Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Tax Increase’ Category

According to Freedom in the 50 States, which we reviewed a couple of days ago, New Jersey is in the bottom 10 and has been moving in the wrong direction.

This dismal ranking is not an anomaly. New Jersey also is in the bottom 10 of states according to Economic Freedom of North America, and the Garden State is dead last according the State Business Tax Climate Index and State Fiscal Condition.

In a perverse way, I admire New Jersey’s politicians. They’re not satisfied with the state’s low scores. They want to become even less competitive. If that’s even possible.

As I noted in the interview, the latest proposal for a “rain tax” isn’t necessarily objectionable if examined in isolation.

But in the context of New Jersey’s fiscal deterioration, it’s almost as if politicians are writing another passage in a very long suicide note for the state.

Consider what happened recently with the gas tax, as explained by the Wall Street Journal.

…a silver lining used to be the Garden State’s relatively low gasoline tax of 14.5 cents a gallon—second lowest in the U.S. No more, and therein lies a tale of why taxing the rich to finance government is an illusion. In October 2016, then-Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill raising the gas tax by 22.6 cents to 37.1 cents a gallon…the bill also included a clause that automatically raises the gas tax if it doesn’t produce the expected revenue each year. This is a self-fulfilling economic prophesy. A higher gas tax causes people to drive less, which in turn has meant that revenues have fallen short of the expected $2 billion target. So on Oct. 1 the gas tax will rise another 4.3 cents to 41.4 cents per gallon, which will be the ninth highest in the U.S. …This will be the state’s third tax increase in four months, following June’s increase in income and corporate tax rates. …The larger lesson is that sooner or later the middle class always gets the bill for bigger government. Higher income and corporate taxes drive the affluent out of the state, which means less revenue. That leaves the middle class to pay in higher sales, property and now gasoline taxes.

Needless to say, New Jersey’s taxaholic lawmakers want even more revenue.

Here are some excerpts from a report by Politico.

Gov. Phil Murphy said Wednesday he may propose new tax increases when he unveils his budget in March, saying he’s worried that the state has not done enough to achieve what he called “tax fairness.” …The governor…had sought some $1.7 billion in new taxes… Murphy was met with fierce resistance from fellow Democrats in the Legislature… Murphy ultimately agreed to…$1.6 billion in annual revenue. …Murphy, speaking at a church in Newark where he delivered a speech on his first-year accomplishments, said he needs to leave his options open as he starts to prepare a budget… “I would say everything is on the table. Period, full stop,” he added when pressed again about the idea of new tax increases.

If all this sound worrisome, that’s because it is.

But it gets even worse. As I warned at the end of the interview, the 2017 tax law restricts the ability of federal taxpayers to deduct taxes paid to state and local governments.

And that means the full burden of those taxes is now much more explicit, which means more and more taxpayers in high tax rates are going to “vote with their feet” and move to states with less onerous fiscal regimes.

In other words, New Jersey politicians are making their tax system worse at precisely the moment that the geese with the golden eggs have more incentive to fly away.

Insane.

P.S. Given this grim news, I’m surprised that fewer than 9 percent of people picked New Jersey to be the first state that will suffer fiscal collapse.

P.P.S. What’s really remarkable – albeit in a very sad and tragic sense – is that New Jersey in my lifetime used to be like New Hampshire, with no state income tax and no state sales tax.

P.P.P.S. There is a Jersey with good tax policy, but it’s far away from the American version.

Read Full Post »

I did not like Bill Clinton’s 1993 class-warfare tax hike, and I also opposed Barack Obama’s 2012 fiscal-cliff tax increase on the so-called rich.

But those were incremental measures.

Today’s leftist politicians have much more grandiose schemes, such as 70 percent tax rates, wealth taxes, and extortionary death taxes.

And even those proposals may not be enough.

In a column for the New York Times, Farhad Manjoo actually suggests that billionaires should be taxed out of existence. Literally, not just figuratively.

