of my post here.)
Here’s a mental experiment (one that I might have offered, in some form, in the past): suppose that Pres. Hillary Clinton or Pres. Bernie Sanders – displaying to the public her or his courageous opposition to poverty – cites the stat that Ben mentioned and then proposes that government outlaw part-time work. “Because every worker should be able to live decently upon his or her earnings,” proclaims the president, “and because working full-time enables a worker to earn more income than that worker earns when working only part-time, it shall hereby be the law of the land that every worker must be employed full-time.”
I’m pretty sure even the most ardent supporter of the minimum wage would balk at such a proposal. But why? What’s the difference between minimum-hour legislation and minimum-wage legislation? If government dictates that each worker shall be paid no less than $X per hour, and if this diktat has no effect on workers other than ensuring that no worker is paid less than $X per hour, what reason is there to suppose that if government dictates that all jobs shall be full-time jobs that this diktat have any effect on workers other than ensuring that all workers will now be employed full-time – and, hence, that the number of people living in poverty will fall?
Put differently, if government can work miracles when it dictates hourly wages, why can’t it work miracles when it dictates hours of work?”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
According to an economist at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal government should examine the question of taxing drivers by the mile as a means of raising higher revenue for highway programs.
According to the Washington Examiner, “Chad Shirley, CBO’s deputy assistant director for microeconomic studies, gave a presentation that says federal gas tax revenues are falling short of federal spending on highway programs. But to resolve that problem, Shirley didn’t propose less federal spending, and instead offered three suggestions.”
1) Charge drivers more through the implementation of a “vehicle-miles traveled charges.”
2) Charging them more when traffic is bad. Shirley calls that “congestion pricing.”
3) Charging tolls on “additional existing interstates.”
The idea of a “vehicle miles traveled tax,” or a “VMT” tax, was considered in 2011 in a bill that never came to fruition. That plan “foresaw the installation of equipment on people’s cars and trucks that would measure how far they drive, and the collection of taxes electronically through a reading of those devices at gas stations.”
Whether or not these new suggestions will be considered again remains to be seen. The CBO says that its three suggestions are not higher taxes or fees, but as an attempt to “make federal highway spending more productive for the economy.”
Such proposals are invasive of people’s privacy, and represent another ridiculous attempt at trying to regulate the behaviors of people.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TAXES
The great Don Boudreaux a friend of mine, made mention of this picture last week over on his superb blog, Cafe Hayek. The picture is apparently a favorite among Trump supporters.
“What to say? Perry Potts Eidelbus, a Facebook friend, describes it as “a distillation of economic ignorance into pure form.” Indeed. It’s much like Trump himself: the very image of economic ignorance.
Trump is doing now from the political right what Paul Krugman has done so successfully over the past decade and a half from the political left, which is the following: boisterously assuring people that their untutored instincts about the economy are indeed accurate – telling people that what they immediately see in economic affairs and policies is all that there is to see in economic affairs and policies (that is, that there is no ‘unseen’ whose reality can be perceived and understood only by looking beyond that which is immediately obvious). According to this bastardized, pandering version of economics, actual consumable goods (such as are pictured here) are reckoned to be costs, while toil is reckoned to be a benefit. The economic problem is not rooted in scarcity, it is rooted in abundance. Social benefactors, therefore, are those who promise to deny to us the fruits of the economy’s abundance (along with, by the way, our economic freedoms) as they bestow upon us ever-greater scarcity that will bless us with the need for more toil.
The photo shown here is, in short, itself an intellectual cargo ship loaded down with countless tons of economic ignorance.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Obama weighed in on the current Apple-government dispute, saying that access should be made necessary.
From Reuters:
U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday made a passionate case for mobile devices to be built in such a way as to allow government to gain access to personal data if needed to prevent a terrorist attack or enforce tax laws.
Speaking at the South by Southwest festival in Texas, Obama said he could not comment on the legal case in which the FBI is trying to force Apple Inc. to allow access to an iPhone linked to San Bernardino, California, shooter Rizwan Farook.
But he made clear that, despite his commitment to Americans’ privacy and civil liberties, a balance was needed to allow some intrusion when needed.
“The question we now have to ask is: If technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong that there is no key, there’s no door at all, then how do we apprehend the child pornographer, how do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?” he said.
“What mechanisms do we have available to even do simple things like tax enforcement because if in fact you can’t crack that at all, government can’t get in, then everybody is walking around with a Swiss bank account in their pocket.”
The Justice Department has sought to frame the Apple case as one not about undermining encryption. A U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation court order issued to Apple targets a non-encryption barrier on one iPhone.
The FBI says Farook and his wife were inspired by Islamist militants when they shot and killed 14 people on Dec. 2 at a holiday party in California. The couple later died in a shootout with police.
“Setting aside the specific case between the FBI and Apple, … we’re going to have to make some decisions about how do we balance these respective risks,” Obama said.
