Tag Archives: taxes

Progressives and Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

Look no further than California for the latest example of foolishness.

That state’s latest budget counts on at least $500 million from that state’s auction of carbon credits under its cap-and-trade…business…to balance its budget.

There’s a problem with that bait-and-switch…business…though.  As California’s Supreme Court ruled in its 1997 Sinclair Paint Co opinion, regulatory fees can’t

exceed in amount the reasonable cost of providing the protective services for which the fees are charged

or be imposed for

 unrelated revenue purposes.

The cap-and-trade collection, however, explicitly is a fee and not a tax—that’s how the fees were successfully assessed in the aftermath of California’s Proposition 13, which requires a supermajority in each house of the California legislature to raise taxes.

This leads to a couple of problems that would be no-brainer deal killers for anyone but a Progressive:

First, the stated purpose of the diversion: to put the monies into the state government’s general coffers in order to balance the budget, rather than to spend the money on “green” goals, which is the stated purpose of the cap-and-trade program.  The monies can’t be diverted to the general coffers.  Not legally, anyway.

Second, the diversion of the $500 million demonstrates that the state government believes the money is not needed so much for those “green” goals: the cap-and-trade fees “exceed in amount the reasonable cost of providing the protective services for which the fees are charged” by those $500 million.

Hmm….

Social Engineering with Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

Dr Alan Blinder, Princeton University Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, is at it again.

First, some side issues which he raises:

Since the economy as a whole created 5.41 million net new jobs over the past three years, you might expect that about 4.51 million of them were in the private sector and about 900,000 were in the public sector.  In fact, the private sector created 6.56 million net new jobs over the past three years while about 1.14 million net government jobs were eliminated via layoffs and spending cutbacks.

Never before in postwar history has government employment declined during a recovery. Compared with historic norms, we’re down over two million government jobs.

Never mind that the private sector’s performance is about 2/3 of what President Barack Obama promised with his 2009 stimulus and less than that compared to other recoveries, held back by his interfering policies.

Separately, the reduction in government employment is a good start.  Government remains far too big, and it’s not a jobs welfare program: further cuts in Federal employment are warranted.

Then,

Real GDP growth has averaged a paltry 2% per annum over the past three years.  But growth of GDP excluding government purchases—the things governments buy, including hiring workers—has averaged 3%.

But this just confirms how much government interference is inhibiting recovery.

Next, he offers a partial solution:

So Congress could make a good start on faster job creation simply by ending what it’s doing—destroying government jobs.

There’s that employment security welfare claptrap made explicit.  Government actually has a few very specific tasks, named by the Constitution, and no other thing to do at all.  It doesn’t need to employ lots of workers, outside of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, in order to do those few tasks.

Now, he comes to his tax policy as social engineering tool:

Virtually since the Great Recession began, many economists have suggested offering businesses a tax credit for creating new jobs.  While details matter, the basic idea is straightforward: Offer tax breaks to firms that boost their payrolls.

For example, companies might be offered a tax credit equal to 10% of the increase in their wage bills over the previous year.  No increase, no reward.

You might imagine that Republicans would embrace an idea like that.  After all, it’s a business tax cut….

Here’s that foolishness of using taxes to drive our economy to a government goal.  No.  The ways to help our businesses and spur hiring include reducing—or even eliminating—taxes on businesses, canceling the additive costs and outright taxes Obamacare imposes on businesses for hiring, and stopping paying the unemployed for not working.

And no, the “tax credit” isn’t at tax cut at all.  It’s an increase in spending.

Blinder also had this idea:

Suppose Congress enacted a partial tax holiday that allowed companies to repatriate profits held abroad at some bargain-basement tax rate like 10%.  The catch: the maximum amount each company could bring home at that low tax rate would equal the increase in its wage payments as measured by Social Security records.

Again, no.  Eliding the social engineering claptrap of the suggestion, temporary tax moves have no effect.  We’d be better off moving to a territorial tax scheme at the new reduced overall business tax rate.  Or eliminating the business tax altogether.

Blinder concludes with this:

My general point is that the fiscal cupboard is not bare.  There are things we could be doing to boost employment right now.  That we are not doing anything constitutes malign neglect of the nation’s worst economic problem.

Indeed.  Let’s reduce/eliminate business taxes, get Obamacare off the backs of businesses, and restore unemployment payments to the status quo Harding right now.

False Premise

Posted on by
Reply

Reuters talked about a CBO study commissioned by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D, MD) that purported to look at tax deductions in our tax code.

The top 10 tax deductions, credits, and exclusions will keep $12 trillion out of federal government coffers over the next decade, and several of them mainly benefit the wealthiest Americans….

Never mind that the claim proceeds from a couple of false premises, as I’ve beefed about before.  For one thing, it’s not the government’s money, so of course it doesn’t “keep $12 trillion out of federal government coffers.”  Such a claim presumes that the money belongs in the federal government’s coffers.

For another, even were the money in some sense due the government, the government’s need for the money hasn’t been established, and so any discussion of monies “lost” is…premature…at best.

James Taranto, writing for The Wall Street Journal, had additional problems with the study.

[W]hat makes the CBO study misleading is not the frame but the anchor.  The CBO uses the Joint Committee on Taxation’s definition of “tax expenditures” as “deviations from an individual income tax structure that incorporates the existing regular tax rates, standard deduction, personal exemptions, and deduction of business expenses.”  But as a practical matter, many of these “deviations” are integral to our tax system.

