BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Taxes Archive

Monday

23

September 2013

0

COMMENTS

End the Federal Subsidy for Big State Governments

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Liberty & Limited Government, Taxes

The relationship between federal and state governments – the division of power between the two levels being known as federalism – is an integral part of the American constitutional system. Federalism uses separate and competing spheres of sovereignty to check the growth and power of government as a whole.

Unfortunately, that system has been steadily eroded by a series of policies that have empowered the federal government, weakened states, made states dependent upon the largess of Washington, or encouraged excessive growth of state governments. As Curtis Dubay of the Heritage Foundation writes in a recent Issue Brief, the latter is accomplished in part through a federal deduction for state and local taxes that shields residents in high tax states from feeling the full cost of their bloated local governments.

Dubay writes:

The tax code allows taxpayers to deduct certain state and local taxes, including income taxes, sales taxes for residents of states that (wisely) go without an income tax, real estate taxes, and personal property taxes. State and local income taxes makes up about 95 percent of all state and local tax deductions.

…The harmful unintended consequence of the deduction is that it encourages state and local governments to raise their taxes. Higher taxes allow state and local governments to grow larger because they spend up to the maximum amount of revenue they can collect.

The deduction encourages state and local governments to raise their taxes because it transfers a portion of their tax burdens from their residents to the federal government. For instance, for every dollar a state taxes a family paying the 33 percent federal marginal tax rate, the family effectively pays only $0.67 of the state tax, because the deduction on the family’s federal taxes reduces their federal tax bill by $0.33.

This reduction in the “price” of the state’s taxes encourages states to raise their taxes higher than they otherwise would, because taxpayers offer less resistance since they do not pay the full cost of the higher taxes. Taxpayers are more willing to accept higher taxes because of the deduction in the same way consumers are more willing to buy a product or service when prices fall.

Dan Mitchell has similarly pointed to the faults in the state and local tax income tax dedication, as well as potential wrong headed solutions to its distortions:

Under current law, state and local income taxes are fully deductible, but state and local sales taxes are only temporarily deductible. The right policy is to get rid of any deductibility for any state and local tax…

Not surprisingly, the crowd in Washington doesn’t take this approach. Instead, they want to extend deductibility for the sales tax. And they may even be amenable to raising other taxes to impose that policy.

…This is a very misguided policy. It means that greedy politicians such as Governor Brown of California or Governor Cuomo of New York can raise tax rates and tell voters not to get too upset because they can deduct that additional burden. This means that a $1 tax hike results in a loss of take-home pay of as little as 65 cents.

But you don’t cure one bad policy with another bad policy. A deduction for state and local sales taxes just augments the IRS-enforced preference for bigger government at the state and local level.

Dubay further explains how eliminating the deduction would benefit tax competition and limited government:

These data show that while taxpayers in high-tax states pay a hefty amount of state and local taxes, they also see that burden reduced the most because of the deduction. If tax reform eliminated the deduction, these taxpayers would see the biggest increase in their effective state and local taxes. They would likely put the most pressure on their state and local governments to stop tax increases and apply the most pressure on those governments to reduce their high taxes.

Like Mitchell, he also notes that offsetting elimination of the deduction is essential to reform:

Eliminating the state and local tax deduction should be done only within the context of overall tax reform. Congress should not eliminate it (for instance, through “loophole closing”) without other offsetting tax changes. To do so would be an unnecessary tax increase.

The state and local tax deduction is just one of many policies distorting the federalist system and encouraging excessive government growth. Federal mandates, grants, handouts and other tax preferences also undermine tax competition and need reform.

Monday

24

September 2012

0

COMMENTS

Are Republicans Dumb Enough to Support a Carbon Tax?

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment, Taxes

When it comes to taxes, Republicans really do play the stupid party to the Democrats’ evil. If Democrats propose raising taxes, Republicans trip over themselves to offer to sharp contrast by offering to raise taxes a bit less. CF&P President Andrew Quinlan highlighted the latest example of this strategic brilliance in Forbes:

[I]t’s not just those on the left pushing for the tax. A few conservatives and Republicans are also quixotically jumping on the bandwagon.

The American Enterprise Institute, for instance, has recently hosted a series of events designed to brainstorm ways to sell the public, and in particular small government conservatives, on the idea of a tax on carbon. Former GOP Congressman Bob Inglis, who proposed a carbon tax bill while in Congress before he was defeated by a Tea Party primary challenger, has teamed up with supply side economist Art Laffer and created a new institute to push for carbon taxes.