…if we aimed, through public and social policy, simply to discourage people from attaining and possessing more than a billion in lucre, just about everyone would be better off. …Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are floating new taxes aimed at the superrich, including special rates for billionaires. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who also favors higher taxes on the wealthy, has been making a moral case against the existence of billionaires. …the question is getting so much attention because the answer is obvious: Nope. Billionaires should not exist… Abolishing billionaires might not sound like a practical idea, but if you think about it as a long-term goal in light of today’s deepest economic ills, it feels anything but radical. …Billionaire abolishment could take many forms. It could mean preventing people from keeping more than a billion in booty, but more likely it would mean higher marginal taxes on income, wealth and estates for billionaires and people on the way to becoming billionaires. …But abolishment does not involve only economic policy. It might also take the form of social and political opprobrium. …Why should anyone have a billion dollars, why should anyone be proud to brandish their billions, when there is so much suffering in the world? …When American capitalism sends us its billionaires, it’s not sending its best. It’s sending us people who have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with them. They’re bringing inequality. They’re bringing injustice.

Wow, I’m not even sure how to respond to this demonization of success. Should I focus on the vicious populism? The economic ignorance?

Maybe I should joke about how Mr. Manjoo wants to turn David Azerrad’s satire into reality?

Fortunately, I don’t have to come up with a response. I can simply rely on Allister Heath of the U.K.-based Daily Telegraph.

He explains, in his latest column, that these crazy ideas are a real threat.

Hard-Left ideas are uber-trendy: they are making a catastrophic comeback in the world’s most powerful universities, capturing many young minds, and are now being proposed by a new generation of supposedly modern politicians around the world. …pro-capitalist arguments…are met with derision by this new generation of intellectuals. Higher taxes bad for the economy? Hilarious! Nationalisation doesn’t work? Laughable! Venezuela? Nothing to do with actual socialism, all America’s fault. It’s a dialogue of the deaf… The old Left used to argue (falsely) that entrepreneurs, investors and executives aren’t really put off by high tax, which means that rates can be jacked up safely, raising lots to “redistribute”, without discouraging work and investment. The new Left has turned the argument on its head. It now admits the “rich” would work less if they were highly taxed – but claim this would be a good thing, as it would make society less unequal… As Harvard’s Greg Mankiw puts it, the Left now believes that “we can no longer afford the rich”.

If such policies were ever enacted, the results would be catastrophic.

The impact would be Venezuelan-style: it would lead to a collapse in GDP… Only the richest are being targeted at first: but everybody will suffer when the economy tanks, and such taxes are always eventually extended to the prosperous middle classes. …We could thus be on the cusp of a new socialist era, where even zero GDP growth will be seen as a good year. …we are on the brink of a new war on wealth.

Here’s what worries me.

Allister’s warning about terrible economic consequences is accurate, but I’m not sure that matters.

When I talk to hard-core leftists, I usually make the following three points.

In the past, leftists would disagree. Maybe they would claim government could make investments. Or perhaps they would assert that government could somehow compel employers to pay higher wages.

But it’s now quite common for my leftist friends to simply assert that lower living standards are an acceptable result. For all intents and purposes, hurting the rich is more important than helping the poor.

You may think I’m joking, or that only a small handful of crazies actually want this outcome.

But the establishment left also advocates for lower living standards. The International Monetary Fund has financed and publicized research that explicitly embraces the twisted notion that it would be ideal to reduce everyone’s living standards so long as rich people suffered the bigger declines.

Margaret Thatcher is spinning in her grave.

Read Full Post »

When I ask friends on the left to answer my two-question challenge about prosperity and the size of government, they sometimes will flip the script and demand that I answer their version of the same question.

Name a jurisdiction that became rich with small government, they ask!

I’ve always viewed that as a grossly ineffective debating tactic because I have so many good responses. For instance, I often point to Hong Kong and Singapore as modern-era examples of poor places that became rich places thanks to free markets and small government.

