Thanks to my daughter Kathy for naming this blog.

















Bald Eagle in Anchorage, Alaska

Translate

Showing posts with label Tax Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tax Reform. Show all posts

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Tax Reform

Once again, I have written to a staffer for Senator Dan Sullivan, Alaska Republican.  This month's epistle was regarding tax policy, and the ongoing Republican effort to enact tax reform.

Tax reform is deeply needed in the United States, but the direction of Republican reform seems entirely driven by the desire of wealthy political donors for lower taxes.  Representative Chris Collins of New York commented, "My donors are basically saying, 'Get it done or don’t ever call me again."

I believe that the process of reform should be an open process, subject to hearings, testimony, consideration of evidence, and compromise, but the Republican party is pursuing a closed process, without bipartisan input or debate.

And so I wrote to my Senator's staffer again with a sense of futility, despairing of receiving responsible government from Republicans.  But for the reader's consideration, here's my letter, and my priorities for tax reform.  For brevity, I placed my highest priorities in bullet points at the beginning.
-----
1)       Fully fund the federal government now.  Stop stealing from our children.
2)      Drastically simplify the tax system.
3)      Make everyone pay something.  Make rich people pay more.
4)      Tax unearned income higher than earned income. 
5)      Treat all capital earnings the same.  Eliminate special rules for trusts, S corporations, REITs, limited partnerships, hedge funds.   Treat personal capital earnings (short-term gains, long-term gains and dividends) the same.
6)      Tax foreign business profits in the same year that they are earned.
7)      Eliminate corporate tax loopholes.
8)      Tax unrealized capital gains on financial assets at death.  Keep the estate tax at 40% for estates larger than $10 million per couple.
9)      Place Social Security and Medicare taxes on unearned income at the same rate as wage income.  Eliminate the earning caps on Social Security and Medicare taxes.
10)  Stop lying about how American taxes are higher than other countries.  Correct lies when other people say them. 


Deficit Spending
I ask that you fully fund the Federal Government now.

During Senator Sullivan’s town hall meeting, the Senator expressed serious anxiety regarding the size of the US government debt.  I agree with the Senator on this point.  Debt held by the public is now about $14 trillion, or 76% of GDP.  Gross National Debt is about $20 trillion, or 106% of GDP.  Debt levels over 100% of GDP have been implicated in a number of foreign financial crises, such as Greece, Italy, Portugal, Argentina, and others.  Interest payments are rising as a percentage of the Federal budget, leaving less money for actual beneficial spending. 

Deficit spending is sometimes necessary to stimulate the economy.  But a balance sheet overloaded by debt allows policy makers no flexibility to deal with future crises.  Economic theory says that deficit spending is needed in an economy with high unemployment; an economy at full employment has no need for stimulus.  Deficit spending in an economy at full employment will simply result in inflation.

We’ve been systematically underfunding the Federal government for 40 years.  If this deficit spending was going to produce an economic miracle, it would have happened already.  We should raise taxes to run a surplus until our debt is under control.

Deficit spending, when it is not required for economic stimulus, is immoral.  Like all borrowing, it is taking benefits today, which must be paid for in the future.  The difference with Federal borrowing is that the people who enjoy the benefits of today’s spending will not pay those debts.  These debts will be paid by our children.  By deficit spending, we are literally stealing from our children. 

Any tax plan approved by the Senate should decrease the Federal debt.

Tax Simplification
I agree with Republicans that taxes are too complicated.  I support any reasonable effort to reduce the complexity of taxes, and to ease filing.  It is important that we improve the public perception that our taxes are fair.  I would recommend that the 40% of the population currently not paying income tax pay something, but with corresponding cuts in payroll taxes to mitigate the impact of these taxes on working families.  I would support the phased elimination of many deductions, including the home mortgage interest deduction.  In general, I support changes to reduce the use of the tax code for social engineering, and more to simply fund the government.

Trusts, S Corporations, REITS, limited partnerships and other special kinds of capital ownership should be eliminated, as far as tax law is concerned.  All capital should be treated the same for tax simplification.

I see no reason why unearned income should be exempted from the Social Security and Medicare taxes. 

Earned Income vs. Unearned Income
Work is an American virtue.  Physical productivity is the necessary foundation of our economy and earned wages support American families.  But those wages have decreased for the past two decades, in real terms and as a percentage of the economy (Federal Reserve database, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ ).  Difficulties faced by young wage-earners are reflected in later marriage ages, later first children, more prevalent emotional difficulties, despair, drug addiction and deaths. 

