|America's independent, non-partisan advocate for overburdened taxpayers.||Home | Donate | RSS | Log in|
Today, the Senate Finance Committee is marking up their transportation bill with an eye toward adding billions in tax increases to cover the overspending in the bill. More spending, more tax hikes to pay for it. Stop me if you've heard this before. But there are two proposals in particular that gave me a little bit of policy deja vu.
First, the so-called "Chairman's mark" includes a $3 billion retroactive tax increase targeting the "carrying forward" of credits claimed back in 2009. You might remember 2009 as the year before the year before this year. The halcyon days when we passed a "stimulus" bill that was going to help our economy boom by 2012. The optimistic times when we could totally afford a trillion-dollar government-run health care program and our debt was "only" $10-11 trillion (as opposed to $15 trillion and counting today). Some on the Senate Finance Committee apparently would like to relitigate tax policy from that wonderful era in American history and enact a retroactive tax hike.
Now, it should be noted that the two credits they're targeting (the alternative fuel mixture credit and the cellulosic biofuel producer credit) are not ideal tax policies by any stretch of the imagination. Particularly the alternative fuel credit, given that it's "refundable" and thus acts like government spending rather than simple tax reduction. A smart tax code wouldn't include either of these policies but would levy low, consistent taxes across the board for all types of fuels and producers. But enacting retroactive tax increases is a much more egregious violation of principles of sound tax policy than either of those dumb credits.
The second effort, a proposed amendment to the Chairman's mark from Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), would target the oil and gas industry for punitive tax treatment by eliminating provisions like the Section 199 manufacturer's deduction or the "dual capacity" credit for them alone. If we've written it once, we've written it a hundred times: singling out oil and gas companies for higher taxes is bad tax policy and it's bad energy policy. Thankfully, the Congress has thus far largely agreed with us as the dozens of attempts in recent years to impose Menendez-like tax increases have all failed at one point in the process or another.
The Senate Finance Committee will be taking up these issues this afternoon and we hope they focus their efforts on reducing wasteful spending and not on retroactive tax hikes or tired attempts to punish an unloved industry.0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts
FAA Conference Report: Positive Steps, Missed Opportunities
Later today the Senate will vote on the Conference Report on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act. Although the bill takes many positive steps forward, it ultimately missed several opportunities for savings and reforms that fiscal conservatives had sought.
Since 2007 the FAA has been lurching from short-term extension to short-term extension (23 in all), which has become a serious logistical impediment for the aviation sector’s attempt to modernize and grow. The Conference Report would reauthorize FAA operations and programs for four years, thus creating a more stable funding path for the agency and predictability for the aviation sector. Moreover, it does so without worsening the already onerous tax burden on air travel. Given that consumers can often face a higher effective tax rate on their airline tickets than they do on their 1040 tax returns, it’s too bad Congress couldn’t go one step further and actually provide relief from this heavy tax load.
The bill makes incremental (and in some cases solid) progress on a number of other issues. Although funding for the wasteful Essential Air Service has not been eliminated, the modest eligibility restrictions in the legislation could provide a starting point for deeper reforms. Language was also included to increase airports’ ability to hire private security screeners in place of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers. Furthermore, the package would make improvements to a National Mediation Board rule so as to better balance labor organizations’ attempts to unionize a workplace with the rights of workers to not participate in union activity.
Despite this progress, the Conference Report’s elevated authorization levels remain a major concern. NTU has previously expressed its support for the House-passed FAA Reauthorization Bill, which would have funded the FAA at 2008 levels. By contrast the Conference Report would extend FAA funding at inflated 2011 levels – a $3.8 billion increase. At a time when taxpayers are expecting government agencies to do more with less, the Conference Report could have been more aggressive at restraining expenditures and reinforcing a private sector-driven model that allows our aviation industry to more effectively innovate and evolve. Bottom line: even as lawmakers line up to vote for this compromise legislation, Congress could have done – and in the near future will need to do – more to ensure aviation policy is on a fiscally and economically desirable flight path.1 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts
In non-breaking news, California is going broke…again. State Controller John Chiang told legislators that without action, the state will be unable to make $730 million in payments on March 8. All told, the state must come up with about $3.3 billion by mid-April in order to cover a deficit of $5.2 billion.
The good news is that Controller Chiang is hopeful the state will not have to resort to IOU’s this time. The bad news is that by approaching private bond markets for a $1 billion or so bridge loan, taxpayers will be on the hook for interest payments associated with having an abysmally low bond rating.
In light of the new deficit, concerned taxpayers should note the massive boondoggle being placed on the June ballot. Proposition 29 would raise taxes by $850 million a year, by increasing the tax on cigarettes by a dollar per pack, to fund cancer research.