But my favorite examples are from North America and Western Europe. If you look at the historical data, nations in the western world evolved from agricultural poverty to middle-class prosperity in the 1800s and early 1900s when the burden of the public sector was minuscule.

It’s true that all of those nations, after they became prosperous, then chose to adopt welfare states of various sizes. That was an unfortunate development (though somewhat offset by trade liberalization and other pro-market policies), but at least they got rich before making that mistake.

After providing all these examples, I then tell my friends that it is their turn. Please, I ask, give me just one example of a nation that adopted big government and then became rich?

I’ve never received a good answer.

And this is why I’m so disappointed (but not surprised) that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has a project to increase the fiscal burden in poor nations.

The Paris-based OECD actually asserts that higher taxes and more spending will lead to more prosperity. I’m not joking.

The OECD has a unique role to play in supporting developing countries to generate domestic revenues to finance their sustainable development. …While the ratio of tax to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in OECD countries averaged 33% in 2008, in developing countries it was only around half this level, indicating that there was great potential yet to be exploited. …a growing focus on taxation as a development priority…as it is clearly the primary source of financing for development. …to unlock the potential of countries…the design and delivery of “modernised, progressive tax systems, improved tax policy and more efficient tax collection” were high on the list of must-dos.

I’m sure that poor people in developing nations will be delighted to learn that their politicians are conspiring with the OECD to “exploit” them with “progressive” and “efficient” tax regimes.

And I’m both amused and disgusted that the OECD report has creative euphemisms for higher taxes, such as “domestic resource mobilization” and “capacity building.”

But the section on how taxes supposedly are good for growth is downright unbelievable.

Taxation enables governments to invest in development, relieve poverty and deliver public services to underpin long-term growth. Strong tax systems not only raise crucial revenues: they also promote inclusiveness… Above and beyond the direct benefits to developing countries themselves, international co-operation in the area of taxation is essential in today’s globalised world. …Such actions can realise the potential of taxation to help drive development on a global scale.

You won’t be surprised to learn that the OECD does not provide any empirical evidence to back up this rhetoric.

The bureaucrats don’t even provide a single anecdote or example. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Instead, we’re supposed to believe that there’s a mysterious alchemy that somehow leads transforms higher taxes and bigger government into greater prosperity.

By the way, the OECD isn’t the only international bureaucracy pushing this message. I had the surreal experience of being a credentialed observer at a United Nations conference where seemingly every other participant was on the other side. And the International Monetary Fund is also guilty of this peculiar form of economic malpractice.

This video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity examines whether big government is the right way to boost prosperity in poor nations.

P.S. I don’t know whether to characterize this as irony or hypocrisy, but OECD bureaucrats don’t pay tax on their lavish remuneration. Perhaps this explains why they are so oblivious to the real-world consequences of higher tax burdens.

P.P.S. I feel sorry for the professional economists at the OECD, who often produce very good studies. It must be embarrassing for them when the political appointees push bad policies.

P.P.P.S. Needless to say, I’m not happy that American taxpayers are financing the OECD’s statist agenda.

Read Full Post »

I’ve periodically opined about why politicians should not try to control people’s behavior with discriminatory taxes, such as the ones being imposed on soda.

And I’ve cited some examples of how these taxes backfire.

If the following headlines are any indication, we can add Philadelphia to that list.

For instances, this story from the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Or this story from the local CBS affiliate.

These examples reinforce my view that it is not a good idea to let meddling politicians impose more taxes in an effort to control people’s behavior.

Some of my left-leaning friends periodically remind me, however, that there’s a difference between anecdotes and evidence. There’s a lot of truth to that cautionary observation.

To be sure, I could simply respond by saying a pattern is evident when a couple of anecdotes turns into dozens of anecdotes. And when dozens become hundreds, surely it’s possible to say the pattern shows causality.

That being said, it is good to have rigorous, statistics-based analysis if we really want to convince skeptics.