I would note that any cut in the corporate business tax is implicitly a tax cut on unearned income, as profits pass through to shareholders. 

Changes in our tax law should reduce taxes on wages and increase the taxes on unearned income. 

Estate Tax
Eliminating the estate tax would leave a gaping hole in the taxation of unrealized capital gains.  All unrealized capital gains on financial assets should be taxed at the time of death, and the cost basis re-set for the heirs.  Retain the estate tax for financial assets on estates worth over $10 million per couple.  

Business Taxes
As I document below, American business taxes are already lower than 2/3 of the countries in the OECD.  I have no strong objection to lowering business taxes, but ask that those taxes be replaced by other revenue, so as not to increase the Federal debt.

Corporate tax loopholes (or incentives) should be eliminated, to bring the actual tax paid in line with the nominal tax rate.

I think that foreign business profits should be taxed in the year that they are earned, and not deferred until repatriation. 

I recommend a carbon tax scaled to volume of carbon emitted by each carbon fuel, and acknowledgement that climate change is a major hazard for the United States, and caused primarily by human CO2 emissions.  I would be happy to talk about that in person, to anyone who is not convinced of this point.  A carbon tax should provide additional revenue to allow some of the tax reductions desired by Republicans.

Social Security and Medicare
Tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income.  Remove the earnings caps on Social Security and Medicare taxes.  [Given the opportunity, I would restructure Social Security.  But that is a topic for another post.]

Truth -- American Taxes Compared to Other Countries
I would conclude by noting that the Republican justification for tax reform is based upon outright lies. 

In Donald Trump’s acceptance speech for the Republican nomination, he stated that America is among the most highly taxed countries in the world.  This is the complete opposite of truth.  Anyone with an Internet connection can look at the OECD statistical page (https://data.oecd.org/), and see that the US has almost the lowest Federal tax burden of the industrialized world, and is in the lowest third in terms of total tax burden.   Similarly, you can go to the World Bank database and see that the US Federal tax burden is lower than over 100 countries, and higher than only a handful of third-world countries (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS).

In Senator Sullivan’s town hall meeting, the Senator said that the US business tax was the highest in the world.  This is deceptive, and since the Senator is a knowledgeable person, I have to conclude that his statement is deliberately deceptive.  It is true that the nominal US business tax rate is higher than other nations, but it is easy enough to check the revenue collected from businesses, and compare to total domestic business profits.  The actual tax paid is far lower than the nominal rate.  Further, you can go again to the OECD database.  The countries with lower business taxes than the United States are Slovenia, Latvia, Turkey, Greece, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Estonia, France and Finland (2014 & 2015).  The remaining 21 countries – two-thirds of the OECD – have higher business taxes than the United States. https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-on-corporate-profits.htm

I will judge the Senator’s honor by how well he speaks the truth, and how he speaks out to correct falsehoods when they are used to justify government policies. *


*  You might think me presumptuous to judge the Senator.  I write another blog with the theme that God should be judged according to the standards of reason and justice.  It is not that I have the right to judge.  It is rather that all figures of authority are subject to judgment according to truth, reason and justice.  I think that was the basis of the American Declaration of Independence.  

--
The section on Estate Taxes was revised 12/2/2017, returning the proposed estate tax to something similar to current law, but reducing the tax from 55% to 40% of assets over $10 million per couple.

Monday, October 23, 2017

The Republican Dilemma

I posted this last night, 10/23/2017, around midnight Alaska time.  This morning, Senator Jeff Flake, R - Arizona, announced he "would not be complicit", and that he would not seek re-election.
Senator Bob Corker and Donald Trump

Republicans have a problem.  For two decades, Republicans have relied on inflammatory populist themes to motivate their base, to encourage donations, and to win elections.  These themes, taken together, define what it means to be a modern American conservative: ever-lower taxes; cuts to government programs for the poor; authoritarian nationalism, with support for military and police; opposition to immigrants, Latinos, Muslims and blacks; opposition to gay rights; opposition to abortion; adoption of Religious-Right Christian principles in government; aggressive foreign policy; opposition to any restrictions on guns; denial of climate change and any remedial policies; and uncompromising opposition to any program favored by Democrats.