NTU echoes what the California Taxpayer Association had to say on the matter;
"There's no doubt that we all support cancer research. But like high-speed rail, stem-cell research and other ballot-box budget initiatives before it, Proposition 29's good intentions are overshadowed by the fact that California simply cannot afford another billion-dollar government boondoggle to create another wasteful spending program," California Taxpayers Association President Teresa Casazza said in a statement.
Prop 29 contains numerous flaws including evading the state’s constitutional requirement that 40 percent of new revenue go towards education. Additionally, the measure does not protect California taxpayers by ensuring the money will stay in state. Instead, an unelected board has the power to allocate around $575 million towards grantees, or purchasing real estate, without any requirement that such money go to California based groups. Finally, the measure recognizes that increasing taxes on cigarettes will have a negative impact on existing health programs tied to tobacco taxes and backfills $75 million of that revenue.
Of course, this is the underlying problem with the whole scheme. Tobacco tax hikes rarely produce the promised revenue. Not only will Prop 29 shortchange existing programs, but it will also add a new unpaid for spending program to the budget. California will then be left in the position of funding core areas such as K-12 education, road maintenance, etc. or funding expensive side projects such as this measure.
California’s multi-billion dollar deficits should be a wake-up call that the state cannot afford such spending programs. California is past due on getting back to the basic roles of government.
0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts
CBO Report: Taxes Set to Soar to Historic Levels
The charged political atmosphere of the coming presidential elections is certain to generate a heated debate over whether or not to extend the Bush-era tax rates. In its recently released Budget and Economic Outlook the nonpartisan CBO lays out a pretty cut and dried case why we should.
According to the CBO, allowing the rates to expire would cause federal revenues to shoot to historic levels:
“Under current law . . . revenues are projected to grow even faster between 2012 and 2014: by a total of 31 percent, far outstripping the 7 percent total growth in GDP projected for that two-year period. As a result, revenues as a share of GDP are projected to rise by 3.7 percentage points during that period, reaching 20.0 percent of GDP in 2014 – a level that has been exceeded only once since World War II.”
The tax increases wouldn’t end there. Due to bracket creep revenues would continue to edge upwards annually, reaching 21 percent of GDP in the next decade. And while the higher revenues would help to decrease the deficit, it would also create an enormous drag on our economy:
“The pace of the economic recovery has been slow since the recession ended in June 2009, and the CBO expects that, under current laws governing taxes and spending, the economic will continue to grow at a sluggish pace over the next two years. That pace of growth partly reflects the dampening effect on economic activity from the higher tax rates and curbs on spending scheduled to occur this year and next.
The “dampening effect” leads the CBO to predict that the jobless rate would rise to 8.9 percent by the end of 2012 and to 9.2 percent in 2013.
By contrast, if all the scheduled tax increases are avoided, revenues would still return to historical levels. Chart 1-7 shows that under the “alternative fiscal scenario,” in which the CBO makes certain policy assumptions, including the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax rates, average revenues reach 18.3 percent by the end of the decade. That happens to be the rough equivalent of the average federal tax revenue since World War II.
Using that data it’s clear that spending and not taxes is what is historically out of whack. It’s also clear that if policymakers are to ever achieve fiscal sustainability while not wrecking the economy, they should extend the 2001 and 2003 rates while finding ways to spend less. May I suggest they start HERE.
.1 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts
Obama's Attack of the Imaginary "Outsourcing Tax Break" Could Have Real Consequences
Like many I watched the State of the Union last night. I’ve also read it. And reread it. But for the life of me I still can’t figure out what President Obama was talking about when he said, “It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship job oversees.”
I wasn’t the only one left confused.
“The truth is that not even Mitt Romney’s tax accountant could get him a tax write off for moving jobs to Bangalore. So what I the name of Warren Buffet’s secretary could Obama possibly mean,” wrote Shikha Dalmia of Reason.
And it’s not as if this was just a one-liner that some young speechwriter through in there just to play up the populist angle. Obama repeated it over, and over, and over.
“Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas.”
“If you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it.”
“No American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas.”
“It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas.”
Unfortunately for Obama saying something a bunch of times doesn’t make it true. The fact is, no such tax break exists. Indeed, the only thing that I can think of that Obama may be referring to isn’t a tax break at all, it’s a clumsy attempt to prevent America’s corporate tax code from being worse than it already is (which is pretty bad).
Currently, the United States is one of the few remaining nations to use a “worldwide” system that taxes business income earned outside national borders. The U.S. also has the distinction of having the second highest (soon to be the highest) corporate tax rate among OECD nations, and ranks and embarrassing 124th out of 183 countries worldwide in total tax rate faced by a typical corporation.