The motives of the left in pushing for a tax are easy to understand, they want more “revenue” to spend. …The conservatives, in contrast, claim to want only a revenue neutral tax, trading carbon taxes for reductions in other, more economically destructive, tax rates, such as on income. In theory this is not a bad argument, but in practice it is rather naive.

If the political climate was such that cap-and-trade or other big government carbon regulations were on the horizon, proffering a more economically efficient carbon tax as an alternative might not be a bad strategy from a do-the-wrong-thing-in-the-least-destructive-fashion perspective. But that is not the case. Cap-and-trade is currently a nonstarter, and if the legislative will existed to undo destructive EPA carbon regulations – such as a proposed cap on carbon emissions for new energy plants – then it wouldn’t be necessary to even offer an alternative. After all, none on the left who otherwise support these EPA regulations are going to trade them away, even for a new tax.

More generally, the very idea of offering a new tax in exchange for lower rates elsewhere is flawed. Even if leftists agree to lower taxes on income to keep a new carbon tax revenue neutral, there’s nothing to stop them from raising rates in the future. On the other hand, given the love politicians have for taxes, eliminating an entire tax would be much harder…

He goes on to explain how the logic for a carbon tax doesn’t work even if you assume high-end estimates for the costs of carbon emissions, a point bolstered now by a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change:

A typical export from Western countries to developing giants is machine tools, which are then used to make products such as toys.

These machines are made in the West using comparatively low-carbon industrial techniques.

But when they are plugged in and used, they are usually powered by coal-fired electricity, the dirtiest of the main fossil fuels.

In such conditions, a carbon tax would be counter-productive.

To do so could prompt the developing country to make its own machines, which are likely to be more energy-intensive. This in turn would drive up the carbon tax on what was manufactured.

That is likely just scratching at the surface of the unintended consequences a carbon tax would produce. Though its intended consequence – raising the price of energy – is bad enough by itself to warrant rejecting this latest foray into bipartisan economic destruction.

Monday

3

September 2012

2

COMMENTS

In Need of Capital Day

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Free Markets, Taxes

The Department of Labor cites Labor Day as “dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers,” adding that “it constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.” Celebrating the hard work of Americans with a yearly day off is fine with me, but there are additional forces contributing to the “strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country” also worthy of recognition. Perhaps the time as come, for instance, for a Capital Day.

Hard work is important. Americans have long considered a strong work ethic a virtuous quality, and this has been to our advantage. But hard workers are all over the world, and the US hardly leads the world in average hours worked. Yet America is consistently at or near the top in worker productivity. What accounts for this discrepancy? Simply put, capital.

Another way to look at American prosperity is this: hard work is a necessary, but insufficient, condition for achieving prosperity. Give even the hardest worker a spoon, and it will take a long time to build a ditch. Give that same worker a shovel, and it will take less time. Now give that worker an expensive digging machine and that ditch will be completed exponentially faster. That is where growth in worker productivity comes from.

The mixing of capital and labor is where the true magic happens, and American prosperity is due to our once unique devotion to an economic system – the free market – that most efficiently matches these two ingredients.  Unfortunately, America today is no longer the most devoted to economic freedom, and the trend is heading in the wrong direction. A less free economy, generally speaking, will mean more inefficient distributions of capital and labor, resulting in a less productive workforce and thus a less prosperous economy.

In order to invest capital in our workers, we first need capital to invest, and that means savings. Unfortunately, neo-Keynesian economic thought can be reasonably accurately summed up as “savings = bad; spending = good.” Just consider the examples of politicians asserting that unemployment checks or food stamps boost economic growth because the recipients are more likely to spend it.  And then there’s the many government policies which reduce or inhibit capital formations, like direct taxes on capital such as the capital gains tax or death taxes, financial regulations and laws which discourage US investment, and other costly burdens on business – such as Obamacare.

So while we celebrate the contributions of hard working Americans of all stripes, we should keep in mind the importance of capital in achieving prosperity, a fact all too often forgotten by policymakers. Perhaps a yearly reminder in the form of a Capital Day is needed to do the trick.

Friday

2

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

Government Policy, Not Laziness, Responsible for Scaring Away Foreign Investors

Written by , Posted in Taxes

President Obama recently told a group of CEO’s that America had “been a little bit lazy” about “selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America.” Is this the case, or has the quality of the product simply declined? America’s descent in the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom would certainly tend to suggest that it’s the latter. The reality is that laziness is not to blame for any increasing unattractiveness to foreign investors; government policy is.