Those themes resonated strongly with conservative voters.  The message, particularly uncompromising opposition to Democrats, was reinforced by a relentless propaganda campaign by right-wing media, notably Fox News and Breitbart.  That campaign put every story through a political lens, and produced a seriously distorted world-view that was accepted as fact by conservative voters.  The range of stories lost any sense of being grounded in truth; rather, the only measure of news was how well it confirmed conservative biases.  Confirmation bias is extremely powerful at strengthening existing beliefs.  Social media played a part, too, producing an echo-chamber feedback that pushed conservatives to ever-more extreme positions.  Conservatives also became more extreme in their opposition to Democrats.

The problem is that voters elected a President who will actually do the things they promised.

The Republican Dilemma. 
Here is the Republican Dilemma in a nutshell.  The issues that Republicans used to rile and galvanize their base are largely nonsense, and thoughtful Republicans knew that these policies would be destructive, bad government.  There are a number of thoughtful and prominent Republicans – John McCain, Ben Sasse, Jeb and George W. Bush, and media commentators like Joe Scarborough and David Frum, who have disavowed major parts of the Trump administration’s program.  Moderate Republicans Pat Tiberi, Dave Reichert, Charlie Dent, and Bob Corker have all announced plans to leave Congress, citing frustration with current policies.  These thoughtful Republicans sat silent while right-wing media ballyhooed far-right issues because it brought in votes, and helped the party win elections.  But the Republican Party has now elected high officials, including the president, who actually believe the nonsense spouted daily on Fox News, and are intent on enacting these policies as the law of the land.  Thoughtful Republicans are frightened. 

During the Obama administration, Republicans could easily disparage the five-nation treaty with Iran which dismantled that country’s nuclear program.  They knew that their criticism would not endanger the deal.  The alternatives – to either allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon within 18 months, or to start World War III – did not have to be taken seriously.  Now, with a bellicose and erratic president, they have to seriously consider the possibility that the aggressive actions they’ve recommended for years will actually result in a major war, possibly a nuclear war or World War, involving North Korea, China, Russia, as well as Iran.  I consider it likely that any first strike by the United States on North Korea or Iran will be met with aggressive actions by China and Russia, although not necessarily in the same theater.  China may invade Taiwan; Russia may invade Ukraine and the Baltic republics.  Both will almost certainly support and arm America’s enemies around the globe: Iran, North Korea, possibly Venezuela, the Taliban and terrorist organizations. 

The same thing holds for less crucial issues.  Republicans, while publicly denying Climate Change, ensured that NASA’s climate-monitoring programs were funded through the Congressional budget process.  But they are now faced with a President who is unlikely to perform those programs.  Republican fiscal conservatives are faced with a President who is demanding major tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations, cuts that will drastically increase the nation’s debt.  The have a President who is determined to build a wall on the border with Mexico, that is vehemently opposed by Mexicans and most Americans.  They have a President who is determined to sever international trade deals, which will cripple the international supply chains of America’s major manufacturing companies. 

We have a sitting Secretary of State who has openly called the President a “f**king moron”, and a leading Senator who says that the White House is “adult day care”, and only a handful of officials “separate the country from chaos”.   A former Republican President and a former Republican Presidential candidate have sharply repudiated the administration’s policies.  Republicans have a President and a political base that are ready for the Party to do all of the things it has promised for many years.  And I believe that serious, thoughtful Republicans in the party must be terrified.  
-------------------------------------
References:
Trump governs by disruption.  Takes actions promised during campaign, regardless of impacts.  Acts like a tyrant, pushing criticism and pain to all who oppose him.
Promised to dismantle government, and is doing it.

Bannon declares war on establishment GOP

Trump listens to the most extreme views; whatever gives him confirmation bias to his populist preconceptions.  Tom Cotton epitomizes conservative trolls on the Internet, who cherry-pick bits and pieces of information to refute sound arguments based on deeper fundamental analyses.

Text of George W. Bush’s speech at the Spirit of Liberty event in New York.  Bush’s speech rebuked the populist “America First” theme of the Trump administration, and the inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric the president has used to rally his base.


Moderate Republicans Pat Tiberi, Dave Reichert, Charlie Dent, and Bob Corker have announced plans to leave Congress, in what is seen as a sign of frustration with the administration and far-right wing of the party. 

Timeline of deteriorating relationship between Bob Corker and Donald Trump.

Up to 10 million Americans saw paid Russian ads on Facebook.

Russian Twitter accounts received wide distribution and exposure through traditional media. 

Republican tax plans already face opposition.

Retiring Senator Corker is voicing doubts about Trump that are held by other Republicans, but only spoken in private. 