Those two facts mean that a U.S. based company that earns income in say, France, would pay the French rate, then turn right around and pay the U.S. rate on top of it. Not exactly a formula for success. To try and alleviate the burden, Washington came up with an overly complicated system by which we maintain our “worldwide” scheme but allow companies to only pay the difference between the U.S. rate and the tax they’ve already paid as well as delay that tax payment until they bring the money back to the U.S. (repatriate it).
This creates the odd incentive for businesses to leave their cash overseas rather than bring it home to invest, hire, or heck, even hand out in dividends.
It’s a complicated, mish-mash of a system that is ill-suited for the global marketplace. President Obama is right to cheerlead for its reform. But reform shouldn’t mean making it even more complicated and even more uncompetitive.
Sadly, that’s exactly what Obama sounds like he wants to do. Rather than reform the system to lower the rate and eliminate loopholes, President Obama wants to create more loopholes for certain favored industries (“high-tech manufacturing”) while enacting a de facto tax hike on multinational firms. This is no way to encourage firms to bring their profits back to our shores, it’s a strategy that incentivizes companies to move off our shores altogether!
Hopefully, Obama will read, and reread, this post until he figures that out.0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts
Obama's Disastrous Idea to Create a Corporate AMT
“From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.” – President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union
Sound familiar? That’s because individuals already have a similar sounding plan in the Alternative Minimum Tax or AMT. The AMT was put in place to ensure that the taxes of the highest-income taxpayers never fell below a threshold level. Obama would use the term “fair.” At the time of its passage in 1969 it was aimed at 21 of the nation’s wealthiest individuals. Now it hits more than 4 million taxpayers each year.
The problem is that Congress failed to tie the AMT to inflation, meaning that every year Congress must enact a “patch” lest many middle-income families be faced with higher taxes. If that sounds like a debacle that’s because it is. Which makes President Obama’s call for a similar scheme on the corporate side of the code seem all the more ludicrous. We need to be simplifying not complicating. Apparently President Obama has never taken a look at our annual tax complexity study, which can be found HERE.0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts
Obama's Plans Would Hinder, Not Help, American Manufacturing
“So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.” – Obama’s 2012 State of the Union
President Obama is not wrong that America has an opportunity to grow its manufacturing base, but if we follow his prescription of higher taxes (especially on investment), empowering unions, and more regulation than it will be a lost opportunity.
But don’t take our word for it. Here’s the National Association of Manufacturer’s recent letter to President Obama following the announcement of the so-called American Jobs Act – a plan eerily similar to the vague outline laid out in his State of the Union:
“President Obama’s call for tax increases on small businesses, individuals and investors is a poison pill for our economy. The bottom line is that manufacturers need policies that enable them to hire more workers, make capital investments and expand their businesses. More than 70 percent of manufacturers operate as S-corporations and pay income tax at the individual rate, so higher taxes on these job creators would be a devastating blow. The President’s proposal is short-sighted; we should not attempt to solve our nation’s fiscal ills on the backs of businesses striving to expand and add jobs.”
0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts
Lower Taxes and Regulatory Reform Top Job Council's Recommendations. Will Obama Listen?
If there is one thing President Obama has proved great at it is convening councils. If there’s a second thing, it’s finding ways to work around their recommendations.
So it goes with President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness the group that succeeded the Economic Recovery Advisory Board in their mission to come up with policy solutions to guide the economy back to recovery. Hoping to avoid the Bowles-Simpson fate of being talked about in the nicest of terms only to be completely ignored by Obama, the Council has released its third report covering myriad ways the government can help spur job growth.
To nobody’s surprise two of the biggest hindrances listed by the Council were the United States’ high corporate tax rate and its immense regulatory burden
“At 39.2 percent, Americans statutory corporate tax rate – including taxes at the federal and state and local levels – is substantially higher than the average for other advanced nations,” the report states. “In addition, while the United States has long been a model for other nations when it comes to the sophistication of our regulatory process, in recent years we’ve slipped on some global rankings of business-friendliness, and such nations as Australia have outpaced us with impressive regulatory streamlinings credited with boosting economic growth.”
Fortunately the House has passed legislation to address each of these issues. The “Jobs Through Growth Act” would cut the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, largely by eliminating loopholes, and move us toward a territorial tax system on par with the rest of the world. Moreover, the House has passed the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act and the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, which together would make the regulatory process more transparent and accountable and less of a burden on the economy.
Unfortunately, President Obama shows little indication that he is willing to get behind any of these solutions. Instead, Obama offered a thinly veiled attempt to shift the blame when none of the Council’s recommendations are followed through.
“I want you to know that obviously this year is an election year, and so getting Congress focused on some of these issues may be difficult,” the President said in introducing the report.
Translation: “I’m not going to do any of this.” Which kind of defeats the purpose of a jobs council doesn’t it? It’s a rhetorical question, but don’t tell Obama, no doubt he would convene a council to study the effectiveness of the job council’s findings.0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts
So, good news/bad news. The good news is it sounds like we have a deal to extend the lower payroll tax in order to prevent a substantial tax increase from hitting folks in the midst of a very difficult economy. The bad news is it's only good for two months (for now). The House will pass a two-month extension of the payroll tax (with one language tweak to fix the glitch I blogged about recently) and Democratic Leadership will name conferees for the year-long version in order to negotiate a final bill. In essence, the two-month patch gives some breathing room for negotiators to hammer out a bill fcovering the rest of 2012.
Lots of liberal media-types are protraying it as a big "cave" by House Republicans, which is a bit puzzling to me. Yes, House Republicans are now agreeing to pass a two-month extension that they (rightly!) pointed out was not good long-term tax policy, but Senate and House Democrats are pledging to stop their obstruction of the conference committee process for the year-long extension at the same time. So really, both sides are giving some ground here. The result is a two-month reprieve and, hopefully, a speedy resolution on a year-long product that maintains lower payroll taxes, trims spending, and maintains job-creating provisions like expediting the Keystone XL pipeline.
For taxpayers, the real test will be when Congress returns in the new year and begins work on the longer-term bill. Nobody can really call this deal "victory" until we have secured a legitimate year-long extension of lower payroll taxes coupled with spending reductions. I hope that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and their appointments are going to be productive participants in the conference process so that they can join House Republicans as the only Members of Congress to pass a full-year payroll tax extension early next year.
1 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts
Who's Right on Payroll Tax Fight? The House is Closer
In the ongoing saga of the payroll tax, there's now a fight between the House and Senate approaches to the problem. The House passed a year-long extension of the reduced payroll tax and coupled it with several other good things (expediting a decision to approve the Keystone XL energy pipeline, full expensing of certain assets for businesses) and, unfortunately, some not-so-great things as well (a further extension of extraordinarily long-term unemployment benefits, though in transitioning from a 99-week to a 59-week duration the bill did return substantially closer to the 26 weeks that prevailed pre-recession).
Of even more concern to us was the fact that bill text was available for little more than a day before voting occurred, in direct contravention to House Republicans' pledge to give 72 hours to review all legislation. All told, it wasn't the greatest piece of legislation ever drafted, but it was enough to garner NTU's qualified support because it would have prevented a substantial tax increase in the middle of a difficult economic recovery while advancing the cause of job-creating efforts like Keystone XL.
As is its custom these days, the Senate did not take up and pass the House bill. Instead, they crafted their own two-month extension of the bill thus ensuring another battle over the payroll tax early in the new year. It passed Saturday morning, and right away Speaker Boehner and other House Republicans began saying they could not support this short-term patch. To compound the issue, payroll experts have said that the Senate bill is unworkable anyway. In short, a tweak in the Senate version would essentially create a two-bracket payroll tax (as opposed to the single, flat rate that exists today) which payroll processors claim that their systems cannot accommodate.
NTU's preferred solution to the problem would be to pass a single piece of legislation that extends the reduced payroll tax rate and pairs it with substantial spending reductions to ensure that there is no deficit impact. Heck, we even gave Congress a trillion-dollar head start on identifying the low-hanging fruit of wasteful spending. Neither bill adhered to our preference, but who got closer? Which approach is better for taxpayers?
The answer is the House version. Congress' recent practice of passing short-term extensions on just about everything (the "doc fix," the AMT, the yearly package of "tax extenders," continuing resolutions to fund the government, etc) is quickly becoming more than just tiresome and unfortunate. It's becoming a real threat to taxpayers. Everyone in Washington has known for the entirety of 2011 that the reduced payroll tax rate would expire at the end of the year. We had an entire year to craft a bill that would prevent a tax increase and reduce spending, but only now, a few days before Christmas and just ten days before the end of the year, is Congress even dealing with the issue. The time has come to stop budgeting in fits and starts.
Taxpayers deserve better than this, and businesses and employers all across the country deserve to know what tax system they'll have to comply with in a week and a half. Both chambers of Congress should return to Washington and hammer out a solution, whether through a conference committee or a negotiated solution that prevents a tax hike, cuts spending, and moves the ball forward on job creation.0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts