False Premise

Budget mavens, politicians, and the NLMSM have one regarding our national tax code.  The Senate is considering a budget that sets an outer bound on the size of Federal tax cuts.

A budget with a tax plan that is revenue-neutral would effectively pay for itself, meaning any reduction in tax rates would be offset by reducing breaks or other revenue-raising measures.

No.  “Revenue neutral” must also consider what’s done with the revenue collected.  Revenue neutrality can be achieved, also, with sufficient spending cuts so that revenue collected meets or exceeds spending outflows.

Additionally, there is an underlying assumption that is carefully ignored by the politicians, budget mavens, and the NLMSM.  That is that the Federal government needs the revenue collected.  None of these worthies deign establish that need.

Prioritize, Guys

President Donald Trump’s national infrastructure plan centers on glorified seed money directed to the localities looking to improve/build out their infrastructure.  The idea is that the locals know their needs best, those needs should be funded primarily locally or from within the nation’s private economic sector, and the building out will aggregate into a vastly improved national infrastructure—real bottom up development, with a little help from the Feds.

To that end, Trump is going to propose $200 billion in Federal spending be committed to a total $1 trillion infrastructure development collection of projects (OK, considerable help).

Right now the dynamic is: come, ask for a whole lot, bang on the table, have your economic studies showing the tens of thousands of jobs that will be created, have your regional study saying this will transform America, bang on the table some more, hire some lobbyists and you get money.  We’d rather have people come and say, “Listen, we’re chipping in this much, give us this little increment and we can make this thing happen.”

Naturally, the locals are getting their knickers twisted.  The ones with the biggest projects

say that local cost-sharing and private financing efforts would fall well short of making up for sharply reduced federal funding.

Nonsense.  You don’t get to freeload off Uncle Sugar, anymore.  Project leads in Chicago or Dallas don’t have a claim on the (tax) money of the good citizens of New York or California, and under the administration plan, they won’t be allowed to exercise their false claim to OPM.  New York and California will be able to keep their money for their own local projects.

This is an example of the deer in the headlights response of folks so used to the Government teat that they can’t conceive of better alternatives [emphasis added]:

Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo have said they expect the federal government to cover half the cost of the Gateway project, which also includes bridges and track improvements.

“There’s no people or economic activity in that region that could possibly cover the cost of that?” said the administration official, when asked about a recent appeal by Mr Cuomo for federal aid for the project. “I think that’s a tough sell, would be my response.”

The suggestion that New York and New Jersey could pay their own way on the project…shocked some of the tunnel’s advocates.

Prioritize, guys.  On what are you spending your citizens’ money that you think is more important than your Gateway?  Say that out loud, so your citizens—your constituents, your bosses—can hear you.

Corporate Taxes

The US has one of, if not the, highest tax rate on businesses in the world, at 35%.  As a result, our internationally operating businesses book their profits in their overseas jurisdictions and leave those profits there.  This much is well known.

Republicans want to lower the corporate-tax rate and let companies bring future global profits home without paying US taxes on top of foreign taxes. They are searching for a way to do that without giving companies an incentive to move more operations and profits to countries with far lower taxes.

Or so they say.

Republicans seem to be moving toward gerrymandering our corporate tax law even further, with the claimed goal of encouraging our businesses to repatriate their overseas profits.

As part of that overhaul, Republicans want to exempt foreign corporate income from US taxes to a large extent.  …  The 35% rate would come down and the minimum rate would be set below the new U.S. corporate tax rate.

The rationale for such a “minimum tax?”

A minimum tax would act as a “safety net” against companies trying to pay little or no tax on some foreign income, said Ed Kleinbard, a tax law professor at the University of Southern California.

On the other hand,

The countries that use tax systems Republicans want to emulate allow their home companies to bring back cash with little or no tax. They use a variety of rules to prevent companies from seeking to pay less tax by moving operations or profits abroad, but generally don’t have minimum taxes on active foreign profits.

But this misses the point.

And

The original House GOP plan to address foreign profits and prevent erosion of the US corporate-tax base was border adjustment….

This misses a separate point.