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Taxes on Wages and Capital Returns

Note:  I have discovered an error in this analysis, and will correct it soon.
Apologies and regards, Doug




The next major domestic policy initiative of the Trump administration and Republican Congress is expected to be tax reform.  Practically everyone would agree that our Federal tax system is hopelessly and needlessly complex, inefficient and unfair.  You might think that reform would be simple.  But the parties are in complete opposition about the direction needed for reform.  I hope that the work below can help inform the discussion of the appropriate direction for tax reform.

This post was originally published on the blog Wonky Thoughts.
http://dougrobbins.blogspot.com/2017/03/taxes-on-wages-and-capital-returns.html

Summary:
The total economic productivity of the United States in 2015 was 18 trillion dollars.  Of this total, $7.7 trillion was paid to workers as wages.  The remaining 10.3 trillion accrued to owners of capital.   Although Federal taxes are paid in several forms, the total tax burden on wages is 25 percent, while Federal taxes paid on capital returns is only 12.5 percent, half of the rate paid by wage-earners.
--
Wages and Return on Capital
Economic productivity can be divided into the contributions of Labor and Capital.  More accurately, Labor and Capital, working together, both contribute to productivity.  Labor requires Capital to be productive, and Capital requires Labor to be productive.  But the benefits of productivity are divided – Labor and Capital are allocated different shares in terms of earnings, and carry away different piles of money.  The shares allocated to Labor and Capital are largely determined by actions of the free market, modified somewhat by regulations such as the minimum wage law.   But taxes on earnings of Labor and Capital are entirely arbitrary, determined by the complex rules of the Federal tax law.

The United States produced about 18 trillion dollars of income in 2015.  The measure, Gross Domestic Income (GDI), is roughly equivalent to Gross Domestic Product, (GDP).  Wages and salaries comprised 42.9 percent of GDI, or $7.7 trillion (source: Federal Reserve Database).   Capital returns represent the remainder, or about $10.3 trillion.  It should be noted that capital returns do not include unrealized capital gains.

Labor’s share of Gross Domestic Income has fallen from 51% in 1970 to about 43% today.

                    Gross Domestic Income ($MM)
Wages
Capital Return
7,758,250
10,326,250

Federal Taxes
Federal taxation is complex.   Wages are subject to individual income taxes and payroll (social insurance) taxes.   Wage earners also pay most excise taxes, such as tobacco, alcohol, gasoline and health insurance taxes.

Capital Returns are taxed as corporate income taxes, and taxed again as individual income taxes on dividends, interest, and capital gains when returns are distributed.  Corporations also pay a share of payroll taxes equal to employee contributions, and pay a variety of Federal taxes and rents such as mineral royalties.  

In 2015, the Federal Government collected 3.25 trillion dollars in taxes, out of 18 trillion dollars in GDI, for a total Federal take of 18 percent.  Of those taxes, about 2 trillion dollars were paid out of wages and salaries, and 1.3 trillion dollars were paid out of capital returns.

Taxes on Wages and Salaries, millions of dollars

Individual Income Taxes
1,325,860
Payroll (Social Insurance) Tax
532,629
Excise Taxes
98,279
Total
1,956,768


Taxes on Capital Returns, millions of dollars

Corporate Income Tax
343,797
Corporate Payroll Tax
532,629
Capital Gains Tax
141,754
Dividends & Interest Tax
73,188
Other
201,751
 Total
1,293,119


The Federal Government taxes Capital Returns at 12.5 percent of earnings, on a 57 percent share of GDI, collecting a total of 1.29 trillion dollars.

By contrast, the Federal Government taxes Wages and Salaries at double the rate of Capital Returns.  The government taxes Wages and Salaries at 25.2 percent of earnings, on a 43 percent share of GDI, collecting a total of 1.96 trillion dollars.
Conclusion
Individual workers are receiving a smaller share of the nation’s productivity than owners of capital.  Moreover, Wages and Salaries are taxed at double the rate of Capital Returns.  This disproportional taxation doesn’t seem fair, or in the best interest of the economy.  The distribution of earnings to working-class households is more likely to see those dollars recycled into consumer demand than dollars distributed as investment earnings.  In the interest of economic fairness, economic efficiency, and the reduction of wealth inequality, it makes sense to raise taxes on capital returns, and give tax relief to wage-earners.

Note: This study did not include unrealized capital gains, which allow the owners of capital to roll-over gains from year to year without paying tax.  So, the effective tax rate paid on capital returns is actually less than reported in this post.  Taxes on unrealized gains are effectively never paid if the underlying assets are never sold, unless taxed at death by the estate tax.   I have not yet figured out a clear way to calculate (or efficiently tax) unrealized capital gains. 