“My conclusion so far is you cannot take an absolutist view.”
Obama was speaking at the South by Southwest festival in Austin about how government and technology companies can work together to solve problems including making it easier for people to vote.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Based on data from H&R Block as we are halfway through filing season, it is apparent that compliance with the Obamacare penalty is still a difficult task.
This is the second year that the penalty has been levied; for 2014 taxes, the fee was $95 or 1 percent of qualified income — whichever was greater — and for 2015 taxes it is $325 or 2 percent of income, whichever is greater. The average penalty is $383, while last year it was $172, which corresponds roughly to the rise in penalty costs.
However, about 3/5, or 60% of filers “who received advanced tax credits to help them buy private plans on Obamacare’s web-based exchanges must pay a portion back to the IRS because they underestimated their actual income for 2015.” Interestingly, this is an increase from last year’s figure of 52% who had to repay a portion of their advanced subsidy. Thus, compliance and income estimation is getting worse, not better, after two tax seasons.
The average subsidy amount of that Obamacare enrollees must pay back has also increased slightly this year — $579, up from $530 last year.
In contrast, about 33% of taxpayers overstated their income and received additional subsidy funds from the IRS; the average amount was $450. Those that got the number correct and saw no adjustments was a paltry 3%.
The confusion is sure to continue with next year’s filing season. The minimum penalty for no insurance will double again to $695 or 2.5% of income, whichever is higher. H&R Block calculations show that for an average family of four earning $60,000 would pay $975 this tax season (2015), compared to about $400 last year (2014), while next year the penalty would rise to $2,000 (2016).
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
A recent commentary on business tax policy by Richard Rubin in the Wall Street Journal had some very glaring errors and suggestive, misleading language.
For instance, Rubin discusses inversions in a way that makes them sound unjust and problematic –calling them a “discrete business-tax problem” that Congress has been unable to properly address. However, this is a patently false statement. Business inversions are perfectly legal, and sometimes the only just remedy for an anti-business climate that unfairly disadvantages American companies abroad by demanding both domestic and foreign tax revenue.
He later goes on to suggest that ultimate question plaguing and dividing Congress is: “Is the U.S. collecting enough money from wealthy individuals?” But when did class warfare become the driving force for government and economic decisions? Why is this the lens by which so many view various policies? Such a question is absolutely ridiculous to even consider. Why is the U.S. in the business of “collecting enough money” from “wealthy individuals?”
Thomas Sowell said it best when he remarked, “I have never understood why it is “greed” to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” Such a question posited by Rubin is outrageously greedy.
His description of the 1986 IRC reforms was a total mischaracterization. Rubin writes, ”
“Until 1980, when the top individual rate was 70% and the corporate rate was 46%, the two systems were largely separate. Big businesses paid the corporate income tax, then when shareholders got capital gains or dividends, they paid again on the same profits. Small businesses paid as individuals.
The 1986 tax overhaul flipped that calculation, dropping the top individual tax rate to 28% and the corporate rate to 34%. New businesses saw little reason to become traditional C corporations that pay the corporate tax–unless they planned to go public. That has left the corporate tax as the domain of the largest companies. Meanwhile, states liberalized business-formation laws and Congress loosened eligibility rules for S corporations that don’t pay the corporate tax.”
Yet it’s he’s not exactly correct. With the IRC reforms of 1986, Reagan reduced the tax rates to 28% in exchange for getting rid of the tax shelters. As a result, the amount of federal income collected was more at 28% and a clean tax code than at 70% and 91% and tax shelters, because at 28%, it really wasn’t worth the time, cost, and effort to hide money.
Rubin also fails to explain the egregious set up for corporate taxes known as “double taxation.” It is
THE reason why these businesses file as non-corporate entities — so that they can avoid it. Here’s how it works:
Some companies, say a Fortune 500, pay taxes at corporate rates. The highest corporate rate is 35%. Right now, if a corporation pays taxes and reinvests its profits, there is no extra tax. But if it profits are given to the owner, they are taxed again on that amount–- which is knows as double taxation. Those business owners who wish to avoid the double taxation instead pay at individual rates, the highest of which is now 39.6% (which surpasses the corporate tax rate.)
Rubin mocks this set-up, writing “still, many pass-throughs think they are disadvantaged because the top individual rate of 39.6% exceeds the 35% corporate rate.” But they are disadvantaged. Why should businesses be taxed twice, anyway? Trying to circumvent an unfair, heavy handed tax-code on one end results in being penalized by a higher margin at the other end.
We get a further glimpse at what is driving some tax overhaul proposals. Orrin Hatch has suggested eliminating the second layer of “double taxation,” which is somewhat dismissed by Rubin when he points out that some situations might “exempt more income than necessary.” Getting enough revenue, then, is still the key driver at least on the Democrat side. This is reiterated a paragraph later when Rubin reveals that another overhaul proposal, to “deduct capital costs immediately and get a 25% rate” is also unacceptable — because “Democrats won’t tolerate the foregone revenue–and benefit to high-income households–tied to those plans.”