The first point: lower our corporate tax rate to the lowest in the world.  The Trump administration’s proposal of a 15% rate or House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R, WI) proposal of 20% would come close to that (only Ireland’s 12.5% rate would remain lower).  Or eliminate corporate income taxes altogether, say I; a business’ tax bill is paid, in the large main, by the business’ customers anyway in the form of higher prices—and the final customer is the American consumer, who would benefit from lower prices.

Either of these would not only disincentivise our businesses from leaving their profits overseas, they would reverse the flow: foreign businesses would flock to set up shop in the US because of the tax advantages they’d obtain—the same advantages that currently encourage our businesses to set up “over there.”

The second point: it isn’t the government’s money; there is no legitimate “corporate-tax base” to erode.  There wouldn’t even be a drop in revenue to the Federal government: the ensuing flourishing economy would generate more revenue for the government than any revenue reduction from lowering or eliminating the corporate income tax.

And: it isn’t gerrymandering to simplify and lower the corporate tax rate, nor is it gerrymandering eliminate the tax rate altogether.  There isn’t any need to play games when so simple a solution is, or should be, so easily implemented.

Tax Reform and Charities

Charities stand to lose billions in donations if Republicans advance their tax overhaul, prompting the nonprofits to carefully attempt to persuade lawmakers to reshape their plan.

As a result of a proposal to double the standard deduction and prevent people from deducting state and local taxes from federal taxable income, fewer taxpayers—5% instead of 30%—would have a financial incentive to itemize their deductions, including their charitable gifts, according to several estimates.

Especially estimates by charity associations, who also have a vested interest in claiming that, with no deduction incentive, Americans won’t donate to charity as much as we do presently.  Americans, though, at least the vast majority who do donate to charity, do so because it’s a right thing to do, not because we get a tax deduction for the donation.  That last simply makes no financial sense. Say a donor is in the 39.6% bracket.  If he makes a $1,000 donation, he’ll get a deduction of $396.  His donation still will cost him $604: he’s lost money on the donation/deduction exchange.  The cost to the donor increases as we go down the brackets.  American taxpayers aren’t stupid.

When we put a charitable contribution and its deductiblilty in the context of the rest of the deductions, we see even further the foolishness of the concern.

For example, a married couple with costs of $7,000 in mortgage interest and $6,000 in local taxes would exceed today’s $12,700 standard deduction. That couple would have an incentive to itemize and deduct every dollar of charitable contributions.

The totality of deductions must exceed a threshold before the deductions can be taken, and then only the amount exceeding the threshold can be deducted—all of them together.  Thus, a charitable deduction in combination with a mortgage deduction gets the deduction spread across both costs together—driving the cost of the charitable donation even closer to the amount actually donated.

American taxpayers aren’t stupid.

David Wills, President Emeritus of the National Christian Foundation has a different take.

We don’t think that anybody should have their charitable giving taxed. Anybody[.]

Leaving aside the illegitimacy of using our tax code for social engineering, the tax on a charitable donation would become pretty unimportant to the donor under any serious tax code reform, including the present one that’s on offer.

American taxpayers aren’t cheap, either.

In short, I’m not convinced charities will suffer overmuch with a combination of lower tax rates and elimination of the charitable tax deduction (among other deductions also being eliminated)—especially given the doubled standard deduction that’s in the current proposal.  With more money in our pockets instead of Uncle Sugar’s, Americans will be freer to donate.

We Americans are neither stupid nor cheap.

Brexit and Taxing

Great Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond has committed to the EU that, if he has anything to do with it, the Brits will remain, post-Brexit, a “socially responsible” nation with a taxing régime that will match the EU’s taxing régime.  In other words, he’ll do his best to prevent Great Britain from attracting business by being a business-friendly, tax competitive nation.  Like Ireland is, with its 15% tax rate.

The Wall Street Journal has characterized Hammond’s commitment to economic disarmament “a mistake for the ages.”  I think the WSJ is mistaken.

Philip Hammond was, and is, a Remainer. His actions here sound like active sabotage to this poor, dumb Colonial.