-----------------------------------------------
Calculations and Assumptions

Income (Federal Reserve Database)
Income attributed to Wages includes 42.9 % of Gross Domestic Income,
Income attributed to Capital is GDI minus income attributable to wages.

Taxes (Tax Policy Center and JustFacts.com)
     Taxes attributed to Wages include:
  • All individual income taxes, minus 9.2 % for capital gains, and 4.75% for dividends and Interest.
  • Employee payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare)
  • Federal excise taxes (alcohol, tobacco, fuel and health insurance).
     Taxes attributed to Capital Returns include:
  • Business income taxes
  • Corporate payroll taxes
  • Individual capital gains taxes
  • Individual dividends and interest taxes
  •  “Other” taxes, representing diverse sources such as mineral royalty payments
 Assumptions
  • The 2016 component percentages of individual taxes (wages, capital gains, dividends and interest) were assumed to apply to 2015 taxes.
  • The percentage of taxes paid on capital gains was applied to dividends and interest.
  • Federal Excise taxes were entirely allocated to Wages.
---------------------------------------------------------------
References:
Federal Tax Receipts by Source, 1934 – 2021 (forecast from 2016)

“* In 2015, 9.2% of federal individual income tax receipts came from capital gain taxes.”
“* For 2016, the Joint Committee on Taxation projects that 6.2% of gross income earned by individuals will come from capital gains, 2.2% from dividends, and 1.0% from interest income.”

Tables on Gross Domestic Income, and Wages and Salary share of GDI. 

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Tax Reform in the United States

This is the fourth in a series of posts about priorities for Congress and President Obama in his second term.
Priority #1, The Fiscal Cliff:
http://debatablypolitical.blogspot.com/2012/11/priorities-for-obamas-second-term-1.html
Priority #2, Reducing the Federal Deficit 
http://debatablypolitical.blogspot.com/2012/12/priorities-for-obamas-second-term-2.html
Priority #3, Immigration Reform: 
---------------
Priority #4, Tax Reform
The fourth priority for the new Obama administration should be tax reform.  This is an issue that the Republicans got right.  The 2012 Republican platform called for entirely scrapping the Federal Income tax code, and starting over from a clean slate.  Tax reform is necessarily complex, because the tax code is complex.  The political fight will be difficult, because the tax code has penetrated every aspect of American life.  For every provision that might be changed, there will be winners and losers, and it will be difficult to make changes without making enemies.  

The amount of tax collected in the United States is low by comparison to other countries of the OECD.   Overall, the United States collects 24.8 percent of GNP in all taxes, including income, payroll, corporate, excise, and state and local taxes.  The United States ranked 2nd lowest of 34 OECD countries in Federal tax collected as a percentage of GDP (9.4) in 2010, and 3rd lowest  in total tax collected.  However, this blog post is not about the amount of tax collected, but rather about the complexity and economic losses caused by our system of taxes.

A report by the GAO (Government Accountability Office) found that costs to society or our tax system are “large”, but highly uncertain.  According to the report, the U.S. tax system may cost society 2% to 5% of GDP.   This is huge.

The goals of tax reform should be straightforward.   The tax system should be simplified in the interest of fairness and transparency.  The new tax system should reduce economic distortions which presently cause losses of 2% to 5% of GDP.  The new tax system should extend participation to all wage earners, strengthen successful businesses, reduce required record-keeping, and eliminate the motivation for costly tax-avoidance schemes.

Here are the basic areas needing reform. 
1.  Simplify the US income tax.
2.  Gradually eliminate many deductions. 
3.  Extend income tax to all wage-earners, while reducing Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes to keep tax burden on lower-income tax-payers constant. 
4.  Extend Social Security tax to investment income.
5.  Simplify the Corporate Income Tax, and reduce tax rates.
6.  Reduce the Estate Tax rate.
7.  Eliminate Gift Tax, but require payment of Capital Gains upon transfer to another individual.

1.  Simplify the US income tax code
A)  The United States Income Tax Code now amounts to 73,000 pages.  Nobody understands it. 
B)  Employees of the Internal Revenue Service do not understand the tax code.  An audit by the IRS in 2008 showed that its employees provided incorrect tax advice to tax-payers 9% of the time.  The GAO (General Accountability Office) previously found that the IRS error rate was 12% to 25%.  Of course, the tax-payer is liable for any errors made on his return, regardless of the advice he may have received from the IRS.