Why is getting enough revenue, and getting it from high-income households, the motivating force behind tax proposals these days? Why are so-called economists and analysts yielding to these class-warfare and fair share litmus tests when pontificating on tax policy? Businesses are the backbone of our country. Policy should focused on growing the economy, not punishing those who are successful. How can we honestly and morally consider taking more money from those taxpayers and business owners who have been able to create wealth and employment successfully — and just give it to the government and politicians who manage to continuously and egregiously squander income?
Rubin’s erroneous analysis was a disappointment to read in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS
New Jersey governor Chris Christie has announced his endorsement of Donald Trump for President. Is he really so clueless? Perhaps he is just so annoyed because he lost to the real candidates that he is having a temper tantrum.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a new study that monitored Obamacare subsidy payments. The results are sobering; billions in payments were made to individual Obamacare users which may have been the result of fraud.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) uses information from three agencies in order to verify Obamacare eligibility; they are the IRS, DHS, and SSA. But if there are inconsistencies within the data, the system doesn’t necessarily catch them, resulting in the misallocations. From the report:
“About 431,000 applications from the 2014 enrollment period, with about $1.7 billion in associated subsidies for 2014, still had unresolved inconsistencies as of April 2015—several months after close of the coverage year.”
These findings correspond to other reports over the last couple of years which found similar problems. They were summarized by ATR, below:
- “An auditor’s report examining Minnesota’s Obamacare exchange found the exchange enrolled more than 100,000 individuals who were ineligible for the program. In all, the audit estimated an error rate of close to 50 percent, and the state overpaid up to $271 million over the five-month period that was analyzed by auditors.
- A December 2015 report by the Health and Human Services Inspector General (HHS OIG) found that CMS relied entirely on data from health insurers to verify whether enrollees had paid their premiums and were eligible. However, this data was completely insufficient – insurers provided payment information on an aggregate rather than enrollee-by-enrollee basis, making verification all but impossible.
- A October 23, 2015 report by GAO found that Obamacare exchanges (both state and federal) were failing to verify key enrollment information of applicants including Social Security numbers, household income, and citizenship.
- A September 1, 2015 report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) found that Obamacare exchanges are failing to provide adequate enrollment information to the IRS for proper payment and verification of tax credits.
- An August 2015 report by HHS OIG found that the federal exchange is failing to verify Social Security numbers, citizenship, and household income of Obamacare applicants. As a result, the exchange is unable to verify whether applicants are properly receiving tax credits.
- A July 16, 2015 audit by GAO found that 11 of 12 fake ‘test’ applicants received coverage for the entire 2014 coverage period despite many using fraudulent documents, and others providing no documentation at all. From these 11 applicants alone, Healthcare.gov paid $30,000 in tax credits.
- A June 16, 2015 report released by the HHS OIG found that $2.8 billion worth of Obamacare subsidies and payments had been made in 2014 without verification.
- A June 10, 2015 TIGTA report found the IRS failed to properly administer nearly $11 billion in Obamacare tax credits.
- A May 21, 2015 report by TIGTA found that the IRS failed to test Obamacare processing and verification IT until a week before the filing season began.”
How much more mismanagement can we take? This latest report is just one of many highlighting the string of Obamacare failures — unfortunately at the expense of the taxpayer once again.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
On January 28, 2016, the Wall Street Journal ran a press release from August 10, 2004 in their “Notable & Quotable” section. The press release was fascinating, both in subject and source. The release, from the University of California, Los Angeles, announced the results of a study on the Great Depression, and found that government interference in the economy hampered and prolonged the Depression recovery.
As UCLA is not really considered a bastion of conservative or economic thought, the fact that such a study emerged is quite important — and obviously respected enough that the WSJ chose to re-run it in their pages. It echoes of Amity Schlaes important book on the topic, “The Forgotten Man.” It also resonates as a parallel to our current economic slump and anemic recovery.
I went digging for the original press release , and was eventually able to find it. The release discusses the study and its conclusions more in depth. I have reprinted the release below, in its entirety.
From a University of California, Los Angeles news release, Aug. 10, 2004:
“Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.
“President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”
Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt’s policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.
In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt’s policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.
Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.
“High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns,” Ohanian said. “As we’ve seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces.”
The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.
Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.
Roosevelt’s role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century’s second-most influential figure.
“This is exciting and valuable research,” said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. “The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can’t understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won’t happen again?”
NIRA’s role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.
“Historians have assumed that the policies didn’t have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding,” Ohanian said. “We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices.”
Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt’s anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.
The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.
NIRA’s labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor’s bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.
Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.
“The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” Cole said. “Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”
