Tag Archives: taxes

If It’s a Good Idea….

Posted on by
Reply

One sub-bill in the Progressive-Democrats’ reconciliation bill would have removed a loophole that lets foreign purchasers of US real estate dodge a tax that could reach 30% on the profits generated by those holdings.

The loophole works like this:

Instead of buying a building directly, a foreign investor creates a shell company in an offshore location like the Cayman Islands.
That shell company then lends money to a US entity called a blocker corporation, which in turn buys the building. Instead of paying any profits from the building directly to the foreign investor, the blocker corporation sends interest on its loan to the offshore shell company, which then passes it on to the foreign investor. By taking this detour, the foreign investor avoids the tax on foreign real-estate owners.

It works because the blocker is a corporation domiciled in a territory that’s a US tax haven, and so those corporations avoid the tax.

There are a couple of implications from closing this loophole.

[P]roponents say it could raise billions in tax revenue.

That works for me. On the other hand,

Property owners worry it could also lead to fewer foreign purchases of US commercial real estate.

I’m having a hard time seeing any serious downside to that beyond a temporary (I say) downward pressure on real estate prices, or more likely, a slowing of increases in real estate prices, in the initial period following the closure of the loophole. After that initial period, though, the real estate market would adjust to the new regime, and real estate prices would resume their normal behavior.

If this sub-bill is a good idea—and I think it is, at least in principle—than it should be excised from that reconciliation foolishness and presented by itself in a clean, stand-alone bill. In January.

Taxes and “Give Backs”

Posted on by
Reply

There is a surprisingly broad misunderstanding regarding taxes and to whom those taxed funds belong, even among those who should know better. One example is The Wall Street Journal editors’ mischaracterization of Arkansas’ tax reductions in an editorial, which they subheadlined

Little Rock returns some of its booming revenue to taxpayers.

The “return of revenue” was this:

Governor Asa Hutchinson recently signed legislation that reduces the top state income-tax rate to 5.5% from 5.9%, effective New Year’s Day. The rate will continue to drop in stages to 4.9% by 2025.

Along with this:

The state Department of Finance and Administration anticipates that some 105,000 residents will soon pay no income tax as a result.

And this “sweetener:”

The legislation includes the sweetener of a $60 tax credit for some 535,000 Arkansans who make less than $23,600.

None of this is giving money back to Arkansan citizens; all of it is letting them keep more of their money in the first place.

Even the tax credit is less a giveback than it is a let ’em keep it, albeit after the friction of a tax man middleman has taken its toll.

Big Progressive-Democrat Government

Posted on by
Reply

A Rasmussen poll suggests that a majority of Americans oppose the socialism in the policies of the Biden-Harris administration.

That’s encouraging, but I have some concerns about the policies anyway, given that they’re being jammed through without regard for the views of the government’s employers.

The socialism aspect of the Biden-Harris and Progressive-Democratic Party policies is less a matter of the raw spending and usurious taxes in them much more a matter of the strings attached to the spending and of who gets (punitively) taxed.

The strings attached would give the Federal government more control over the States and over what businesses are allowed to produce and the prices they charge. The proposed tax structure would give the Federal government more indirect control by “encouraging” businesses to comport themselves IAW Government wishes.

That control is the essence of socialism, whether the control is through outright ownership or through controlling production permissions.

The spendthriftiness should be enough by itself to keep the bill from being passed.

The tax distortions should be enough by itself to keep the bill from being passed.

The increased Government control should be enough by itself to keep the bill from being passed.

Unfortunately, dangerously, each of the three individually (as well as together) are tightly aligned with Progressive-Democratic Party goals of spending to buy votes, taxing the Evil Rich to virtue-signal for votes, and to outright accrete power to Party.

A Rain Tax

Posted on by
Reply

It’s back.

Recall the Maryland rain tax that Progressive-Democrats in that State’s legislature actually got passed into law. That…foolishness…contributed to the State’s Progressive-Democrat Governor getting tossed at the next election and replaced by a Republican. The State’s legislature then repealed the tax within the next couple years.

Now we see that the Progressive-Democrat City Manager for Fairfax (that Fairfax), Robert Stalzer, proposed

taxing local residents and businesses for the amount of rainwater that falls on their roofs, driveways, parking lots, and other “impervious surfaces” on their property.

Just the News opened its article on this with this bit from The Beatles:

If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet

Not to be outdone, or not too badly, anyway, I offer this adaptation from The Lovin’ Spoonful:

You and me and rain on the roof,
Caught up in a taxing shower,
Going broke while it soaks our wallets.
Maybe we’ll be broke in hours,
Waiting out the Guv….

To quote Joe Biden, who railed in a different venue, this is a bonehead idea.

A Comment on Two Crises

Posted on by
Reply

Tax revenues, in the main, rose slightly as a fraction of GDP in wealthier nations despite the existence of the Wuhan Virus situation.

That surprise outcome underlines the novel nature of the economic contraction that accompanied the first surge of Covid-19 infections, and contrasts with the global financial crisis, when revenues fell as a share of economic output, an outcome more typical of recessions.

Novel indeed. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

revenues across its 38 members rose to 33.5% of gross domestic product in 2020 from 33.4% in 2019. In the wake of the global financial crisis, revenues in 2009 fell to 31.8% of GDP from 32.6% of GDP in 2008.

And

In both instances, tax revenues and total economic output fell, but in 2020 the former declined less sharply than the latter.

These…economists…lay off the outcome of the 2020 situation to impacts on jobs.

Employment reductions in 2020 were concentrated at the lower end of the income distribution, as were falls in working hours.  This limited the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on revenues relative to the GFC [global financial crisis], in which job losses and reductions in working hours were more evenly spread.

But this is an outcome, and the economists of the OECD have mischaracterized the cause.

Look at the two examples the OECD cited for its comparison. The “global financial crisis” of 2009 was an economic event that was driven by purely economic factors—in that case, a credit crunch. The economic conditions of 2020 were driven, not by the prevalence of the Wuhan Virus, but by governments’ (over)reaction to the virus, not from the virus.

That political reaction—lockdowns, restrictions on movements, vaccine requirements levied on businesses by governments—differentially impacted economies in the manner indicated. Of course wealthier nations fared better than less wealthy ones. The less wealthy are far more dependent on those low-paying jobs.