And

[T]he JCT/CBO definition of the tax “structure”—the anchor that holds in place all the study’s assumptions—is arbitrary.  Two examples will suffice to make the point.

The two tax credits in the CBO list—the EITC and the child tax credit—differ from the exclusions, deductions and differential rates in that they are available only to taxpayers with relatively low incomes.  Indeed they are available to “taxpayers” who don’t pay taxes, which is to say that in some cases they can result in a negative tax liability—an actual subsidy, as that word is commonly understood.

Thanks to those credits, taxpayers at the lower end of the income scale get some benefit from “tax expenditures.”  But other redistributionist programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and Supplemental Security Income are left out of the CBO’s analysis merely because they are not administered through the income-tax system.

The CBO’s study also is a typically static study that, from the assumptions dictated to the CBO by Van Hollen for this one, cynically ignore, among other things, how the people being taxed and the economy in generally will react to changes in these “tax deductions, credits and exclusions.”

A Thought on the IRS

Posted on by
Reply

Peggy Noonan wants an investigation into the IRS and its behavior over the last few years.  She has ample justification for one:

We do not know who ordered the targeting of conservative groups and individuals, or why, or exactly when it began.  We don’t know who executed the orders or directives. We do not know the full scope or extent of the scandal.  We don’t know, for instance, how many applicants for tax-exempt status were abused.

We know the IRS commissioner wasn’t telling the truth in March 2012, when he testified: “There’s absolutely no targeting.”  We have learned that Lois Lerner lied when she claimed she had spontaneously admitted the targeting in a Q-and-A at a Washington meeting.  …  We know the tax-exempt bureau Ms Lerner ran did not simply make mistakes because it was overwhelmed with requests—the targeting began before a surge in applications.  And Ms Lerner did not learn about the targeting in 2012—the IRS audit timeline shows she was briefed in June 2011.  She said the targeting was the work of rogue agents in the Cincinnati office.  But the Washington Post spoke to an IRS worker there, who said: “Everything comes from the top.”

And, she points out that we know about Catherine Engelbrecht.  We also know that the weight of the targets do not support the premise of this being simply an inability by low-level IRS employees to interpret the relevant tax law—”they” interpreted it, in Noonan’s words, “with a vengeance.”  And we know who “they” is: as a worker in the IRS’ Cincinnati office told the Washington Post,

Everything comes from the top.  We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them.  There has to be a directive.

“The top” would include Lerner, who after denying any wrong-doing then pled the 5th in an effort to prevent anyone questioning whether that was true.  “The top” would include the ex-IRS Commissioner Douglas Schulman, who lied to the House of Representatives when he testified that there was no targeting going on—even as it then was going full tilt.  “The top” would include soon-to-be ex-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, who actively stonewalled, if not outright lied to, the House during his own testimony.

Noonan wants an investigation, a dead serious one:

The IRS has colorfully demonstrated that it cannot investigate itself.  The Obama administration wants the FBI—which answers to Eric Holder’s Justice Department—to investigate, but that would not be credible.  The investigators of the IRS must be independent of the administration, or their conclusions will not be trustworthy.

An independent counsel, with all the powers of that office, is what we need.

As she says, if the IRS isn’t stopped now, it never will be.  But an independent investigation also will meet with stonewalling and delay—and we have two critical national elections coming up in 2014 and 2016, short one and three years away.

What’s needed is a complete elimination of the IRS and a new agency put into its place— with today’s IRS incumbents, at all levels, ineligible to apply for work there.  (Separately, but just as critically, a total reform of our tax code into a simple flat rate, no exceptions system is necessary—which would dovetail nicely with replacing the present IRS with a much smaller, simpler tax collection agency.)  Unfortunately, this both is no more likely to happen than a serious investigation, and it also will take time.

Which puts a premium on getting started.

Yet Another Thought on Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal has reported that

Apple, Inc paid no corporate income tax to any national government on tens of billions of dollars in overseas income over the past four years, Senate investigators found, a revelation that fuels the debate over whether the US tax code needs an overhaul.

The Senate thinks this is a bad thing, even as they acknowledge that Apple actually paid all the taxes it legally owed.  Senator John McCain (R, AZ), ranking Republican on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that hectored Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, on that dastardly legal behavior earlier this week, gripes that

What they often leave out is the second part of the story, that Apple is one of the largest tax avoiders…Apple [is] the most egregious offender [among US corporations trying to avoid tax bills].

This despite the Subcommittee’s already completed investigations finding that Apple has, indeed, behaved entirely legally.  (Which makes me wonder, as an aside, whether McCain has outlived his usefulness and become just another RINO who needs to be terminated in his next primary.)  Regardless of any findings, though, in the finest Federal government tradition (can you say, “IRS,” boys and girls?), we’re going to hector and harass, anyway.  That was the point of haling Cook before the subcommittee to answer their inquisition.

This comes as part of a debate that the

US is undergoing…about the earnings that US companies are keeping overseas.  The profit at foreign subsidiaries are out of the reach of the IRS, and largely unusable to their US operations.

The sums amount to an estimated $1.9 trillion, according to an analysis by Audit Analytics….

However, instead of thinking about how to get their grubby mitts on all that money—which they then can dole out to select groups in return for votes and political power—these politicians should think about how much good that money would do in terms of jobs and innovation (and so more jobs) and lower product costs (and so more demand and so more jobs) were that money allowed to come home by an intelligent tax régime that would contain rates that encouraged rather than prevented repatriation of the money.

But thinking about that would require these politicians to “ask not what they can do for themselves, ask what they can do for their country.”