There are two looming policies, in particular, that are threatening foreign investment in the US. One of those is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), passed in 2010 in an effort to raise revenue for the HIRE Act through greater tax enforcement. The other is an IRS proposed regulation which would require reporting of interest payment information on foreign depositor accounts, despite the fact that the US has no use for the information. Both policies are misguided, counterproductive, and will drive investment out of the US.

FATCA is designed to compel foreign financial institutions to become deputy tax collectors for the IRS. By 2014, these institutions will be expected to have implemented expensive new data collection and reporting systems, and those that have not complied will face a 30% withholding tax on US source payments to the institution. As if those costs aren’t enough, FATCA also conflicts with local privacy laws in many countries, placing FFIs in an impossible position. Already, institutions are deciding that it makes more sense to simply drop their US clients and disinvest in US markets than to continue jumping through IRS hoops. The result is billions in lost foreign investment, and there is only more to come.

As I recently co-wrote in a piece with Dan Mitchell:

The FATCA legislation is the product of a misguided school of thought within the US political class which believes that there are vast sums of unpaid taxes which the IRS would be able to collect if only the rest of the world would stop hiding it from them.

…The rationale behind FATCA is simple in its destructiveness. Even though the US has a very high compliance rate for tax laws compared to the rest of the world, US politicians decided that more enforcement was needed to get more money to fund more spending and bigger budgets in Washington. Throwing aside any semblance of cost-benefit analysis, they then decided to spare no expense to capture every last dollar of potential tax revenue. Unfortunately, FATCA was not a wise approach. Ordinary Americans will suffer from the ensuing damage to the economy. Foreign financial institutions will endure higher regulatory burdens and compliance costs. And the FATCA law creates a powerful disincentive for foreign investment in the US. FATCA thus has the net impact of potentially reducing both economic prosperity and government tax revenues.

The other policy disaster on the horizon is a regulation proposed by the IRS which would require domestic banks to collect information and report on the interest payments made to foreign depositor accounts. The IRS would then share this information with foreign regimes. They assure us that sharing would only take place with countries that have tax treaties with the US, but that list is not only capable of changing at any time, but already includes the dictatorship in Venezuela, and crime and corruption plagued Mexico. What’s more, these payments are not taxable under the US tax code – a policy which Congress has explicitly chosen in order to foster foreign investment in the US – and so the rule serves no direct domestic interest.

recent Congressional hearing I attended on the issue covered a variety of arguments against the regulation. Members were concerned about the human rights implications for foreign depositors, particularly from Latin America, who face kidnapping and extortion threats back home, but most importantly the capital flight this concern would cause should the rule pass. Years ago, the Mercatus Center did a study estimating $88 billion in lost foreign investment. That was on a rule more limited in scope, so today’s proposal would be even more destructive.

The tax bureaucrats seem intent on plowing forward, even as Congress is mobilizing against the IRS on the issue (bills to prevent the rule from being implemented have been introduced in both the House and Senate – thanks to the leadership of Florida Rep. Bill Posey and Sen. Rubio, as well as Texas Senators Hutchison and Cornyn – and have a combined 28 co-sponsors). The IRS’s objective quite likely is to please foreign tax collectors who are complaining loudly about the burdens we are demanding their institutions take on with regard to FATCA.

President Obama thinks we have been lazy in selling America. But his administration has been anything but lazy in making America a harder sell to foreign investors. Rather than compound the mistake of FATCA with another one, while simultaneously driving out much needed foreign investment, we should revisit the initial legislation and look instead at making the tax code less complex and more economically competitive. Then we should tell the IRS that their job is only to enforce US tax laws, not to take it upon themselves to decide that America’s interests are outweighed by the tax information demands of the likes of Hugo Chavez.

Cross-posted at Big Government.

Thursday

10

November 2011

4

COMMENTS

The Real Problem With the "Christmas Tree Tax"

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Government Meddling, Liberty & Limited Government, Taxes

Yesterday evening, Heritage spotted a conspicuous entry in the day’s publication of the Federal Register, defining a new tax on Christmas trees, which would fund a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. The story quickly blew up and went viral, and now the Administration is delaying implementation of the proposal.

The left has been quick to point out that the fee is welcomed by the industry, which wants the Christmas Tree Promotion Board to help reverse the downward trend in Christmas Tree sales versus their fake counterparts. They’ve tried creating a board in the past, it seems, but they kept falling apart as members were unable to overcome the free-rider problem, where none wanted to pay to benefit all. So in stepped government.

