Business Taxes

Richard Rubin, of The Wall Street Journal, thinks reforming these is not a straightforward proposition. To an extent, he’s right, as business and personal income taxes have become increasingly intertwined with each successive tax reform since Reagan.

The links between corporate and individual taxation inevitably lock policy makers in intractable disputes about popular deductions and the question that divides the parties most bitterly: is the US collecting enough money from wealthy individuals?

But this entangling, or more correctly, the concern about the entangling, simply overcomplexifies the problem.

It’s an easy thing to do conceptually, if political will is lacking, to reform business taxes. Keep in mind a single, core fact: businesses don’t pay very much of their tax bills already. Business taxes are just another cost center, whose value in large part is paid by the business’ customers in the form of higher prices that are set to recover, at the least, a significant fraction of that cost. Customers pay much of those business taxes.

The framing provides the answer. Cut through the Gordian business/personal income tax knot by eliminating the business tax altogether. This, aside from eliminating the tax pass-along to already taxed individuals, also eliminates disputes about popular deductions, credits, and so on: they go away with the taxes.

This also removes the non sequitur of whether business taxes are hitting the wealthy sufficiently. That question becomes focused on the personal taxes where it belongs and thereby brought into sharper relief.

Budgets

President Barack Obama (D) sent up his budget proposal Tuesday, carefully timed to be buried under the news coverage of the New Hampshire primaries. $4 trillion worth of proposals. It’s replete with the Left’s dreams of tax increases—including a one-third tax on oil (at current prices: a $10/barrel tax with oil now going for $30) and an acceleration of the Left’s tax war on successful Americans—and associated spending claptrap (gotta spend those taxes, after all) like more spending on college subsidies such as Pell Grants, incentives for States to expand Medicaid programs, increased subsidies for the Left’s goals, expanding budgets for the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, and on and on. This Obama Budget expands the current half-trillion dollar deficit, because gotta spend more than tax revenue, too.

Oh, yeah: that oil tax is intended, in part, to subsidize “energy sources of the future.” Read that as increased subsidies for “green” energy sources, subsidies the Left thinks are necessary because “green” energy sources can’t compete in a free market, and that’s just not fair. Along those lines, though, here’s a “subsidy” that would pay off in spades and produce potsful of green energy: drastically reduce regulatory and permitting restrictions, and so the associated costs, on building nuclear power plants. We even have a spent fuel storage facility built and ready to go in Nevada; we just have to get government out of the way of that, too. Fat chance on either one, though, under this administration.

No, what Congress needs to do, what Congress has both the sole authority to do—to pass a budget and then pass the several appropriations bills to give effect to the budget—and the power to do with Republican majorities in both houses, is ignore Obama’s budgeting nonsense. A proper step in that direction is this:

Congressional Republicans last week announced they wouldn’t invite the White House’s budget chief to testify on the administration’s proposals, breaking with longstanding protocol.

Instead, Congress simply should pass a proper budget, and it should take the one passed last fall and pass the appropriations bills that properly reduce tax rates, expand defense spending, and reduce spending everywhere else so as to produce a net surplus within those lowered tax rates. And within those bills, specify that the surplus must go first to paying down the debt.

Keep in mind, too, two things. One is the meaning of the budget passed last fall. Nothing in it prevents Congress from passing the appropriation bills outlined just above. Budget bills set outer bounds of spending; they do not set required minimum levels of spending.

The other is so-called “discretionary spending.” “Discretionary spending” is carefully defined to be spending that Congress is authorized to manage year by year; the definition is designed to exclude spending on things like welfare, Social Security, Medicare; and these exclusions amount to roughly two-thirds of Federal spending. This is a cynically perpetuated fiction. It’s all discretionary spending. It’s all fully within Congress’ spending authority to manage on a year by year basis. Every single dollar of it.

The more dollars left in Americans’ hands through lower tax rates, the less government competes with the private economy for goods and services through spending, the better off Americans will be through the resulting economic activity and rising prosperity. And the faster our nation will be able to pay down—and off—its national debt.

EU and Taxes, Again

Brussels on Thursday dusted off a set of proposals aimed at extracting more revenue from multinational companies. Better watch out, because some or all of these measures may become law.

European leaders often complain that multinationals avoid paying a “fair share” of tax. The Anti-Tax-Avoidance Package is supposed to remedy this by changing accounting rules and boosting reporting requirements….

Part of the EU’s beef is that low-tax member nations supposedly are competing unfairly with high-tax members. Another part is that some member nations cut better deals with multinational corporations to influence where these corporations locate their headquarters than other member nations are willing to cut.

Once again, social democracy misses two critical points. One is that if a nation is having trouble competing with another nation on the basis of tax rates or deal cutting, that nation should lower its tax rates and/or cut better deals, and thereby compete.  It shouldn’t whine about the competition.

The other is this: it isn’t Government’s money. Not even in Europe.

Empirical Socialism

Bernie Sanders style. You remember him: the Independent Senator from Vermont, Democratic Party Presidential candidate, avowed Socialist, and as of Monday night’s Democratic Party Town Hall “debate” an avowed Democratic Socialist. In that “debate” (because it really wasn’t a debate; the three candidates appeared sequentially and answered carefully selected questions—and not even the same ones), Sanders assured us, one and all, that he really will raise taxes on us if he’s elected President.

From The Washington Examiner we get a list of just how bad his tax increase will be.SandersTaxes

To put that in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal revenues over the next 10 years will be a total of $41.6 trillion, meaning that Sanders would raise taxes by 47% over current levels.

Guess what happens when Government takes that much money away from working Americans, removes that much money from the economy?

Yup.

The EU and Taxes

Competition Commissioner [sic!] Margrethe Vestager called foul on a Belgian tax law the commission says unfairly saved 35 companies—most of them European—some €700 million ($763.3 million) in taxes since 2005. Belgium will now have to collect those taxes if it doesn’t appeal, or loses in court.

How terrible it is that a company should keep the money that belongs to its owners by following applicable sovereign law. For shame.

Here’s the thing, identified by the WSJ at the above link:

EU leaders and tax-happy populists are frustrated with slow political progress toward EU-wide, and maybe global, tax rules that would raise taxes on large companies. Ms Vestager thinks she’s found a way to push things along using antitrust law.

Indeed. Never mind that it isn’t the EU’s money. She and her EU government corporate cronies want it.