C)  More than 1.2 million people are employed to assist individuals in preparing tax returns.   Sixty-two percent of tax returns (about 80 million tax returns) are prepared by professionals.  An audit by the GAO found that 12 percent of professionally prepared returns contained reporting errors, and 1 percent contained mathematical errors.  These workers could be doing something of greater value to society, but the potential productivity of these workers is wasted because of the complexity of the tax system.

D)   A 2005 report by the General Accountability Office divided tax costs into compliance (time and effort to complete the tax returns) and efficiency (changes in work, savings, investment and consumption behavior).     The report cited the lowest estimates of the cost to individuals and businesses to prepare tax returns at $107 billion (about 1% of GDP).   Other studies estimate compliance costs to be 50% larger.   Estimates for efficiency losses to the economy range from 2% to 5% of GDP (as of the mid-1990s).

E)  The complexity of the tax code contributes to tax cheating and lost revenue.  The system is so complex that there is a common feeling that other people, particularly the wealthy, are not paying their fair share.  This perception contributes to an attitude that cheating on taxes is justified, in order to pay only as much as others are paying. 

2.  Eliminate many deductions. 
There are seventy-three tax breaks which each reduce tax collections by over a billion dollars.   The largest of these tax breaks is the exclusion of employer-paid health benefits from taxation, which costs about 174 billion dollars each year.  These breaks reduce tax collections by about $1.2 trillion per year; eliminating these tax breaks would balance the Federal budget without any other action. 
These tax breaks are deeply ingrained in American culture, and are a significant part of citizens’ individual tax planning.  Changing or eliminating these breaks will be difficult, but a process of phasing out these deductions should begin, as part of the general simplification of the tax code.
The primary function of the tax code should be to fund the government, not for social engineering.  Congress’ extensive use of taxes for social engineering is impairing the primary function of the tax system.

3.  Extend income tax to all wage-earners.   Reduce Social Security percentage to keep tax burden on lower-income stable.  Every citizen needs to have “skin in the game”, i.e. a vested interest in how US government dollars are spent.

During the 2012 election, much attention was given to Mitt Romney’s complaint (given privately, to roomful of rich donors) that 47% of US wage-earners pay no income tax.  Romney’s statement implied regarding these low wage-earners as parasites on the system.   Interestingly, most of the tax breaks exempting the 47% from income taxes were originally passed as initiatives of Republican presidents.  It should be noted that the 47% are already paying substantial payroll taxes to support Medicare and Social Security. 
Fundamentally, Romney is correct.   It is not right that nearly half of our citizens pay no income tax.  Everyone should pay some Federal tax, to take an “ownership” interest in government.  We should not have a disinterested class of people who have no direct stake in government finances.   Citizens should all feel responsible for some part of financing the government, and to feel some pain about government spending, to motivate interest in voting and spending issues.   It is easy to be disinterested when the government is spending somebody else's money.
Every wage-earner should pay some Federal income tax.  Payroll taxes should be reduced (or incorporated into income tax) in order to extend Federal tax to all workers, without imposing an additional burden.
4.  Extend Social Security tax to investment income.
I see no reason why investment income (interest, dividends and capital gains) should be exempt from Social Security and Medicare taxes.   Social Security and Medicare require additional tax revenue to remain solvent.   It is not fair to make wage-earners carry the entire burden of elder care and the social safety net.   Those who earn money through investments should carry at least an equal burden.

5.  Simplify the Corporate Income Tax, and reduce tax rates.
Federal corporate income tax rates nominally range from 15% to 35% percent.   Additional state taxes are also levied on corporate income.   The United States ranks 17th of 34 countries in the OECD in terms of corporate tax revenue as a percent of GDP. 

Corporate income taxes, like individual income taxes, are unnecessarily complex.  There are fourteen corporate tax breaks costing over one billion dollars are year in lost revenue.   These tax breaks encourage certain economic goals designated by congress, but sometimes produce market distortions and unintended consequences.   An example is the tax break given for the production ethanol fuels.   Since production of corn-based ethanol consumes nearly as much energy as it produces, the tax break encourages misallocation of resources, and makes food scarcer and more expensive.  Simplification of the corporate tax code would reduce economic distortions, and provide a fairer playing field for companies. 

Corporate income tax acts as a drag on the most successful companies, and helps to prop up unsuccessful companies.  Corporate income tax deprives successful companies of the capital needed to expand, and reduces the competitive margin between successful and unsuccessful companies.  Reducing corporate income tax would encourage successful companies to expand, and help them succeed in global markets.