What’s wrong with this picture? It isn’t really the tax, which the government has falsely tried to claim is not actually a tax, which is both minuscule, amounting to 0.3% assuming an average tree price of  $40.00, and welcome by the industry. The problem is the fact that government is once again picking industry winners and losers.

Consider this description of the rule from OIRA (emphasis mine):

The Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order would be implemented under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996. The purpose of the new program would be to increase the demand of Christmas Trees in the United States. The proposed new program will assist the fresh Christmas tree industry to: develop and finance an effective and coordinated program to strengthen the position of industry; and maintain, develop, and expand existing markets for fresh Christmas trees. Over the past 15 years, the sales of fresh Christmas trees has decreased from 37 million to 33 million trees. The decline in sales closely reflects the increase in sales of artificial trees. It is the hope of the fresh Christmas tree industry that a research and promotion program will help create a well coordinated national campaign to increase the demand of fresh Christmas trees. The industry has tried voluntary marketing campaigns only to watch them fade when contributors feel they are carrying the weight of the entire industry.

The purpose of the government program is to increase demand of Christmas Trees. Demand for Christmas Trees has declined because of rising demand for artificial trees. Presumably, then, increasing demand for Christmas Trees will require reducing demand for artificial trees. That’s great for the Christmas Tree industry, but not so great for the artificial tree industry.

Why is the government siding with one over the other?

This is a classic case of special interest politics, where government acts in the interest of one particlar interest at the expense of another. The targeted industry is often forced to respond by increasing lobbying and other government related activities of their own. The collective result is a drain of resources away from productive use and toward rent-seeking.

If people are increasingly abandoning real Christmas Trees for their artificial counter-parts – which don’t make a mess, require no watering, and can be reused year after year – it’s likely because consumers are increasingly judging the latter to be a superior product.  The government should not take it upon itself to try and change their minds, nor assist a competing industry in doing so.

Friday

12

August 2011

0

COMMENTS

Populist Tax Grabs Have Consequences

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

Walter Williams provides a much needed history lesson:

President Obama has called for a luxury tax on corporate jets as a means to generate revenue to fight federal deficits. The president’s economic advisers ought to be fired for not telling him that doing so is unwise and counterproductive.

…Let’s look at what happened when one of Obama’s predecessors, George H.W. Bush, signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and broke his “read my lips” vow not to agree to new taxes.

When Congress imposed a 10 percent luxury tax on yachts, private airplanes and expensive automobiles, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, D-Maine, crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share of taxes.

…Within eight months after the change in the law took effect, Viking Yachts, the largest U.S. yacht manufacturer, laid off 1,140 of its 1,400 employees and closed one of its two manufacturing plants.

Before it was all over, Viking Yachts was down to 68 employees. In the first year, one-third of U.S. yacht-building companies stopped production, and according to a report by the congressional Joint Economic Committee, the industry lost 7,600 jobs.

When it was over, 25,000 workers had lost their jobs building yachts, and 75,000 more jobs were lost in companies that supplied yacht parts and material.

…The U.S., which had been a net exporter of yachts, became a net importer as U.S. companies closed. Jobs shifted to companies in Europe and the Bahamas. The U.S. Treasury collected zero revenue from the sales driven overseas.

Incentives matter. People respond to them, and changing incentives will change behavior. Matt Damon thinks this is simplistic MBA thinking, but it’s actually incredibly complex. Understanding human behavior is never simple. What’s simple is pretending that nothing needs to be understood at all, and that legislation can be passed in a vacuum without impacting any factor other than its particular target (typically: tax revenues).

Obama is guilty of this simplistic thinking, and the current state of our economy is a direct result of that deficiency.

Saturday

23

July 2011

2

COMMENTS

FAA Shuts Down, Tickets Get Cheaper

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Taxes

Funny how that works:

Airline tickets are going to get cheaper Saturday unless Congress can reach an agreement before midnight on extending authority for the Federal Aviation Administration, which gives airlines the ability to collect taxes on behalf of the government.

If the FAA’s authority is not extended, airlines would no longer have the authority to collect federal taxes, which according to the Air Transport Association, is about $61 on a $300 round-trip airfare.

The massive federal bureaucracy eats up 20% of what you pay for a ticket. Put another way, the government taxes airline travel at an astonishing 25% rate (For those confused by the differing figures, one is exclusive and the other is inclusive: $61/$300 is ~20% of the total cost, but that also means a $61 tax levied on a $239 purchase, for a rate of 25%). Does anyone really believe the FAA adds that much in value?

