Tag Archives: taxes

Another Case for Tax Reform

Posted on by
Reply

British Prime Minister had this to say Thursday (if that link doesn’t work, the Daily Mail has a good summary and paraphrase):

We know the economic case for cutting taxes: in a competitive world we cannot afford to carry on as a bloated, high-taxing, welfare-heavy nation.

We have to direct our resources to incentivising work through tax cuts and not incentivising welfare through extra benefit entitlements.

We have to fight the notion that you can endlessly suck more taxes out of businesses and bite the hand that feeds…. For me, the simplest way to help with living standards is this: allow people to take home more of their own money.

And

Every single pound of public money started as private earning. Every million in the Treasury represents a huge amount of hard work: early morning alarms, long commutes, hours spent on the factory floor, the office, the hospital ward, or the classroom.

The Wall Street Journal rightly offered kudos for this awakening, but they missed a key point.

[T]he case for tax cuts is as much about freedom as it is about spurring growth.

True enough. But freedom is what allows those spurs to exist. Freedom is what allows economic growth to occur. Freedom is what allows prosperity.

European Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

…and, by extension, the goal of this administration’s Europe-wannabe tax schema.

Matthew Karnitschnig and Robin van Daalen, in The Wall Street Journal, interviewed the newly retired Marius Kohl, who was for 22 years the Attendant—head—of Luxembourg’s Sociétés 6, or Companies 6, the Luxembourg government agency that, among other things, determines the annual tax owed by each of roughly 50,000 Luxembourg-registered holding companies.

It’s a wide-ranging interview and well worth the read, but I want to focus on one small bit of it.

One outcome of Kohl’s stewardship is that Luxembourg became a corporate tax haven: companies registered there generally paid little in the way of taxes. This especially stands out against the EU average headline corporate rate above 21%, rates running as high as France’s 33%, and Luxembourg’s own 29%.

Naturally, the EU is dismayed with this, and with Kohl’s departure, it’s pushing Luxembourg to “fix that.” Luxembourg is being unfair, say the EU’s functionaries, and it should raise its corporate tax to be more in line with the rest of the EU.

Notice that. The EU declines to compete with Luxembourg (or with Ireland, whose official rate of 12.5% is being raised with the Irish government surrender to EU pressure) for business and associated employment. Instead, Luxembourg must make itself less competitive, must lower itself to the EU’s plain.

Because, it really isn’t people’s money, its government money that government kindly lets people use some of. Because, people are just piggy banks for the men of government, we’re not really in this for our own benefit.

This is where the US is headed, for all that President Barack Obama is talking about lowering our own corporate rate from 35% to 28%.   Obama, after all, is holding out for more taxes raised elsewhere in return.

Who Pays for Political Campaign Travel?

Posted on by
Reply

In the case of some Democrats, like President Barack Obama, it looks like us taxpayers pay a significant fraction of the costs. As Mark Knoller of CBS News noted the other day,

Under Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules, the government must be reimbursed for parts of presidential political travel.

“When a trip is for political or unofficial purposes, those involved must pay for their own food and lodging and other related expenses, and they must also reimburse the government with the equivalent of the airfare that they would have paid had they used a commercial airline,” states the Congressional Research Service in a 2012 analysis of “Presidential Travel: Policy and Costs.”

Further, when a presidential trip includes both political and official appearances, the White House is permitted to prorate the reimbursable costs.

However,

As President Obama embarks Thursday on a three-day Democratic fundraising trip to California, the White House again refuses an umpteenth request from CBS News for the political travel information.

[R]epeated requests are turned down for a breakdown of the costs and an explanation and specific examples of how the White House calculates how much is paid by taxpayers and how much must be reimbursed to the government by the Democratic National Committee or others.

The Obama White House justification? They insist that prior administrations also have refused such disclosures.

There’s that Democrat morality with which we’re all so familiar: the rightness or wrongness of a thing isn’t inherent in the thing; it’s entirely in whether someone else did first, or is doing it also.

Taxes and Expiring Tax Breaks

Posted on by
Reply

Time is running out for Congress to extend more than 50 tax breaks worth nearly $85 billion, including popular ones for college expenses and energy-efficient appliances.

There are other costs to these tax breaks:

The [House of Representative’s Joint Committee on Taxation has identified 79 expired or expiring federal tax provisions from 2013 to 2023.

And

…the so-called “breaks” result in less revenue for the Treasury Department and an increase to the deficit—like the projected $84.1 billion the Senate bill would add if passed in full.

However, to get onto one of my hobby horses, we wouldn’t need these tax breaks if we had a single, low flat rate. Moreover, as the above quotes illustrate, there’s a large cost to government social engineering and to government interference in a free market’s operation.

Taxes, though, aren’t for government-directed social engineering. All the social engineering government is allowed to do is named in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence—the founding documents of our social compact. Actual social engineering is up to We the People, and no one else, no entity else.

And the kicker: with a low, flat rate, and with everyone with an income required to pay, there would be no loss of revenue to the government, breaks or not. Note, too, that this kicker ignores the question of whether such a tax reform should be revenue neutral. (Hint: it need not be, except perhaps initially for the political reason of getting the thing passed.)

Ireland, Luxembourg, UK, and EU Commitments

Posted on by
Reply

In a letter to the Irish government published Tuesday, the European Commission, the 28-member bloc’s central antitrust authority, said it had reached the “preliminary view” that tax deals struck in Ireland in 1991 and 2007 in favor of Apple constituted state aid.

1991! No statute of limitations here. That’s a small matter, though. The larger matter is the degree of freedom that sovereign nations have to govern their internal affairs while remaining a part of the European Union.

The beef here, and it’s a similar one involving Fiat in Luxembourg, and Starbucks and others in other constituent nations of the EU (the details vary from case to case), is this. Ireland didn’t impose a high enough tax on Apple’s Irish-earned income to suit the Authorities of the EU. That letter, in the form of a “report,” complained:

The main question in the present case is whether the rulings confer a selective advantage upon Apple insofar as it results in a lowering of its tax liability in Ireland….

The EU long has objected to the low Irish tax rates, insisting that these are somehow unfair to the other member nations, nations that have much higher tax rates. And no, don’t expect those nations to lower their taxes to compete; Ireland must raise its taxes so as to be less competitive.

The EU complained further:

[There were] several inconsistencies in the application of the transfer pricing method chosen when determining profit allocation [and costs had been] reverse engineered so as to arrive at a taxable income.

Because it’s shameful for a company—or a nation—to work to protect the company’s (and so the company owners’) money. It’s not their money, after all, it belongs to the EU. To paraphrase a man from the other side of the Pond, they didn’t earn that. Somebody else made that happen.

As James Stewart, a tax expert at Trinity College Dublin, noted,

There’s no doubt that this is damaging to Ireland. There’s a deeply held belief that our low corporate tax regime is central to Ireland’s industrial policy. The commission letter gives notice that these types of tax rates are under scrutiny. It will be much more difficult for Ireland to give similar deals to other multinational companies.

But that doesn’t matter. Ireland didn’t earn that, either.

The UK needs to watch this situation in Ireland very carefully and to think long and hard about the value of an EU commitment and the cost of EU insistence on intruding into the domestic affairs of its member nations. The importance of the occurrence of the UK’s EU membership referendum has gained immeasurably from this EU behavior, and the outcome of that referendum now is even more important to the vitality of the UK.

Ireland, Luxembourg, and the others, also need to think very carefully about the value they’re gaining from EU membership, and the costs they’re bearing from that membership. What is the EU’s commitment to its members, if it reserves the right to intrude?

The European Commission’s allegations can be seen here.