Olivia Grady

A (Properly Designed) Territorial Tax System Will Make America More Internationally Competitive

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alex Hendrie, Olivia Grady on Monday, October 30th, 2017, 3:46 PM PERMALINK

Full PDF of this Document Can be Found Here]


The United States currently has a worldwide system of taxation where all income of residents is taxed, including foreign income. Because foreign income is often taxed where it is earned as well, this creates a double layer of taxation and subjects businesses to complex rules. Also, because the foreign income is not taxed by the U.S. until repatriated, trillions of dollars of foreign income is stranded overseas and not invested in the U.S.

The majority of countries have fixed these problems, particularly in recent years, by switching to a territorial system where income is taxed in the country it is earned. The U.S. should follow their lead and switch to a territorial system in order to modernize its uncompetitive and outdated system.

However, in transitioning to a territorial system, the U.S. should consider base erosion rules. These rules help determine what income should be taxed, especially with passive income, because international tax is complex with frequent cross-border transactions between multinational corporations and their foreign subsidiaries.

These rules need to be carefully considered though because overly burdensome rules would hurt U.S. businesses and make them less competitive. Other countries have rules on transactions with controlled foreign corporations (typically subsidiaries), dividend exemption systems and limitations on the tax deductibility of interest.

Another approach that some have suggested is a broad based minimum tax on foreign profits, but this might undercut the change to a territorial system.

[Full PDF of this Document Can be Found Here]

Photo Credit: Flickr

TPC Study Based on Flawed Assumptions, Fails to Use Accurate Scoring

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie, Olivia Grady on Friday, October 6th, 2017, 10:30 AM PERMALINK

[Full PDF of this Document Can be Found Here]

Since President Trump and Republicans in the House and Senate released their joint tax reform framework last month, many have rushed to judge the plan. While this plan is an excellent first step, it is still just a framework that will further be developed by the Committees of jurisdiction, as noted in the document. The next step in the process is to move through regular order:

 “This unified framework serves as a template for the tax-writing committees that will develop legislation through a transparent and inclusive committee process.”

Despite this, some have decided to prematurely analyze the tax framework using their own assumptions. Exhibit A amongst these biased analyses is the study published by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the left-leaning Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. 

This study fails to take into account numerous issues.

First, it does not take into account any dynamic macroeconomic effects of the tax changes. Instead, it analyzes tax changes solely on the static revenue lost or gained as if every tax cut or tax increase is the same and has no effect on behavior.

Second, it assumes numerous details that have not been decided yet. The framework did not include the income ranges for the individual brackets or the size of the expanded child tax credit. Both of these will be decided by Committees of jurisdiction. The Tax Policy Center study included income ranges and the size of the credit despite this.

[The Full Document is Also Available Here] 

Dynamic Scoring is Key to Any Realistic Analysis of The Tax Reform Framework

The analysis conducted by the Tax Policy Center fails to use dynamic scoring to analyze the benefits of the plan. Instead, it uses static scoring to downplay the positive economic effects of the plan.  Realistic scoring of tax proposals must use dynamic scoring for several reasons, as outlined by the Tax Foundation. 

First, static scoring does not take into account the changes to the economy and specifically economic growth that a tax change might cause. With dynamic scoring, however, representatives can understand the real benefits and costs of a tax change proposal. Dynamic scoring, therefore, is simply more accurate scoring. 

A high tax rate will discourage some people from working as much because if the government is taking away most of the money from an additional hour that they’ll work, it won’t be worth it to work. However, if the government only takes a small percentage, more people will choose to work to i.e. save up for a vacation or their child’s college tuition. Dynamic scoring reflects these behavioral changes, while static scoring does not.

Second, many tax changes made in the GOP framework are designed to promote economic growth. Because this is the goal, lawmakers need to understand how the change will affect economic growth. Static scoring does not show economic growth. It assumes that the gross domestic product will remain the same.

