The folks at the Center for Freedom and Prosperity have been on a roll in the past few months, putting out an excellent series of videos on Obama's economic policies.
- A look at the President's failure to control government spending.
- A review of the Obama's dismal track record on jobs and growth.
- A video showing how the auto bailout has been a costly mistake.
Now we have a new addition to the list. Here's Mattie Duppler of Americans for Tax Reform, narrating a video that eviscerates the President's tax agenda.
I like the entire video, as you can imagine, but certain insights and observations are particularly appealing.
1. The rich already pay a disproportionate share of the total tax burden - The video explains that the top-20 percent of income earners pay more than 67 percent of all federal taxes even though they earn only about 50 percent of total income. And, as I've explained, it would be very difficult to squeeze that much more money from them.
2. There aren't enough rich people to fund big government - The video explains that stealing every penny from every millionaire would run the federal government for only three months. And it also makes the very wise observation that this would be a one-time bit of pillaging since rich people would quickly learn not to earn and report so much income. We learned in the 1980s that the best way to soak the rich is by putting a stop to confiscatory tax rates.
3. The high cost of the death tax - I don't like double taxation, but the death tax is usually triple taxation and that makes a bad tax even worse.
Especially since the tax causes the liquidation of private capital, thus putting downward pressure on wages. And even though the tax doesn't collect much revenue, it probably does result in some upward pressure on government spending, thus augmenting the damage.
4. High taxes on the rich are a precursor to higher taxes on everyone else - This is a point I have made on several occasions, including just yesterday. I'm particularly concerned that the politicians in Washington will boost income tax rates for everybody, then decide that even more money is needed and impose a value-added tax.
The video also makes good points about double taxation, class warfare, and the Laffer Curve.
Please share widely.
The folks at Americans for Tax Reform have received a bunch of attention for a new report entitled "Win Olympic Gold, Pay the IRS."
In this clever document, they reveal that athletes could face a tax bill - to those wonderful folks at the IRS - of nearly $9,000 thanks to America's unfriendly worldwide tax system.
The topic is even getting attention overseas. Here's an excerpt from a BBC report.
US medal-winning athletes at the Olympics have to pay tax on their prize money - something which is proving controversial in the US. But why are athletes from the US taxed when others are not? The US is right up there in the medals table, and has produced some of the finest displays in the Olympics so far. ... But not everyone is happy to hear that their Olympic medal-winning athletes are being taxed on their medal prize money. Athletes are effectively being punished for their success, argues Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican, who introduced a bill earlier this week that would eliminate tax on Olympic medals and prize money. ...This, he said, is an example of the "madness" of the US tax system, which he called a "complicated and burdensome mess".
It's important to understand, though, that this isn't a feel-good effort to create a special tax break. Instead, Senator Rubio is seeking to take a small step in the direction of better tax policy.
More specifically, he wants to move away from the current system of "worldwide" taxation and instead shift to "territorial" taxation, which is simply the common-sense notion of sovereignty applied to taxation. If income is earned inside a nation's borders, that nation gets to decided how and when it is taxed.
In other words, if U.S. athletes earn income competing in the United Kingdom, it's a matter for inland revenue, not the IRS.
Incidentally, both the flat tax and national sales tax are based on territorial taxation, and most other countries actually are ahead of the United States and use this approach. The BBC report has further details.
The Olympic example highlights what they regard as the underlying problem of the US' so-called "worldwide" tax model. Under this system, earnings made by a US citizen abroad are liable for both local tax and US tax. Most countries in the world have a "territorial" system of tax and apply that tax just once - in the country where it is earned. With the Olympics taking place in London, the UK would, in theory, be entitled to claim tax on prize money paid to visiting athletes. But, as is standard practice for many international sporting events, it put in place a number of tax exemptions for competitors in the Olympics - including on any prize money. That means that only athletes from countries with a worldwide tax system on individual income are liable for tax on their medals. And there are only a handful of them in the world, says Daniel Mitchell, an expert on tax reform at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank - citing the Philippines and Eritrea as other examples. But with tax codes so notoriously complicated, unravelling which countries would apply this in the context of Olympic prize money is a tricky task, he says. Mitchell is a critic of the worldwide system, saying it effectively amounts to "double taxation" and leaves the US both at a competitive disadvantage, and as a bullyboy, on the world stage. "We are the 800lb (360kg) gorilla in the world economy, and we can bully other nations into helping enforce our bad tax law."
To close out this discussion, statists prefer worldwide taxation because it undermines tax competition. This is because, under worldwide taxation, individuals and companies have no ability to escape high taxes by shifting activity to jurisdictions with better tax policy.
Indeed, this is why politicians from high-tax nations are so fixated on trying to shut down so-called tax havens. It's difficult to enforce bad tax policy, after all, if some nations have strong human rights policies on privacy.
