The crown jewel of the 2017 tax plan was the lower corporate tax rate.
I appeared on CNBC yesterday to debate that reform, squaring off against Jason Furman, who served as Chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Here are a couple of observations on our discussion.
- Jason Furman thinks it would be crazy to raise the corporate tax rate back to 35 percent. Yes, he wants to rate to be higher, but rational folks on the left know it would be very misguided to fully undo that part of the tax plan. That signifies a permanent victory.
- Based on his comments about expensing and interest deductibility, he also seems to have a sensible view on properly and neutrally defining corporate income. These are boring and technical issues, but they have very important economic implications.
- Critics say the lower corporate rate is responsible for big increases in red ink, but it’s noteworthy that the corporate rate was reduced by 40 percent and revenue is down by only 8.7 percent (a possible Laffer-Curve effect?). Here’s the relevant chart from the latest Monthly Budget Report from the Congressional Budget Office.
- There’s a multi-factor recipe that determines prosperity, so it’s extremely unlikely that any specific reform will have a giant effect on growth, but even a small, sustained uptick in growth can be hugely beneficial for a nation.
- There’s a big difference between a pro-market Democrat like Bill Clinton and some of the extreme statists currently seeking the Democratic nomination (just like there’s a big difference between Ronald Reagan and some of today’s big-government Republicans).
- I close the discussion by explaining why “double taxation” is a profound problem with the current tax code. For all intents and purposes, we are punishing the savers and investors who generate future growth.
P.S. This wasn’t addressed in the interview, but I can’t resist pointing out that overall revenues for the current fiscal year have increased 2.2 percent, which is faster than needed to keep pace with inflation. So why has the deficit increased? Because spending has jumped by 5.8 percent. We have a spending problem in America, not a deficit problem. Fortunately, there’s a very practical solution.
P.P.S. It also wasn’t mentioned, but the other crown jewel of tax reform was the restriction on the state and local tax deduction.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Welcome Instapundit readers! Thanks, Glenn
[…] and state that there was a lot of revenue feedback, which shows that the lower corporate tax rate did produce good economic […]
[…] and state that there was a lot of revenue feedback, which shows that the lower corporate tax rate did produce good economic […]
[…] Trump’s tax reform, which lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, was a very good step for the American […]
[…] I wrote a few days ago that the Trump tax reform was generating good results, I probably should have specified that some […]
[…] I wrote a few days ago that the Trump tax reform was generating good results, I probably should have specified that some […]
[…] Interesting. […]
[…] I wrote a few days ago that the Trump tax reform was generating good results, I probably should have specified that some […]
Didn’t they also resolve the expensing problem? If so, wasn’t the change to expensing business investments yet another crown jewel of President Trump’s tax reforms.
To get rid of “double taxation” you need a one-time “painless tax.”
If you eliminate capital gains taxes altogether, you get a one-time jump in the stock market of 25% (20/80=25%).
The day before it goes into effect have a one-time painless tax (like taxing a winning lottery ticket) on all appreciation.
$1 Trillion in tax revenues for $6 Trillion in gains. Painless!
One specific factor that would have a huge impact on prosperity, would be slashing the compliance time for filing taxes from 8 billion man hours to 4 billion. Equivalent to adding 2 million very productive (people who pay taxes) man years to the work force, or over 1% GDP increase.
We could do that with a flat tax.
But a flat tax is regressive, and not politically acceptable. Add a moderate UBI, and the effective tax rate becomes progressive. VOILA!
Note: A modest UBI could be paid for with current tax expenditures, dollar for dollar reductions of the safety-net, and corporate subsidies.
Good job, Dan.
Whaaaaat??? Tax revenue is up? I have yet to hear one pundit on the left who railed against the tax cuts admit in public that Total Federal Tax revenue is up.