So let’s look at the results of some new academic research from scholars at Stanford, Northwestern, and the University of Minnesota. We’ll start with the abstract, which nicely summarizes their findings about the impact of Philadelphia’s big soda tax.

We analyze the impact of a tax on sweetened beverages, often referred to as a “soda tax,” using a unique data-set of prices, quantities sold and nutritional information across several thousand taxed and untaxed beverages for a large set of stores in Philadelphia and its surrounding area. We find that the tax is passed through at a rate of 75-115%, leading to a 30-40% price increase. Demand in the taxed area decreases dramatically by 42% in response to the tax. There is no significant substitution to untaxed beverages (water and natural juices), but cross-shopping at stores outside of Philadelphia completely o↵sets the reduction in sales within the taxed area. As a consequence, we find no significant reduction in calorie and sugar intake.

Here are some of their conclusions.

We draw several lessons about the effectiveness of local sweetened-beverage taxes from these analyses. First, the tax was ineffective at reducing consumption of unhealthy products. Second, in terms of revenue generation, the tax was only partly effective due to consumers substituting to stores outside of Philadelphia. Third, low income households are less likely to engage in cross-shopping, and instead are more likely to continue to purchase taxed products at a higher price at stores in Philadelphia. The lower propensity for low income households to avoid the tax through cross-shopping leads to a relatively larger tax burden for those households. In summary, the tax does not lead to a shift in consumption towards healthier products, it affects low income households more severely, and it is limited in its ability to raise revenue.

If you’re wondering why consumers responded so strongly, here’s a chart from the study showing the price difference after the tax was imposed.

The bottom numbers in Figure 3 show that some sales still occurred in the city, but a persistent gap between city sales and suburban sales appeared.

And here’s what happened to sales inside the city (taxed) and outside the city (untaxed).

Wow. This data makes me wonder if suburban sellers will start contributing to the Philadelphia politicians who have generated this windfall?

Others have noticed how the tax is hurting rather than helping.

The Wall Street Journal opined about the failure of Philly’s soda tax.

When Philadelphia became the first major U.S. city to pass a soda tax in 2016, Mayor Jim Kenney said it would improve public health while funding universal pre-K. Two years in, the policy hasn’t delivered on that elite ideological goal. But the tax has come at the expense of working people… On Jan. 2, Brown’s Super Stores announced the closure of a ShopRite on Haverford Avenue. The supermarket is close to the city limit, and customers discovered they could avoid the soda tax by shopping outside Philly. …the once-profitable store began losing about $1 million a year. …That means fewer opportunities for workers with a criminal record. Mr. Brown’s supermarkets employ more than 600 of them, with the majority in Philadelphia. Some of the ex-cons have become his most-valued employees.

And Kyle Smith explained in National Review how the tax backfired.

Philadelphia’s outlandish soda tax is what Democratic-party politics looks like when it lets its freak flag fly. So many classic elements are there: (failed) social engineering and “think of the children!” on one side, paid for with a punitive tax on poor people and destroyed businesses, which means destroyed jobs, which in turn means lives upended. …Now that beer is, in some cases, cheaper than soda in Philadelphia, alcohol sales are up sharply. …the total loss attributable to the tax in sales of all items was $300,000 a month per store. Other, untaxed drinks also suffered sales declines within the city, suggesting people were simply saving up their shopping trips for when they left town.

I don’t feel compelled to add much to what’s been cited.

Though I will cite a headline from the Seattle Times to reinforce one of the points in the academic study about consumers bearing the cost of the tax rather than the soda companies.

And my one modest contribution to all this analysis is this comparison of the winners and loser from Philadelphia’s new tax.

For what it’s worth, similar comparisons could be developed for just about every action by every government. Academics call this “public choice” while ordinary people realize it’s just common sense.

Read Full Post »

Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but I don’t believe in using dodgy numbers or nonsensical analysis – even if that would help my side in a policy debate.

And it goes without saying that I also don’t like when the other side is dishonest. But I’m not talking about my left-leaning friends who have genuine (albeit misguided) views on things such as Keynesian economics or the minimum wage.