For all intents and purposes, a worldwide tax regime means the government gets a permanent and global claim on your income. And without having to worry about tax competition, that "claim" will get more onerous over time.
P.S. Just because a nation has a right to tax foreigners who earn income inside its borders, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to go overboard. The United Kingdom shows what happens if politicians get too greedy and Spain shows what happens if marginal tax rates are reasonable.
P.P.S. The International Olympic Committee apparently insisted that London couldn't host the games unless the UK government agreed not to tax any of the athletes on their winnings.
Considering that every economic theory agrees that living standards and worker compensation are closely correlated with the amount of capital in an economy (this picture is a compelling illustration of the relationship), one would think that politicians - particularly those who say they want to improve wages - would be very anxious not to create tax penalties on saving and investment.
Yet the United States imposes very harsh tax burdens on capital formation, largely thanks to multiple layers of tax on income that is saved and invested.
But we compound the damage with very high tax rates, including the highest corporate tax burden in the developed world.
And the double taxation of dividends and capital gains is nearly the worst in the world (and will get even worse if Obama's class-warfare proposals are approved).
To make matters worse, the United States also has one of the most onerous death taxes in the world. As you can see from this chart prepared by the Joint Economic Committee, it is more punitive than places such as Greece, France, and Venezuela.
Who would have ever thought that Russia would have the correct death tax rate, while the United States would have one of the world's worst systems?
Fortunately, not all U.S. tax policies are this bad. Our taxation of labor income is generally not as bad as other industrialized nations. And the burden of government spending in the United States tends to be lower than European nations (though both Bush and Obama have undermined that advantage).
And if you look at broad measures of economic freedom, America tends to be in - or near - the top 10 (though that's more a reflection of how bad other nations are).
But these mitigating factors don't change the fact that the U.S. needlessly punishes saving and investment, and workers are the biggest victims. So let's junk the internal revenue code and adopt a simple and fair flat tax.
Mitt Romney is being criticized for supporting "territorial taxation," which is the common-sense notion that each nation gets to control the taxation of economic activity inside its borders.
While promoting his own class-warfare agenda, President Obama recently condemned Romney's approach. His views, unsurprisingly, were echoed in a New York Times editorial.
President Obama raised ... his proposals for tax credits for manufacturers in the United States to encourage the creation of new jobs. He said this was greatly preferable to Mitt Romney’s support for a so-called territorial tax system, in which the overseas profits of American corporations would escape United States taxation altogether. It’s not surprising that large multinational corporations strongly support a territorial tax system, which, they say, would make them more competitive with foreign rivals. What they don’t say, and what Mr. Obama stressed, is that eliminating federal taxes on foreign profits would create a powerful incentive for companies to shift even more jobs and investment overseas---the opposite of what the economy needs.
Since even left-leaning economists generally agree that tax credits for manufacturers are ineffective gimmicks proposed for political purposes, let's set that topic aside and focus on the issue of territorial taxation.
Or, to be more specific, let's compare the proposed system of territorial taxation to the current U.S. system of "worldwide taxation."
Worldwide taxation means that a company is taxed not only on its domestic earnings, but also on its foreign earnings. Yet the "foreign-source income" of U.S. companies is "domestic-source income" in the nations where those earnings are generated, so that income already is subject to tax by those other governments.
In other words, worldwide taxation results in a version of double taxation.
The U.S. system seeks to mitigate this bad effect by allowing American-based companies a "credit" for some of the taxes they pay to foreign governments, but that system is very incomplete.
And even if it worked perfectly, America's high corporate tax rate still puts U.S. companies in a very disadvantageous position. If an American firm, Dutch firm, and Irish firm are competing for business in Ireland, the latter two only pay the 12.5 percent Irish corporate tax on any profits they earn. The U.S. company also pays that tax, but then also pays an additional 22.5 percent to the IRS (the 35 percent U.S. tax rate minus a credit for the 12.5 percent Irish tax).
In an attempt to deal with this self-imposed disadvantage, the U.S. tax system also has something called "deferral," which allows American companies to delay the extra tax (though the Obama administration has proposed to eliminate that provision).
Romney proposes to put American companies on a level playing field by going in the other direction. Instead of immediate worldwide taxation, as Obama wants, Romney wants to implement territorial taxation.
But what about the accusation from the New York Times that territorial taxation "would create a powerful incentive for companies to shift even more jobs and investment overseas"?