The Unified Framework is a plan to grow the economy and increase the number of jobs. In fact, economic growth is one of President Trump’s goals for tax reform. Using static scoring makes it impossible for policy analysts to determine how much economic growth and how many jobs this framework will create.

Finally, static scoring does not show all the benefits of tax cuts. It downplays how much additional money the Treasury will see from economic growth due to the tax cuts. Therefore, the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimates were often very far off from reality before the office started using dynamic scoring. Despite how far off the estimates were, the analysis by the CBO and JCT did determine whether a tax change passed.

Due to these reasons, Congress passed the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013, requiring the CBO and the JCT to use dynamic scoring. However, both the CBO and the JCT do not use as robust scoring as they should.

An example of how their scoring isn’t robust enough is one provided in Curtis Dubay’s 2015 Heritage article, “JCT Dynamic Score of Bonus Depreciation: Highly Flawed.” His example was bonus depreciation, a policy that allows businesses to deduct 50 percent of their investments in the year that they purchased them. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) said this policy would only grow the size of the economy by .2 percent over ten years using dynamic scoring, while the Tax Foundation argued that the economy would grow by 1.1 percent over ten years.

Despite this flaw, the scoring by the CBO and JCT is more accurate than if they used static scoring.

While there are clear reasons for using dynamic scoring, the Tax Policy Center surprisingly examined the effects of the Congressional Republican’s proposal, the “Unified Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code” using static scoring. The Center now claims that the framework would reduce federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over ten years. In addition, those with the largest income would see the biggest tax cuts, and some would experience a tax increase under this plan.

The United States has historically seen large economic growth after tax cuts, and economic growth is one of the main purposes for this tax cut. If you think that there isn’t going to be growth after a tax cut and the taxes have been reduced, it is not a surprise that federal revenue decreases and deficits increase. The Wall Street Journal pointed this out in a recent article and predicts that if GDP growth increases to 3% a year with this tax cut, the Treasury would see an additional $2.5 trillion. 

Efforts to Attribute Distributional Effects to the Framework Are Premature

As the framework notes, specific details, such as the income threshold for the consolidated tax brackets, will be developed by the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees. Given this, any detailed modeling including distributional tables is premature and based on assumptions on details that have yet to be decided.

Despite this, the report by the Tax Policy Center conducted a detailed analysis of the changes to the framework, based on their own assumptions they claim that there would be little to no benefit for many Americans.

These conclusions are very different from those reached by the Tax Foundation. Tax Foundation Senior Analyst Scott Greenberg explained in an article, ”What Would the “Big Six” Framework Mean for Lower-Middle Income Households?” how the plan would affect lower-middle income households. 

Greenberg says that the GOP individual tax proposal would reduce federal revenue by $209 billion on a static basis. The plan would benefit taxpayers in the 20% to 80% income group most, while the highest earners would pay more in taxes due to the elimination of most itemized deductions. The bottom 20% would gain from the increased standard deduction and child tax credit.

Similarly, Ryan Ellis, Senior Tax Advisor for the Family Business Coalition, found that the TPC was understating the benefits of the tax reform framework. In a recent Forbes column, he describes three typical scenarios. All three median scenarios will allow the individuals or families to invest in the economy, instead of “investing” in poorly performing government programs that were created to help politicians stay in power.

His first scenario is a family of four. The family has two children under the age of 14. The family earns the median income for a married couple, $87,000, according to the Census bureau. While the larger standard deduction reduces the family’s taxable income substantially, the lack of a personal exemption makes the family’s taxable income larger after the deductions have been taken. However, once the child tax credit is accounted for, the family receives a tax cut of $1223. This is a substantial decrease for a family that owes $4560 under the new tax plan.

The second scenario is a single mother with two small children. She earns the median income of a female head of household, $41,000. Once again, her taxable income after only the larger standard deduction has been applied is larger than her taxable income after the current standard deduction and the personal exemption have been applied. This changes again when the larger child tax credit is used. Her tax cut is $498. Under the new plan, she not only doesn’t have to pay $258 in taxes, she is given $240 by the federal government.