I’m talking about people who deliberately dissemble and prevaricate in hopes of advancing their policy agenda.

Consider, for instance, the new carbon tax that has been introduced by Congressmen Ted Deutch (D-FL) and Patrick Rooney (R-FL). The core features of the bill are:

  • A $15-per-ton carbon tax that increases $10 each subsequent year until it reaches $100.
  • A new entitlement program giving money to all legal American residents, including children.
  • A new tax on consumers who buy imports from nations without similar taxes on energy usage.
  • A supposed adjustment and easing of existing regulations governing carbon emissions.

There’s obviously a serious policy debate to have about both the general concept as well of the individual components of this type of legislation, and I’ve periodically added my two cents to the discussion.

But what irks me is that the sponsoring lawmakers are openly and deliberately lying about a key part of their plan. Here’s the relevant section from their talking points.

The claim about “revenue neutrality” is a stunning level of dishonesty, even by Washington standards.

At the risk of stating the obvious, if the government imposes a tax and then also creates a program to give money to people, that’s not revenue neutrality.

Was Obamacare “revenue neutral” because all the new taxes were balanced out by the handouts and subsidies that the law created for the big insurance companies?

Of course not.

And a new carbon tax doesn’t magically become “revenue neutral” because new revenues are matched by new spending.

To be sure, supporters can argue that their plan is “deficit neutral,” and that would be legitimate (even though I would argue that this wouldn’t be the case in the long run because of the adverse economic impact of new taxes and new spending).

But “revenue neutral” is a bald-faced lie.

The Daily Caller reported on this amazing example of deceptive advertising, citing the good work of Paul Blair of Americans for Tax Reform.

The bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus claims it is pushing a “revenue-neutral” carbon tax, but legislation proposed Thursday would hike taxes by at least $1 trillion over the next decade… Florida Reps. Ted Deutch, a Democrat, and Francis Rooney, a Republican, reintroduced a bill Thursday that would place a $15-per-ton tax on carbon emissions in 2019. The tax would rise by $10-a-year increments until it hits nearly $100 per ton. …Though Rooney claims the tax is “revenue-neutral,” the plain text of the bill does not include any reciprocal tax cuts to balance out the burden of the added tax on emissions… “Historically and for anyone engaged in tax policy, the definition of ‘revenue-neutral’ is and always has been if you increase a tax, the amount of revenue it generates must be offset by an equal tax cut elsewhere,” Blair said. …Blair said…that the “apology checks” sent as carbon dividends will be treated as new spending and do not negate a new tax burden.

By the way, just in case anyone thinks I’m imposing some weird, libertarian-ish, meaning to “revenue neutral,” you may want to look at how the left-leaning Tax Policy Center defines the term.

Revenue-neutral. A term applied to tax proposals in which provisions that raise revenues offset provisions that lose revenues so the proposal in total has no net revenue cost or increase.

I often disagree with the folks at the Tax Policy Center, but I’ve never questioned their honesty.

So when we both agree on the definition of ‘revenue neutral,” this is slam-dunk confirmation that it’s preposterously dishonest to count new spending as an offset to a tax increase.

P.S. Some of my friends and allies who supported the Fair Tax sometimes played fast and loose with the truth. That plan would have required the government to send “prebate” checks to households to partly compensate people for the new tax, yet supporters would argue that this expenditure shouldn’t count as a new entitlement program. While my first choice for tax reform is the flat tax, I certainly think a national sales tax would be a far better way to tax than the mess we have today, but that did not justify mischaracterizing the plan.

Read Full Post »

If nothing else, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gives me a lot to write about…and to laugh about.

I recently pontificated about her crazy idea to impose a top tax rate of 70 percent, which would reverse the very successful experiment we had in the 1980s (and presumably have a reverse effect on revenue as well).

Today, let’s look at the spending side of the fiscal equation.

AOC, as she is known, wants a dramatic increase in the burden of federal spending for her so-called “green new deal.”