Well, they're somewhat right ... and yet they're totally wrong. Here's what I've said about that issue:
If a company can save money by building widgets in Ireland and selling them to the US market, then we shouldn’t be surprised that some of them will consider that option. So does this mean the President’s proposal might save some American jobs? Definitely not. If deferral is curtailed, that may prevent an American company from taking advantage of a profitable opportunity to build a factory in some place like Ireland. But U.S. tax law does not constrain foreign companies operating in foreign countries. So there would be nothing to prevent a Dutch company from taking advantage of that profitable Irish opportunity. And since a foreign-based company can ship goods into the U.S. market under the same rules as a U.S. company's foreign subsidiary, worldwide taxation does not insulate America from overseas competition. It simply means that foreign companies get the business and earn the profits.
To put it bluntly, America's tax code is driving jobs and investment to other nations. America's high corporate tax rate is a huge self-inflected wound for American competitiveness.
Getting rid of deferral doesn't solve any problems, as I explain in this video. Indeed, Obama's policy would make a bad system even worse.
But, it's also important to admit that shifting to territorial taxation isn't a complete solution. Yes, it will help American-based companies compete for market share abroad by creating a level playing field. But if policymakers want to make the United States a more attractive location for jobs and investment, then a big cut in the corporate tax rate should be the next step.
American companies are hindered by what is arguably the world's most punitive corporate tax system. The federal corporate rate is 35 percent, which climbs to more than 39 percent when you add state corporate taxes. Among developed nations, only Japan is in the same ballpark, and that country is hardly a role model of economic dynamism.
But the tax rate is just one piece of the puzzle. It's also critically important to look at the government's definition of taxable income. If there are lots of corrupt loopholes -- such as ethanol -- that enable some income to escape taxation, then the "effective" tax rate might be rather modest.
On the other hand, if the government forces companies to overstate their income with policies such as worldwide taxation and depreciation, then the statutory tax rate understates the actual tax burden.
The U.S. tax system, as the chart suggests, is riddled with both types of provisions.
This information is important because there are good and not-so-good ways of lowering tax rates as part of corporate tax reform. If politicians decide to "pay for" lower rates by eliminating loopholes, that creates a win-win situation for the economy since the penalty on productive behavior is reduced and a tax preference that distorts economic choices is removed.
But if politicians "pay for" the lower rates by expanding the second layer of tax on U.S. companies competing in foreign markets or by changing depreciation rules to make firms pretend that investment expenditures are actually net income, then the reform is nothing but a re-shuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Now let's look at President Obama's plan for corporate tax reform.
- The good news is that he reduces the tax rate on companies from 35 percent to 28 percent (still more than 32 percent when state corporate taxes are added to the mix).
- The bad news is that he exacerbates the tax burden on new investment and increases the second layer of taxation imposed on American companies competing for market share overseas.
In other words, to paraphrase the Bible, the President giveth and the President taketh away.
This doesn't mean the proposal would be a step in the wrong direction. There are some loopholes, properly understood, that are scaled back.
But when you add up all the pieces, it is largely a kiss-your-sister package. Some companies would come out ahead and others would lose.
Unfortunately, that's not enough to measurably improve incomes for American workers. In a competitive global economy, where even Europe's welfare states recognize reality and have lowered their corporate tax rates, on average, to 23 percent, the President's proposal at best is a tiny step in the right direction.
As discussed yesterday, the most important number in Obama's budget is that the burden of government spending will be at least $2 trillion higher in 10 years if the President's plan is enacted.
But there are also some very unsightly warts in the revenue portion of the President's budget. Americans for Tax Reform has a good summary of the various tax hikes, most of which are based on punitive, class-warfare ideology.
In this post, I want to focus on the President's proposals to increase both the capital gains tax rate and the tax rate on dividends.
Most of the discussion is focusing on the big increase in tax rates for 2013, particularly when you include the 3.8 tax on investment income that was part of Obamacare. If the President is successful, the tax on capital gains will climb from 15 percent this year to 23.8 percent next year, and the tax on dividends will skyrocket from 15 percent to 43.4 percent.
But these numbers understate the true burden because they don't include the impact of double taxation, which exists when the government cycles some income through the tax code more than one time. As this chart illustrates, this means a much higher tax burden on income that is saved and invested.
The accounting firm of Ernst and Young just produced a report looking at actual tax rates on capital gains and dividends, once other layers of tax are included. The results are very sobering. The United States already has one of the most punitive tax regimes for saving and investment.
Looking at this first chart, it seems quite certain that we would have the worst system for dividends if Obama's budget is enacted.
The good news, so to speak, is that we probably wouldn't have the worst capital gains tax system if the President's plan is enacted. I'm just guessing, but it looks like Italy (gee, what a role model) would still be higher.
Let's now contemplate the potential impact of the President's tax plan. I am dumbfounded that anybody could look at these charts and decide that America will be in better shape with higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
This isn't just some abstract issue about competitiveness. As I explain in this video, every single economic theory -- even Marxism and socialism -- agrees that saving and investment are key for long-run growth and higher living standards.
