Taxes

A couple of items, via the Tax Foundation:

Americans will pay $3.3 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total bill of almost $5.0 trillion, or 31% of the nation’s income.

Think about how much our economy would burgeon if we only paid, say, 20% of GDP on these taxes.  Think about how much more revenue Federal, State, and local governments would collect, despite (or because of) that lower rate, from the hugely increased economic activity and the taxes thereon.

And this graph:NecessitiesAndTaxes

Not only are we spending more in taxes than we spend on the necessities of food, clothing, and housing, we’re spending roughly the same amounts on State and local taxes as we do on food.

It’s not only the Federal government that’s overcharging us.

Fallout

Pfizer Inc and Allergan PLC terminated their planned $150 billion merger after the Obama administration took aim at the deal that would have moved the biggest drug company in the US to Ireland to lower its taxes.

Yup.  Because the Progressive administration Knows Better than business leaders how those businesses should be managed.

The decision to walk away is the latest setback in Pfizer’s long-running efforts to overcome what Chief Executive Ian Read has said was the company’s competitive disadvantage with foreign rivals that faced significantly lower tax bills.

Of course, Jack Lew, the Treasury Secretary whose tax rules the center of the administration’s aim, knew this would be part of the result.

In addition, the failed deal also hurts Pfizer’s plans to break itself up. Company executives have considered splitting the company for years….

Of course, Lew knew this, too.  This pattern of abuse makes me wonder how closely Lew is coordinating his actions with Richard Cordray, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau MFWIC.

More Governance by Fiat

This time regarding American businesses merging with overseas companies and moving to that overseas lower corporate tax environment.  This improves profits for the businesses’ owners, never mind that.  It reduces revenue for the Know Betters in our Government.

The new [Treasury Department] rules, the government’s third wave of administrative action against inversions, will make it harder for companies to move their tax addresses out of the US and then shift profits to low-tax countries….

[Emphasis added]

The aggressive nature of this latest round also comes

from a Treasury Department that has expressed frustration at the limits of its own powers in curbing these transactions.

Because Know Betters always want more power.  It’s not mete that the plebes and commoners should be in their way.  Here’s the gist of these rulers’ latest power grab:

The rules have two main parts….  First, the government would go after what it calls “serial inverters,” large companies created through multiple inversions or takeovers of US companies. The government would disregard US assets acquired by such companies over the previous three years.

And

To reap the full benefits of inverting, the US company’s shareholders should own between 50% and 60% of the merged entity, which requires a partner of carefully calibrated size.

Because business decisions concerning the details of a merger are better made by the Know Betters of Government than they are by the owners and managers of the businesses involved.

And

Treasury’s second action would limit what is known as earnings stripping, a practice that follows many inversions and other cross-border acquisitions that helps lower companies’ effective tax rates.

Inverted companies—in fact, all non-US-based companies—can lend money to their US subsidiaries.  Those moves create deductible interest in the US, reducing the income subject to the 35% US corporate tax rate and shifting income to a lower-taxed jurisdiction.

Because business leaders can’t be allowed to honor their fiduciary duties to the business’ owners by looking to maximize profit and to maximize revenue left in the business’ hands.  No, not when doing that runs counter to the demands of Know Betters for ever more money for Government.

Jack Lew, author of the rules in his capacity as Treasury Secretary had this bit of disingenuosity in defense of his latest stab:

After an inversion, many of these companies continue to take advantage of the benefits of being based in the United States—including our rule of law, skilled workforce, infrastructure, and research, and development capabilities—all while shifting a greater tax burden to other businesses and American families[.]

Never mind that inversions could better be discouraged by lowering our existing corporate tax rates to internationally competitive levels, and which thereby would shift no burden to other businesses and American families.  Lowering taxes is anathema to a gang that sees tax revenue as another path to their political power. (Certainly, Treasury can’t lower tax rates on its own, but Lew is carefully silent on this matter.)

Elections have consequences, folks.

Tough To Do Inside the EU, Though

Here’s an area where it really would be good to look like Europe, or at least the UK part of it.

UK Treasury chief George Osborne unveiled a major shake-up of corporate taxes in Britain on Wednesday, saying he intends to lower the main rate companies pay to less than half the rate levied on firms in the US.

Of course, such tax rate competition is hard to do in the EU, what with the European Commission’s utter dislike for it.

It may be that the British really will need to leave the European Union, if they want to compete in the global economy.

Tax Dollars

Yours, and mine, at work. The paper from which the following excerpt was taken (h/t The Wall Street Journal) was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Ice is not just ice. The dominant way Western societies understand it through the science of glaciology is not a neutral representation of nature. The feminist glaciology framework draws attention to those who dominate and frame the production of glaciological knowledge, the gendered discourses of science and knowledge, and the ways in which colonial, military, and geopolitical domination co-constitute glaciological knowledge. Even in a globalized age where the place of women and indigenous people has improved markedly in some parts of the world, masculinist discourses continue to dominate, in subtle and determinative ways. Feminist glaciology advocates for a shift of preoccupations in research, policy, and public perceptions from the physical and seemingly natural, to a broader consideration of “cryoscapes,” the human, and the insights and potentials of alternative ice narratives and folk glaciologies.

The critique and framework outlined here illuminate experiences and narratives that emerged historically but remain potent today. Public discourse on the cryosphere continues to privilege, quite explicitly, manly endeavours and adventures in the field, and those who conduct their science in the manner of masculinist glaciologists and other field scientists of decades and centuries past….

The call for a feminist glaciology is not limited to ice and glaciers, but is a larger intervention into global environmental change (and especially climate change) research and policy.

Those were your tax dollars, and mine. Yeesh.