6.  Reduce the Estate Tax rate.
The United States Estate Tax (pejoratively termed “the Death tax” by opponents), is among the most contentious aspects of the tax system.   A substantial reduction in the Estate Tax rate is recommended.   It might be reasonable to peg the estate tax rate to the long-term capital gains rate, and accompany the transfer of title of assets to a step-up in the cost basis of those assets to the market value at the time of transfer.

The amount of money collected by the estate tax is relatively trivial, yet citizens incur substantial costs and undue anxiety worrying over this tax.  It is clear that citizens spend a great deal of money avoiding the tax, but it is difficult to find unbiased data about how much.  Tax avoidance measures through wills and trusts also introduce economic costs.   A 1999 study cited by the GAO showed that the estate tax resulted in efficiency costs to the economy of $38 billion, as a result of distortions in consumer choices.   By comparison, historically the highest amount ever collected by the estate tax was $ 37 billion.

The tax rate above the minimum exclusion is 2nd highest among industrialized countries at 55%.  About half of those countries have no estate tax, and the median of the remainder is 20%.  Only Japan has a higher tax rate, at 70%.  The exclusion amount is currently $5 million, but will revert to $1 million on January 1, 2013, pending any revision.

In my view, the Federal government should take a lesson from Henry Ford.  Ford priced his cars as low as possible, and made higher profits by selling more cars.   At 55%, the estate tax is too high.  People are loath to pay this level of tax, and will expend considerable time and money to avoid it.  But a less confiscatory tax would meet with greater compliance, produce less economic costs and distortions, and might produce greater revenue for the government.

A further step would be to prohibit tax-avoiding trusts and trust provisions.  If Congress has decided, for the good of society, that citizens should pay estate tax, then our laws should prevent avoidance of that tax.  It is absurd to permit legal manipulations which evade the intent of our tax laws.

7.  Eliminate Gift Tax, but require payment of Capital Gains upon transfer to another individual.
The Gift Tax is closely tied to the Estate tax.  Essentially, the Gift Tax is simply intended to prevent avoidance of the Estate Tax by early transfer of assets to heirs.    The Gift Tax is only incurred on large transfers of wealth, but requires life-long record keeping.   A better solution would be to peg the Gift Tax to the Capital Gains tax, and step-up the cost basis for assets, exactly as suggested for the Estate Tax.
--------
References:
Costs of the US Tax System
In 2005, the GAO reported that costs for tax compliance and tax efficiency are “large”.  Estimates are reported in the range of 1% to 1.5% of GDP for compliance; and economic efficiency costs are reported in the range of 2% to 5% of GDP, (mid-1990s).   No better data was available.
ICB (Treasury Department) estimated that individuals, businesses and exempt organizations spent a total of 6.4 billion man-hours filling out tax forms.  Others do not trust these estimates.
Compliance costs are reported over $100 billion or about 1% of GDP; this is given as the low-end of the uncertainty range. 

Interactive OECD comparative tables about taxes as percentage of GDP.
US 2010 total tax: 24.8 percent of GDP, 3rd lowest of 34 OECD countries
US 2010 federal tax:  9.4 percent of GDP, 2nd lowest of 34 OECD countries
Federal 9.4 percent,  State 5.1 percent,  Local, 4.0 percent, Social Security  6.4 percent  (of GDP)
US 17th of 34 in Corporate Tax collected (as a percentage of GNP) in 2010.

General information.

Over 70,000 pages in the US tax code, 2010

IRS Errors and Tax Preparer Errors
1997 article; IRS advice was incorrect 12% of the time by telephone, 40% of the time in person.
IRS advice wrong 25% of the time.
More about IRS errors.
62 percent of tax returns (80 million) are prepared by paid tax preparers (2005).
42 percent of test returns resulted in material errors (of $1500 per return).
12 percent of returns by professional preparers contain reporting errors; 1 percent contain math errors.
10 percent of self-prepared returns contain reporting errors; 5 percent contain math errors.
In a GAO audit of paid tax preparers, the professions arrived at the correct answer on only 2 out of 19 tax returns.
Accuracy at IRS walk-in assistance centers improved from 85% in 2008 to 91% in 2010.   Assistance centers are staffed by volunteers.    Accuracy at call-in centers is not reported.   Only 76% of callers seeking live help receive service.

Costs of Tax Preparation
About 1.2 million tax preparers in the US.
Cost of tax preparation in the United States is $100 billion to $150 billion.
“Understanding the magnitude of these additional costs is important because every dollar spent on compliance and lost due to inefficiency represents a dollar that society could have spent for other purposes.”