The final example is that of a single person who earns $36,000. She also benefits from the framework. However, once the larger standard deduction has been used, her taxable income decreases even without the personal exemption. Her taxes decrease from $3,374 to $2,880, and she receives a tax cut of $494.

Photo Credit: 401(K) 2012

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Grover Norquist on Tax Reform, Lobbyists, and Cockroaches

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Olivia Grady on Friday, September 29th, 2017, 12:32 PM PERMALINK

On Thursday ATR president Grover Norquist was a guest on C-SPAN Washington Journal. Norquist voiced his support for the new Republican tax reform plan.

Norquist explained that the plan will raise take-home pay for Americans and lead to greater job growth. He pointed out that the biggest winners under this proposal are those without jobs:

“Who wins in this tax cut? The guy who spent eight years without a job and is now going to get one. That person goes from zero to 20 or 30 or $40,000 a year when jobs get created. We know that when you reduce the tax burden you get more job creation.”

Norquist spoke about how the U.S. once had one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world, but other countries have since lowered their rates. Now, the U.S. has one of the highest tax rates on corporations. The result has been that American companies who do business internationally are more valuable if they are owned by foreign companies.

During the call-in portion of the show, a viewer worried that there were too many lobbyists involved.

Norquist said:

“The best way to keep cockroaches out from under your sink is to not put a cake under your sink because the cockroaches will come. The best way to make the lobbyists go away is to reduce the size and scope of government so that government isn’t handing out other people’s money for free. Then the lobbyists will go get real jobs. The size of government is what breeds lobbyists.”

A Democrat viewer who had moved from New York to Florida also asked how the tax cuts were going to create jobs because he claimed tax cuts don’t create jobs.

Norquist pointed out that the caller had moved from a high tax state to a lower one:

“So, you’ve moved to Florida, a state with no income tax. Period. People leave New York every year, and people move to Florida every year. And the reason is that taxes do matter and jobs are created in states that are lower taxed. What President Trump and the Republicans want to do is do for all America what Florida and Texas have done in their states, which is to reduce taxes to the point where they’re where people want to invest, they’re where people want to move. That’s where the jobs are moving to.”

Norquist finished his interview by pointing out the differences between the recovery under Reagan and the recovery under Obama: “You can compare the Reagan growth and compare it to the Obama numbers. They’re very sad and devastating.”

To view the full interview, click here.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

Americans for Tax Reform and The Center for Worker Freedom Support The Employee Rights Act (ERA)

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Olivia Grady on Monday, June 12th, 2017, 11:15 AM PERMALINK

Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) has introduced the Employee Rights Act (H.R. 2723), important legislation that would protect workers from union abuses and ensure fair representation in the workplace.

The ERA would include important revisions to current labor law, including:

1) Guaranteeing a secret-ballot vote in unionization elections

2) Requiring unions to regularly run for re-certification 

3) Forbidding union bosses from spending dues on anything besides collective bargaining without the express consent of the worker

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) president Grover Norquist praised the ERA, saying in a statement:  “For too long union bosses have been allowed to bully and intimidate people into voting for unionization.  Secret-ballot elections will help ensure union elections are actually free and fair.”

“These reforms are long overdue,” agreed Matt Patterson, executive director of the Center for Worker Freedom (CWF).  "Fewer than 10 percent of union members ever had a say in that representation.  Making unions go regularly before their members and earn their vote will make their leadership more honest and less political."

"This is not an 'anti-union' bill," assured Patterson.  "But it is an anti-bullying bill, in that the power of union bosses to stalk and intimidate would be greatly curtailed.  If unions win an election, fine, but let them do it fair and square."

The full text of the ERA can be read here.

***ATR and CWF applaud this legislation, and urge all Representatives to support it.***

The Center for Worker Freedom is a special project of Americans for Tax Reform


Photo Credit: Storm2k

More from Americans for Tax Reform