Tuesday

12

July 2011

1

COMMENTS

IRS Thugs Salivate Over Fan Who Caught Home Run Ball from Derek Jeter's 3,000th Hit

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Taxes

Imagine you’re a big-time Yankees fan (difficult, I know, but pretend you didn’t kill yourself over it), and not only do you witness Derek Jeter’s historic home-run to mark the 3,000th hit of his career, but you even caught the ball! Being the good fan that you are, you gave it to Jeter with no expectations. The Yankees then returned your generosity with season tickets and autographed memorabilia.

Now read this:

The Verizon salesman from Highland Mills, N.Y., gave the ball back to Jeter, whom he called an “icon,” and the Yankees lavished a slew of prizes, including luxury box seats for every remaining home game this season and post-season and some signed memorabilia, upon him.

Now the IRS wants a piece. The prizes Lopez received are estimated to be worth more than $32,000 — and, like game show contestants, Lopez may have to pay taxes on the gifts and prizes because the IRS considers them income.

Some estimate the IRS will put Lopez on the hook for anywhere between $5,000 and $13,000, reports the Daily News.

Too bad you didn’t imagine living in something other than a tyrannical state with a thuggish government, where good deeds might manage to go unpunished. Next time be more specific.

Saturday

25

June 2011

0

COMMENTS

We Don’t Need an Investor-in-Chief

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

How was anything ever invented before government started “investing” in new technologies? One wonders these things, given the seriousness with which Keynesians seem to believe that if they don’t choose the economic winners and then throw large sums of money at them – other people’s money, of course – then there will be no innovation or growth. The latest example of this faulty attitude involves a plan by the President to spend $500 million “investing” in manufacturing, or something:

President Obama on Friday will announce the launch of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP), an initiative that would provide more than $500 million to encourage investments in promising technologies.

It is the administration’s second initiative in less than a month intended to boost U.S. manufacturing.

…“Today, I’m calling for all of us to come together — private-sector industry, universities and the government — to spark a renaissance in American manufacturing and help our manufacturers develop the cutting-edge tools they need to compete with anyone in the world,” Obama will say, according to prepared remarks.

What do Obama and his bureaucrats know about manufacturing or what “cutting-edge tools they need to compete with anyone in the world”? He doesn’t seem to know, for instance, that we’re already in a manufacturing “renaissance”, in so far as manufacturing output continues to grow to new heights, breaking its own record, year after year.

Perhaps an even better question is: what makes Obama qualified to spend other people’s money better than they would themselves? Government “investments” are necessarily made according to political criteria, as the first priority of a politician is to get reelected, not turn a profit. And in order for these vote-seeking politicians to spend money on their schemes, it must first be removed from the productive sector of the economy, where individuals with actual skin in the game are much better suited to find investment opportunities that will pay off.

If President Obama really wants to promote investment, he should remove the existing disincentives to savings and investment, such as the capital gains, dividends and death taxes, among other destructive taxes on capital formation. Simply put, we don’t need an Investor-in-Chief to direct investment capital to promising sectors and businesses, we simply need government to get out of the way and to stop making it so difficult for private investors to do so in the first place.

Wednesday

1

June 2011

2

COMMENTS

What the International Taxaholics Are Doing With Your Tax Dollars

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Taxes

I’m still in Bermuda, but I want to pass on this report at Big Government by Dan Mitchell. He talks about plans by the OECD (which receives almost 25% of its funding from US taxpayers) to start what will eventually morph into a world tax organization, or “thieves’ cartel” to oversee national tax rates and ensure that no countries are daring to steal too little.

Bolstered by support from the Obama Administration, the OECD now is taking its campaign to the next level. At its Global Tax Forum in Bermuda, which ends later today, the bureaucrats unveiled a new scheme that effectively would result in the creation of something akin to a World Tax Organization.

The vehicle for this effort is a Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. This may sound dry and technical, but the OECD wants all nations to participate in this pact, which has existed for a couple of decades but was radically expanded last year to give high-tax governments sweeping new powers to impose bad tax law on income generated in low-tax jurisdictions.

But the real smoking gun is that the OECD has put itself in charge of the “co-ordinating body” that will have enormous powers to interpret the agreement, modify the pact, and resolve disputes – thus giving itself the ability to serve as judge, jury, and executioner.

There’s also more in this local Bermuda news piece, including a comment from yours truly.