Details of 172 tax breaks for individuals and corporations.  Seventy three tax breaks account for more than one billion dollars each of lost tax revenue. 

Estate Tax
Politically biased piece in favor of estate tax.  Costs of compliance with Estate Tax estimated at 7% of tax collected.  Cost of avoidance is belittled, but not quantified. 
Politically biased piece, in opposition to estate tax.  Large costs are claimed for estate tax.   Maximum ever collected by estate tax is $37 billion, in constant dollars.
Cost of compliance with Income tax is estimated at 14.5% of tax collected; cost of compliance with estate tax is estimated at 7% of tax collected.
At 55%, the United States Estate tax is second only to Japan in a list of 50 industrialized countries.
About half of those countries have no estate tax, and the median of the remainder is 20%.
Without new legislation, estate taxes will revert to 55% of the value of estates greater than $1 million.   It is expected that the exemption amount will be raised by new legislation.  An exemption of $5 million was put in place in 2010.
One study cited estimated efficiency costs of the Estate tax at $38 billion in 1999.
The most tax ever collected by the estate tax was $37 billion, in 2000.  







Saturday, December 1, 2012

Priorities for Obama's Second Term: #2 Reducing the Federal Deficit

This is the second in a series of posts about priorities for Congress and President Obama in his second term.
------------------
Priority #2, Reducing the Federal Deficit
The second priority for the new administration and Congress is to operate the Federal government within budgetary constraints.

Paradoxically, what is needed in the second priority is exactly what Congress and the President are trying to avoid in the first priority.  The programmed spending cuts and expiration of the Bush tax cuts would eliminate only about half of the budget deficit.  These measures, if allowed to occur, are expected to push the economy into recession. 

It is a question of choosing when we take bitter medicine.   Forecasts by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that GDP will be higher by 2022 if the Fiscal Cliff measures are allowed to go into effect than if we continue current policies.  The following is the concluding paragraph from the CBO’s Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook, 2012 - 2022   (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43539).

What Is the Budget and Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2022 If Many Current Policies Are Continued?
….
“Real GDP would be higher in the first few years of the projection period than in CBO’s baseline economic forecast, and the unemployment rate would be lower. However, the persistence of large budget deficits and rapidly escalating federal debt would hinder national saving and investment, thus reducing GDP and income relative to the levels that would occur with smaller deficits. In the later part of the projection period, the economy would grow more slowly than in CBO’s baseline, and interest rates would be higher. Ultimately, the policies assumed in the alternative fiscal scenario would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective.

The current US federal debt held by the public is about $11.5 trillion.  (The larger figure sometimes cited includes debt between government agencies.)  Our 2012 deficit of $1.3 trillion is increasing the federal debt at a rate of 11 percent per year.

The deficit is expected to equal -7.3 percent of GDP for fiscal year 2012. Federal debt held by the public reached 73 percent of GDP at the end of the fiscal year (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43539).  The Debt-to-GDP ratio is calculated at 103% by the IMF, using a definition of debt that includes intra-government obligations, such as the Social Security Trust Fund.  The IMF estimates that federal debt will reach 115% percent by 2016, one of the highest ratios in the world, and higher than the troubled economies of Ireland, Italy, and Portugal, four of the five PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain), the countries causing the European debt crisis. 

The European debt crisis offers a clear example of the American future if our deficit spending is not contained.  Social unrest, political disorder, and economic inefficiency and turmoil are our clear destination if we continue on the current path. 

The elements necessary to tame America's debt crisis are clear.  The problem requires a combination of increased tax revenue and decreased spending.

Options include:
1)  Increasing individual or corporate tax rates.  The expiration of the Bush tax cuts would provide about $500 billion of increased annual tax revenue.

2)  Decreasing government spending.  Potential targets with large amounts of annual spending might include military spending ($716 billion), Social Security ($779 billion), Income Security (unemployment, childrens’ programs, and welfare, $780 billion), and Medicare ($484 billion).

3)  Reducing or eliminating tax deductions and exemptions.   These are also known as "Tax Expenditures".  There are 73 tax breaks of over $1 billion each, totaling $1170 billion in reduced tax revenue.   Many of these breaks are well-entrenched into our personal finances and culture, but nevertheless represent a significant loss of tax revenue (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/tax-code-break-by-break/).  This topic will be discussed in greater depth in a future post regarding tax reform.
--------