So why is he doing this? I periodically run into people who are convinced that the President is deliberately trying to ruin the nation. I tell them this is nonsense and that there's no reason to believe elaborate conspiracies.
President Obama is simply doing the same thing that President Bush did: Making bad decisions because of perceived short-run political advantage.
Governor Rick Perry of Texas has announced a plan, which he outlines in the Wall Street Journal, to replace the corrupt and inefficient internal revenue code with a flat tax. Let's review his proposal, using the principles of good tax policy as a benchmark.
1. Does the plan have a low, flat rate to minimize penalties on productive behavior?
Governor Perry is proposing an optional 20 percent tax rate. Combined with a very generous allowance (it appears that a family of four would not pay tax on the first $50,000 of income), this means the income tax will be only a modest burden for households. Most important, at least from an economic perspective, the 20-percent marginal tax rate will be much more conducive to entrepreneurship and hard work, giving people more incentive to create jobs and wealth.
2. Does the plan eliminate double taxation so there is no longer a tax bias against saving and investment?
The Perry flat tax gets rid of the death tax, the capital gains tax, and the double tax on dividends. This would significantly reduce the discriminatory and punitive treatment of income that is saved and invested (see this chart to understand why this is a serious problem in the current tax code). Since all economic theories - even socialism and Marxism - agree that capital formation is key for long-run growth and higher living standards, addressing the tax bias against saving and investment is one of the best features of Perry's plan.
3. Does the plan get rid of deductions, preferences, exemptions, preferences, deductions, loopholes, credits, shelters, and other provisions that distort economic behavior?
A pure flat tax does not include any preferences or penalties. The goal is to leave people alone so they make decisions based on what makes economic sense rather than what reduces their tax liability. Unfortunately, this is one area where the Perry flat tax falls a bit short. His plan gets rid of lots of special favors in the tax code, but it would retain deductions (for those earning less than $500,000 yearly) for charitable contributions, home mortgage interest, and state and local taxes.
As a long-time advocate of a pure flat tax, I'm not happy that Perry has deviated from the ideal approach. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the very good. If implemented, his plan would dramatically boost economic performance and improve competitiveness.
That being said, there are some questions that need to be answered before giving a final grade to the plan. Based on Perry's Wall Street Journal column and material from the campaign, here are some unknowns.
1. Is the double tax on interest eliminated?
A flat tax should get rid of all forms of double taxation. For all intents and purposes, a pure flat tax includes an unlimited and unrestricted IRA. You pay tax when you first earn your income, but the IRS shouldn't get another bite of the apple simply because you save and invest your after-tax income. It's not clear, though, whether the Perry plan eliminates the double tax on interest. Also, the Perry plan eliminates the double taxation of "qualified dividends," but it's not clear what that means.
2. Is the special tax preference for fringe benefits eliminated?
One of the best features of the flat tax is that it gets rid of the business deduction for fringe benefits such as health insurance. This special tax break has helped create a very inefficient healthcare system and a third-party payer crisis. It is unclear, though, whether this pernicious tax distortion is eliminated with the Perry flat tax.
3. How will the optional flat tax operate?
The Perry plan copies the Hong Kong system in that it allows people to choose whether to participate in the flat tax. This is attractive since it ensures that nobody can be disadvantaged, but how will it work? Can people switch back and forth every year? Is the optional system also available to all the small businesses that use the 1040 individual tax system to file their returns?
4. Will businesses be allowed to "expense" investment expenditures?
The current tax code penalizes new business investment by forcing companies to pretend that a substantial share of current-year investment outlays take place in the future. The government imposes this perverse policy in order to get more short-run revenue since companies are forced to artificially overstate current-year profits. A pure flat tax allows a business to "expense" the cost of business investments (just as they "expense" workers wages) for the simple reason that taxable income should be defined as total revenue minus total costs.
Depending on the answers to these questions, the grade for Perry's flat tax could be as high as A- or as low as B. Regardless, it will be a radical improvement compared to the current tax system, which gets a D- (and that's a very kind grade).
Here's a brief video for those who want more information about the flat tax.
Last but not least, I've already received several requests to comment on how Perry's flat tax compares to Cain's 9-9-9 plan.
At a conceptual level, the plans are quite similar. They both replace the discriminatory rate structure of the current system with a low rate. They both get rid of double taxation. And they both dramatically reduce corrupt loopholes and distortions when compared to the current tax code.
All things considered, though, I prefer the flat tax. The 9-9-9 plan combines a 9 percent flat tax with a 9 percent VAT and a 9 percent national sales tax, and I don't trust that politicians will keep the rates at 9 percent.
The worst thing that can happen with a flat tax is that we degenerate back to the current system. The worst thing that happens with the 9-9-9 plan, as I explain in this video, is that politicians pull a bait-and-switch and America becomes Greece or France.