Posted on 01/07/2015 7:18:59 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Everyone wants tax reform. At least we pay lip service to the idea that the U.S. economy would be better off with lower rates, a simpler code, and fewer loopholes. Yet something everyone claims to support has proved elusive time and again. Why?
For starters, it's not clear that everyone's idea of tax reform is the same. Corporations want lower statutory rates; they are less enthusiastic when it comes to sacrificing their bought-and-paid-for tax breaks. Liberals want an even more progressive tax code, with higher rates on the wealthy. Conservatives want to reduce anything that looks, smells, or acts like a tax. And libertarians want a flat tax with no deductions and no subsidies for favored industries.
That said, the new year brings hopes for bipartisan agreement on a number of issues, including tax reform. The Republican controlled Congress plans to act quickly on a number of issues in the hopes of scoring some quick wins: the Keystone XL Pipeline; adjustments to the Affordable Care Act, including a repeal of the medical devices tax; infrastructure investment; new trade agreements, which congressional Democrats oppose but President Barack Obama supports; and Iranian sanctions.
As for tax reform—real reform, not tweaks around the edges—I'd advise lowering your expectations. On the corporate side, the U.S. boasts the highest federal income tax rate (35 percent) among developed nations. Lower that rate, and corporations have a lot less incentive to shift profits overseas.
It sounds like a win-win… until you get to the fine print. If corporate tax reform is to pay for itself, certain exemptions and deductions will have to go. That's where the second major hurdle to tax simplification comes in. What is in the national interest is not necessarily in individuals' or businesses' self-interest.
For example, the statutory tax rate is not the same as what corporations pay. (And here you thought GE maintained a 975-person tax department to double-check the math on the corporate return.) In a 2013 report, the General Accounting Office calculated that the effective federal tax rate for profitable U.S. corporations in 2010 was about 13 percent. Throw in foreign, state, and local incomes taxes, and it rises to 17 percent.
Many tax experts doubt the effective rate can be calculated with that degree of accuracy. But for most corporations, the effective rate "is in the 20s and varies greatly from year to year," especially in the wake of losses incurred during the financial crisis and Great Recession, says Martin Sullivan, chief economist at Tax Analysts. What we do know is that "the trend is down as off-shore profit-shifting into tax havens is occurring at an increasing rate," he says.
While tax inversions garnered all the attention last year, largely because of the public disclosure requirement when a U.S. company merges with a foreign entity and incorporates overseas, they represent a small portion of the revenue loss to the U.S. government. "All multi-nationals are doing profit-shifting," Sullivan says.
So lowering the corporate rate makes a good deal of sense in theory. In practice, it's not so clear-cut. If a CEO of a large corporation can exploit tax loopholes to reduce the effective rate to 20 percent, a statutory rate of 25 percent (Republicans' proposed target) or 28 percent (Obama's goal) doesn't maximize shareholder profits.
And that's where the ideal of lower tax rates and minimal loopholes gets mugged by reality. Dave Camp, the former Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, learned just how tough it is to garner support among his own party and the business community when he introduced his Tax Reform Act of 2014 in February. The cost of lowering the corporate tax rate to a stated 25 percent was, among other things, the elimination of accelerated depreciation, one of the three most costly corporate tax expenditures and something that "would hurt capital formation and manufacturing," Sullivan says.
Some economists question whether accelerated depreciation should be classified as a tax expenditure, defined as any reduction in tax liability as a result of special benefits to particular taxpayers. Labor-intensive firms get to write off employee salaries when they cut payroll checks, says Matt Mitchell, senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center. "We shouldn't penalize companies that have to incur capital expenses in order to earn income."
Using individual tax expenditures, which dwarf those available to corporations, to achieve revenue-neutral corporate tax reform is probably a non-starter. Among the costliest tax expenditures, defined as measures that provide tax benefits to particular groups of taxpayers, are: the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance; 401k and other employer plans; and the mortgage interest deduction. Each of these tax breaks has a large, well-funded constituency behind it, willing to fight tooth and nail to maintain its preferential treatment. Sacrifice a tax break for the public good? Let the next fellow do it first.
The argument in favor of a broad tax base with fewer tax preferences is pretty straight-forward: It would increase economic efficiency and transparency; it would reduce the hours devoted to tax compliance and avoidance; and it would be, yes, fairer.
Along the way there would be winners and losers. Unless the public, with its myriad of special interests, is willing to accept short-term pain in exchange for the promised long-term gain of tax reform, the 114th Congress will find its mission impossible.
Not true.
Companies file quarterly returns with the IRS directly and the Social Security Administration directly, usually accompanied by a wire transfer, but sometimes a check, depending upon the size of the company reporting.
The states are not, and never have been, intermediaries in this process.
I agree with that, maybe it is time the states take a more active roll in trimming back the Fed. I'm trying to find the link (read it here on FR) where Missouri was (at the state level) looking to enact such an idea (which is where I got it from).
Missouri could pass any law it wishes, but the IRS code concerning reporting and remittances would have to be changed by Congress before it could be enforced.
It’s only hard to do because our politicians are whores that need loopholes for all their best contributors. It would be easy to get a tax code that’s under 100 pages, but they don’t want it, so we’ll never get it.
Doesn’t the CBO have to use dynamic scoring now? That means that tax cuts can pay for themselves over time, unlike government bailouts.
IMHO, at least the 17th was done ‘correctly’. The 16th is invalid as it does not negate the 5th nor the 13th Amendment...how can there there be conflict and both be Constitutional??
Let’s even take it one step further and say the 16th IS ‘valid’. There are only a limited number of functions that the Congress is authorized to perform, just how much $$/% income would it take to fund those??
Problem is, we lost the judiciary to reign in the rest...’winning’ D.C., still won’t do any of use jack sh!t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.