Let’s examine the implications.

We’ll start with a supporter. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has a giant carbon footprint compared to the average person, but that naturally doesn’t stop him from endorsing policies that would put AOC’s onerous burdens on the less fortunate.

Barack Obama picked up the theme and made a Green New Deal part of his 2008 platform, but the idea just never took off. So I’m excited that the new Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others have put forward their own takes on a Green New Deal… The goal is a ‘detailed national, industrial, economic mobilization plan’ to rapidly transition the country away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy, such as a solar, wind, and electric cars.” The Green New Deal that Ocasio-Cortez has laid out aspires to power the U.S. economy with 100 percent renewable energy within 12 years and calls for “a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one,” “basic income programs” and “universal health care,” financed, at least in part, by higher taxes on the wealthy. …it is time for the green movement to think big and make big demands…a portion of every dollar raised by a carbon tax in a Green New Deal would be invested in two new community colleges and high-speed broadband in rural areas of every state.

Now let’s look at the implications of such policies.

But before looking at fiscal and economic considerations, let’s briefly detour to ideology.

Jonah Goldberg of National Review has some fun examining the philosophical forerunners of Ocasio-Cortez’s plan.

…the Green New Deal…is a triumph of recycling. Not of plastic bags or soda cans, but of ideas. Specifically, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and the impulses behind it. To her credit, Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) is fairly honest about her ideological recycling. …the New Deal itself was largely about war mobilization — without war. Roosevelt campaigned for president promising to adapt Woodrow Wilson’s wartime industrial policies to fight the Great Depression. …Nearly the entire structure of the New Deal was copied from Wilson’s “war socialism.” The National Recovery Administration was modeled on the War Industries Board. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was an update of Wilson’s War Finance Corporation. …breaking discipline was a punishable offense, which is why a tailor, Jacob Maged, was sentenced to 30 days in jail for charging too little to press a suit. …American liberalism has been recycling the same basic idea: The country needs to be unified and organized as if we are at war… The attraction stems from what John Dewey called “the social possibilities of war” — the ability to reorganize and unify society according to the schemes of planners and experts.

Gee, another New Deal. What could possibly go wrong?

Now let’s contemplate the practical implications.

We’ll start with Warren Henry’s article in the Federalist.

…the darling of democratic socialism proposed eliminating carbon emissions within 12 years. …The “Frequently Asked Questions” section accompanying her draft resolution claims it could be funded in the “same ways that we paid for the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs, the same ways we paid for World War II and many other wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments, new public banks can be created (as in WWII) to extend credit and a combination of various taxation tools (including taxes on carbon and other emissions and progressive wealth taxes) can be employed.” …Ocasio-Cortez now falls back on the comforting myth that everything is affordable by soaking the rich with higher income taxes. …Ocasio-Cortez half-concedes her plan is a fantasy… For an idea of how detached Ocasio-Cortez is from reality, consider that we get only 17 percent of our energy from renewables. …even if the golden geese of capitalism were to continue laying eggs in Ocasio-Cortez’s command-and-control economy, there will not be enough to make her statist omelet. Even if Ocasio-Cortez’s fever dream were technologically feasible, the burden of funding it would land on the middle class as well as the uber-wealthy. …This is not the first time Ocasio-Cortez has tried to pass off a fairy tale as a white paper. She recently claimed the $32 trillion cost of a Medicare-for-all plan could be funded by curbing fraud at the Pentagon. Not even PolitiFact could make that math work, given that our nation has not spent $32 trillion on defense since its founding.

In an article for FEE, Jarrett Stepman looks at the economics of AOC’s plan.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that the avowed “democratic socialist” went with the predictable “tax the rich” formula in order to pay for a massive government program to combat climate change. …such a scheme would mean that her constituents in New York City would pay a max income tax rate of 82.6 percent… Perhaps New Yorkers deserve what they voted for, but does the country? …the tax hikes on the rich would be one of the least radical parts of the agenda. …moving the economy away from fossil fuels to 100 percent renewable energy will come “at a cost of about $5.2 trillion over 20 years.” …this deal would instead rely on the ruthless bludgeoning of private industry and citizens through the levers of the state. …the plan calls for direct government intervention to be its “prime driver.” …The Green New Deal doesn’t just include environmentalist proposals… Among the liberal wish list items included, the Green New Deal contains a proposal for universal health care and a basic minimum income program to make up for all the jobs lost…this will all come with an immense cost. …How do Green New Deal proponents propose to pay for this extreme growth in government? …by massively hiking taxes and then borrowing and ultimately printing money. Then it would use public banks run by unaccountable bureaucrats to carry the whole thing out. …an American version of a Soviet-style five-year plan focused on command-and-control economic solutions that have proven to fail the world over. …The agony of a collapsing Venezuela…is a stark example of how badly this can end.

Milton Ezrati’s column in the City Journal further debunks AOC’s numbers.

…specific goals…include, among other things, expanding renewable-energy sources until they provide 100 percent of the nation’s power…upgrading every residence and industrial building in the U.S. for energy efficiency…eliminating greenhouse-gas emissions for industry and agriculture; funding “massive” investments… Ocasio-Cortez adds a long list of social objectives: providing training and education for the energy transition, including “job guarantees at a living wage for everyone who wants one”; …mitigating racial, regional, and gender-based inequalities; developing universal health-care and income-support programs… there were some 136 million housing units in the United States. Upgrading each unit to high standards of energy efficiency would cost, conservatively, at least $10,000 per home, adding up to a total cost of $1.3 trillion. Doing the same for industrial structures would easily exceed that amount. The single-payer health-care part would cost another $3 trillion or more, annually. Stabilizing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would add another $1 trillion to $2 trillion to the price tag—and all these still only account for three items on AOC’s list. …she would rely on debt, “printing money,” and government willingness to take an equity stake in some of the enterprises involved.

The bottom line is Ocasio-Cortez wants to dramatically expand the size and scope of government.

Some of her ideas would involve big increases in red tape, especially for the green parts of the Green New Deal (thus underscoring why it is rather naive for anyone to think the left would accept less regulation in exchange for a carbon tax).

But since I’m a fiscal policy person, I’m naturally concerned about what her grandiose plan would mean for the tax and spending burden.

Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute has used public sources to estimate the price tag. Here’s the new spending that AOC and her fellow travelers want to impose on the economy.

And below we have a menu of potential tax increases.

There are two things to realize.

  • First, even if every single one of the tax increases is adopted, it doesn’t come close to paying for AOC’s wish list for new spending.
  • Second, the big revenue sources (payroll taxes, VAT, income tax) are largely taxes on lower-income and middle-class taxpayers.

In other words, politicians talk big about screwing the rich, but the rest of us will be picking up the tab.

By the way, I can’t resist commenting on this second table. I realize Brian is merely following the tradition of budget scorekeepers at the JCT and CBO, but new revenues should not be categorized as “savings.” I would go with “grabbings” or “takings” instead.

Brian’s rhetorical sin doesn’t qualify him for the Bob Dole Award or the Charlie Brown Award, but surely there should be some consequences. Maybe we’ll create a Libertarian Re-education Camp and miscreants will be forced to listen to lectures from Dork 1, Dork 2, and Dork 3?

Read Full Post »

There were several good features of the 2017 tax bill, including limitations on the state and local tax deduction.

But the 21 percent corporate tax rate was the unquestioned crown jewel of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. The U.S. system had become extremely anti-competitive thanks to a 35 percent rate that was far above the world average, so reform was desperately needed.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that Democrats in the House of Representatives already are pushing for a big increase in the corporate rate.

Rep. John Yarmuth, the new House Budget chairman, said his chamber’s budget blueprint will aim to claw back lost revenue by boosting the corporate tax rate from its current 21 percent to as high as 28 percent… he anticipates the budget resolution will envision changes to the 2017 GOP tax overhaul, including raising the corporate tax rate above its current 21 percent. “…We’ll see how much revenue we can get out of it.” The rate was 35 percent before it was cut in the GOP tax bill.

Since Republicans control the Senate and Trump is in the White House, there’s probably no short-term risk of a higher corporate tax rate.

But such an initiative could be a major threat after the 2020 election, so let’s augment our collection of evidence showing why a higher rate would be a very bad idea.

We’ll start with some analysis from the number crunchers at the Tax Foundation.

A corporate tax rate that is more in line with our competitors reduces the incentives for firms to realize their profits in lower-tax jurisdictions and encourages companies to invest in the United States. Raising the corporate income tax rate would dismantle the most significant pro-growth provision in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and carry significant economic consequences. …Raising the corporate income tax rate would reduce economic growth, and lead to a smaller capital stock, lower wage growth, and reduced employment. …Raising the rate to 25 percent would reduce GDP by more than $220 billion and result in 175,700 fewer jobs.

Here’s the table showing the negative effect of a 22 percent rate and a 25 percent rate, so a bit of extrapolation will give you an idea of how the economy will suffer with a 28 percent rate.

By the way, since the adverse impact on wages is one of the main reasons to be against a higher corporate tax rate, I’ll also share this helpful flowchart from the article.

Now let’s look at some research from China, which underscores the importance of low rates if we want more innovation.

Here’s the unique set of data that created an opportunity for the research.

In November 2001, China implemented a tax collection reform on all manufacturing firms established on or after January 2002, which switched the collection of corporate income taxes from the local tax bureau to the state tax bureau. After the reform, similar firms established before or after 2002 could pay very different effective tax rates because of the differences in the management and incentives of those two types of tax bureaus…, resulting in a reduction of effective corporate income tax rates by almost 10% among newly established firms. …the policy change created exogenous variations in the effective tax rate among similar firms established before versus after 2002. We can thus apply a regression discontinuity design (RD) and use the generated variation in the effective tax rate to identify the impact of taxes on firm innovation.

And here are the findings.

Our analysis yields several interesting results. First, we show a strong and robust causal relationship between tax rate and firm innovation. Decreasing the effective tax rate by one standard deviation (0.01) increases the average number of patent application by a significant 5.7% (see Figure 2 for the graphical evidence). The reform also stimulated R&D expenditures and increased the skilled-labour ratio by 14%. Second, a lower tax rate also improves the quality of patents. The impact of tax reform on patent applications mainly comes from its effect on invention and utility patents – decreasing the effective tax rate by one standard deviation improves the probability of having an invention patent application by 4.4% and increases the number of utility patent applications by 4.7%.

Don’t forget that high personal tax rates also discourage innovation, so it’s a pick-your-poison menu.

Here’s a chart from the study, showing the difference in patents between higher-taxed firms and lower-taxed firms.

Last but not least, let’s review some of the findings from a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

We present new data on effective corporate income tax rates in 85 countries in 2004. …In a cross-section of countries, our estimates of the effective corporate tax rate have a large adverse impact on aggregate investment, FDI, and entrepreneurial activity. For example, a 10 percent increase in the effective corporate tax rate reduces aggregate investment to GDP ratio by 2 percentage points. Corporate tax rates are also negatively correlated with growth, and positively correlated with the size of the informal economy. The results are robust to the inclusion of controls for other tax rates, quality of tax administration, security of property rights, level of economic development, regulation, inflation, and openness to trade

And here’s one of the many charts and tables in the study.

The bottom line is that a higher corporate tax rate will be bad for workers for the simple reason that less investment means lower productivity and lower productivity means lower wages.

P.S. It’s also likely that House Democrats will try to increase the top personal tax rate, though hopefully they’re not so crazy as to push for Ocasio-Cortez’s 70 percent rate.

P.P.S. it’s quite possible that an increase in the corporate tax rate would reduce revenues, especially in the long run.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: