Posts Tagged ‘taxes’

timthumb

The usual argument in the United States, one we’ve been hearing again (and again and again) in the current presidential campaign, is that a decrease in tax rates at the top will help everyone. Growth, inequality, basic fairness—all will be improved if only American politicians would agree to lower tax rates on large corporations and wealthy individuals.

Mark Thoma [ht: ja], as mainstream an economist as there is, takes up all the basic arguments in favor of decreasing taxes and demonstrates how wrong they are. Each and every one.

Here’s the list (readers can look at the column for the details):

>Increasing taxes on the wealthy will harm economic growth.

>Increasing taxes on the wealthy won’t solve the income inequality problem.

>Tax increases will blunt the incentive to invest in new businesses.

>The wealthy will move to other countries to avoid the tax increase.

>Increasing taxes on the wealthy won’t increase tax revenue.

>Less will be donated to private charities.

>The wealthy deserve what they earn.

>It’s a tax on small businesses.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, and no.

happy-returns-630-wm

Not a single one of those arguments holds up. The only significant result of lowering the top Federal income tax rate is to increase inequality, which is exactly what we’ve seen in the United States for the past five decades.

As Thoma concludes,

Arguments about the size of government and the taxes needed to support the many things that government does are certainly fair game for politicians. But the argument that tax increases on the wealthy will cause substantial harm to the economy does not withstand a close look at the evidence.

TOON_cjones05192016 clinton-foundation-scandal1

Donald Trump won’t reveal his income-tax returns. However, even as he claims he’s worth $10 billion, Fortune estimates his wealth at $4.5 billion and last year’s financial-disclosure report to the SEC reveals his assets more in the neighborhood of $1.5 billion. So, the scandal in this case may be that Trump is worth a great deal but he pays few taxes and may actually be worth much less than he claims.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has made her income-tax returns public (so we know that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, made almost $28 million in 2014). But we have little information about the donations to and the activities of the key family enterprise, the Clinton Foundation.

However, that may soon change. Charles Ortel [ht: ra] has apparently set his sights on the “largest unprosecuted charity fraud ever attempted.”

According to Ortel, in his “Third Follow-up Letter to Donors, Charity Regulators, Investigative Journalists and Citizens Worldwide,”

The Clinton Foundation, directed by certain individuals and together with numerous affiliates, has been part of an international charity fraud network whose entire cumulative scale (counting inflows and outflows) approaches and may even exceed $100 billion, measured from 1997 forward.

Yet, state, federal, and foreign government authorities, that should be keenly aware of this massive set of criminal frauds, so far, move at a snail’s pace, perhaps waiting for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to reveal the scope of its work and the nature of any findings.

This presidential election campaign promises to have financial scandals burning on both ends.

4-28-16tax-f1

The folks at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have analyzed the distributional effects of the tax-cut plans proposed by Republican candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

Here’s what they found (for 2025, when their plans would be fully implemented):

  • Just 0.8 percent of the population would live in households with incomes exceeding $1 million, but such households would receive 38 percent of the Trump tax cuts. This would be greater than the share of the tax cuts (32 percent) that the bottom 80 percent of the population would receive.
  • Millionaires would receive 47 percent of the Cruz tax cuts, or more than double the share of the tax cuts (19 percent) the bottom 80 percent of the population would receive. In fact, under the Cruz plan, millionaires would receive a larger share of the tax cuts than the bottom 95 percent of the population.

Even more:

  • The richest 0.1 percent of the population (those with annual incomes exceeding $5.2 million in 2016 dollars) would receive tax cuts averaging $1.4 million under Trump and $1.8 million under Cruz. Under both plans, this segment of the population would receive significantly larger percentage increases in after-tax income (18 percent and 23 percent, respectively) than any other group.
  • These households would receive 18 percent of the tax cuts under the Trump plan—more than the plan’s combined tax cuts for the bottom 60 percent of the population. Under the Cruz plan, these multi-millionaires would receive 23 percent of the tax cuts, a larger share of the tax cuts than the bottom 80 percent of the population would receive.

 

mike2may

Special mention

425FatCats 178619_600

178021_600

Special mention

178063_600 1fa323e01db7eb05b1c17299a830efd7

178166_600

Special mention

2b75285d9d4568e33926c410457ae83b 178153_600

oxfam

Yesterday, I argued that the U.S. tax system is broken. That’s because many corporations pay no federal taxes and, even when they do, the effective rate is much lower than the statutory rate.

And that’s just on the tax-revenue side. On top of that, as Oxfam (pdf) shows, U.S. corporations received a wide variety of subsidies. For example, from 2008 to 2014, the top 50 U.S. corporations collectively earned $4 trillion in profits, paid $412 billion in federal taxes, and received $11.2 trillion in support in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and bailout assistance from the federal government.

There is no doubt that data from this time frame is shaped heavily by the federal programs, like the auto-bailout and TARP, that were created to deal with the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Additionally most loans and bailouts are paid back in full with interest. There are also relevant distinctions to be made between companies and sectors on their tax practices and their receipt of federal support.

Companies benefit in different ways from federal investments and from tax laws, only some of which are revealed in the data Oxfam analyzed. The data also does not show the value of other forms of federal support that companies receive beyond loans, loan guarantees and bailouts.

Nonetheless, the data is useful to observe in aggregate because it puts in stark relief the taxpayer financed benefits large companies in general enjoy in relation to the taxes they pay.

In addition, those same corporations hold $1.4 trillion in offshore cash reserves, which are not subject to taxation. And they spent roughly $2.7 billion on lobbying from 2008 to 2014.

That means for every $1 they invested in shaping federal policy through lobbying, they received $130 in tax breaks and more than $4,000 in federal loans, loan guarantees and bailouts.

Those breaks indicate that not only is the U.S. tax system broken; so, too, is the political system.

Except, of course, for U.S. corporations.