Month: January 2012

Three months ago, CTJ’s Bob McIntyre told TIME that GOP candidate Mitt Romney likely has an effective federal tax rate of around 14 percent because of the tax break for investment income that Romney enjoys. Today, the candidate said, “What’s the effective rate I’ve been paying? It’s probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything.”

Romney went on to say, “Because my last 10 years, I’ve … my income comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past, rather than ordinary income or rather than earned annual.”

In other words, a wealthy person like Romney can receive most of his income in the form of capital gains and stock dividends, which are subject to a top rate of just 15 percent under the personal income tax and not subject to payroll taxes.

A CTJ report from last year explains that about one third of people with income in excess of $10 million annually get the majority of their income from investments and, because of these tax preferences, pay a lower effective tax rate than many middle-income taxpayers, who typically get their income from work. Romney is a member of this lucky group of wealthy individuals.

Ending the tax preference for capital gains and stock dividends is therefore the primary way to implement President Obama’s Buffett Rule, the principle that tax reform should reduce or eliminate those situations in which millionaires pay lower effective tax rates than middle-income people.

In Romney’s case, there is actually a very specific loophole that probably allows his income to be taxed as capital gains (taxed at the 15 percent rate) even when it is actually compensation for work. We call this the Romney Loophole, which allows wealthy fund managers to treat their “carried interest” (profits that they receive as compensation for their work) as capital gains and thus subject to the low 15 percent tax rate.

President Obama’s budget plans all contain a proposal to close the Romney Loophole, which would at least end the very worst abuse of the tax preference for capital gains and stock dividends. But to truly implement the Buffett Rule, the tax preference for investment income must be eliminated entirely.

A new report from President Obama’s jobs council reflects a major dispute between corporate and labor leaders over tax reform. According to Reuters, the report “notes disagreement among council members over whether to shift to a ‘territorial’ system that exempts most or all foreign income from corporate taxes when it is repatriated.”

The report is from the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which includes labor and business leaders and is chaired by Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of the notorious tax dodger, General Electric.

A “territorial” tax system is a euphemism for exempting the offshore profits of U.S. corporations from our corporate income tax. The bottom line is that our current system already provides a tax break that encourages U.S. corporations to shift investments offshore, and a “territorial” system would expand that tax break.

The existing tax break is the rule that allows U.S. corporations to “defer” U.S. taxes on their offshore profits until those profits are brought to the U.S. (until they are “repatriated”). Often these profits remain offshore for years and the U.S. corporation may have no plans to repatriate them ever.

This “deferral” of U.S. taxes on offshore profits provides an incentive for U.S. corporations to shift operations and jobs to a lower tax country, or just use accounting gimmicks to make their U.S. profits appear to be “foreign” profits generated in offshore tax havens.

These incentives for corporations to shift jobs and profits offshore would only increase if their offshore profits were entirely exempt from U.S. taxes, as would be the case under a territorial tax system.

Labor leaders know this, and labor unions have joined other organizations in opposing a territorial system. In October, when there were rumors that the Congressional “Super Committee” might propose a corporate tax reform, the big unions joined a letter to the committee members urging them to reject any proposal for a territorial tax system.

Corporate leaders, on the other hand, have been calling for a territorial system because of the benefits it would provide for corporations trying to lower their tax bills. The likely “disagreement” cited in the White House report probably was between the labor leaders and corporate leaders on the President’s jobs council.

As we explain in this fact sheet, the real answer is not to adopt a territorial tax system but to end “deferral.” Here’s a report making the same case in much more detail.

Ending Tax Breaks for Companies Moving Jobs Offshore

President Obama hosted an “Insourcing American Jobs Forum” last week with business leaders who are bringing jobs back to the United States. During the event, the President announced he’d soon “put forward new tax proposals that reward companies that choose to bring jobs home and invest in America.  And we’re going to eliminate tax breaks for companies that are moving jobs overseas.”

As already explained, the most straightforward way to do this would be to end deferral.

Another possibility is that the President could push some of the modest, but still helpful, proposals made early in his administration to limit the worst abuses of deferral. (Here’s a CTJ report explaining these proposals.) Unfortunately, the President immediately started backing away from these and dropped the most significant of these reforms (a change to the arcane-sounding “check-the-box” rules) by the time he made his second budget proposal.

Real tax reform depends on the administration being far more willing to stand up to the corporate CEOs — including those who sit on his jobs council.

Photo of Council on Jobs and Competitiveness via The White House Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

With the Republican primaries now in full swing, the GOP candidates’ rhetoric on taxes has become even more disconnected from reality.

Santorum is No Blue-Collar Populist

Former Senator Rick Santorum used his new spotlight during last Saturday’s ABC-Yahoo GOP presidential candidate debate to highlight his plan to cut the corporate tax rate in half and eliminate the tax entirely for domestic manufacturing. Santorum explained the need for cutting the 35 percent tax rate by arguing that our corporate tax rate is the “highest in the world.”

While we have the second highest statutory corporate tax rate on-paper, the excess of tax breaks and loopholes in our corporate tax code make it so the effective corporate tax rate (the amount actually paid) is close to half of that. In fact, the US actually has the second lowest level of corporate taxes, as a share of its overall economy, of any developed country in the world.

Although Santorum promotes the populist aspects of his tax plan, the truth is that the majority of his proposed tax cuts would go to the richest five percent of Americans. A new analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice shows that his tax plan would provide an average tax cut of $217,500 to the richest 1 percent, which is over 100 times the size of the average tax cut the middle fifth of Americans would receive.

Gingrich on a Tax By Any Other Name

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich usually offers nothing but hot air when it comes to taxes, but this week the Gingrich campaign brought up an interesting point in a new campaign ad attacking Romney for raising user fees in Massachusetts. The ad uses Romney’s support of user fees to question his anti-tax credentials because it says that user fees are essentially a “tax by another name.”

Of course, Gingrich’s ultimate conclusion is mistaken in that he assumes Romney should not have raised user fees or taxes but should simply have left public services unfunded.

But Gingrich’s criticism nonetheless acknowledges the trend among even the most infamous anti-tax governors to substantially increase user fees to avoid officially raising taxes. In fact, since 1979 virtually every state in the nation has begun to rely more heavily on user fees to raise revenue.

Huntsman’s Tax Loophole Consolidation Plan

Rhetorically, former Governor Huntsman hit it out of the park during the NBC-Facebook GOP presidential candidate debate last Sunday by declaring that we need to “say so long to corporate welfare and subsidies” and that our tax code is “chuck full of loop holes and deductions” which weigh it down to the tune of $1.1 trillion.

Unfortunately however, his tax plan, like the other GOP candidates’ tax plans, includes a “territorial” system that would exempt the offshore profits of U.S. corporations from U.S. taxes. This is essentially a way to expand and consolidate the existing loopholes that encourage U.S. companies to shift their investments offshore.

Similarly, Huntsman’s proposed changes to the personal income tax would actually add huge loopholes for the rich by exempting taxes on capital gains and stock dividends. In addition, while his plan would end a substantial amount of wasteful tax subsidies, it would also eliminate invaluable tax credits like the earned income tax credit.

In other words, Huntsman’s plan is more of a tax loophole consolidation plan for the rich and powerful, rather than a tax reform for everyone.

A new CTJ report shows how taxpayers in each state would be affected by the tax plans proposed by the Republican presidential candidates. The report finds that the cost of the tax plans would range from $6.6 trillion to $18 trillion over a decade. The share of tax cuts going to the richest one percent of Americans under these plans would range from over a third to almost half. The average tax cuts received by the richest one percent would be up to 270 times as large as the average tax cut received by middle-income Americans.

Read the report.

Lately, one of the biggest priorities of both conservative state lawmakers and Republican presidential candidates has been the reduction or elimination of the income tax.  But a new analysis of one such plan receiving consideration in Oklahoma should give pause to backers of this “reform.”

According to ITEP, over half of Oklahoma households would actually see their tax bills rise under a plan put forth by The Oklahoma Task Force on Comprehensive Tax Reform (heavily stacked with business interests), and low-income families would face the largest tax increases relative to their income.  Upper-income families, by contrast, would enjoy a bonanza, with the richest one percent taking home over $2,800 in tax breaks per year.

These are the predictable results of a plan that cuts Oklahoma’s top income tax rate and pays for it by eliminating some of the state’s most important and progressive tax credits and exemptions.

We’re usually big supporters of wiping out special tax breaks, but only when it’s done fairly.  And as the numbers above make clear, the Task Force’s plan is far from fair.  It does away with proven low-income provisions like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the sales tax relief credit, and it scraps important and very popular breaks like the child tax credit and even the personal exemption.  Meanwhile, itemized deductions, which disproportionately benefit the richest families in Oklahoma – or any state, – are left largely untouched (except for the long-overdue elimination of the ridiculous and rare state income tax deduction for state taxes paid).

The Oklahoma plan is just the latest manifestation of a broader conservative tax platform that thinks the working poor are getting off too easy, and the rich deserve to see their tax rates slashed.  ITEP’s analysis makes a case study of Oklahoma under this disastrous plan; are other legislators listening?

Note to Readers: Over the coming weeks, ITEP will highlight tax policy proposals that are gaining momentum in states across the country. This week, we’re taking a closer look at proposals which would lessen a state’s reliance on progressive income taxes, often by shifting to a heavier reliance on regressive sales taxes. 

Georgia – A legislative proposal gaining traction in Atlanta would undercut the state’s reliance on the personal income tax – its only major progressive revenue source.  It would make up those revenues by raising the sales tax – every state’s most regressive source of revenue.  The plan also includes two other components that hit the poorest Georgians the hardest: taxing groceries and adding a dollar to the cigarette tax.  A sensible, comprehensive proposal from the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute is the template lawmakers should be following. It starts with fairness, ends with increased revenues and is all about modernization and reform. 

Kansas – If the expectations about Governor Sam Brownback’s proposed income tax changes are right, Kansas could have a hard time balancing its books. Tonight, the Governor, (who has received technical assistance from supply side guru Arthur Laffer), is expected to propose drastic reductions to state income tax rates.  Details on how the governor plans to make up the lost revenue haven’t been revealed, but his sidekick Laffer was recently quoted as saying, “It’s a revolution in a cornfield. Brownback and his whole group there, it’s an amazing thing they’re doing. Truly revolutionary.”

Kentucky –  Fresh off his reelection to the Governor’s office, Steve Beshear is expected to propose his own tax reform plan, but Representative Bill Farmer, who’s been itching to change Kentucky’s tax code for years, has already pre-filed his own tax overhaul bill, which would slash the state income tax, expand the sales tax base to include more services and lower the sales tax rate.  ITEP conducted an in depth analysis of an earlier Farmer proposal and found that his proposal would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars and raise taxes on the poorest 20 percent of Kentuckians by an average of $138. We expect that his current proposal won’t do much to fix the state’s regressive tax structure either.

Missouri – Perhaps the most destructive proposal of this type gaining traction is Missouri’s mega-tax proposal, so called because it amounts to a massive consumption tax hike for ordinary Missourians. Proponents of the related ballot initiative that would eliminate the state’s personal income tax and replace that revenue by adding goods and services to the sales tax base are currently collecting signatures in an attempt to place the initiative on the ballot this November. Show-Me-Staters would be unwise to provide their signatures for this kind of campaign, however, because its passage would result in higher overall taxes for working families. Click here to see ITEP testimony on a similar proposal.

Oklahoma – Two seriously bad proposals that would increase the unfairness of Oklahoma’s tax system are currently under consideration. Working with (the aforementioned supply side guru) Arthur Laffer, the free-market Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs is proposing to eliminate the state income tax altogether. An ITEP analysis found that the bottom one-fifth of Oklahoma taxpayers — those earning less than $16,600 per year — would be paying on average $250 a year more in taxes, or about 2.5 percent more of their income. Similarly, the Tax Force on Comprehensive Tax Reform (dominated by business interests) suggests lowering the state’s top income tax rate and eliminating a variety of tax credits, many of which are designed to help low and middle income families. David Blatt, director of the non partisan Oklahoma Policy Institute recently said of the proposal, “This would hit hardest the poor and middle class families who are struggling most to make ends meet in a tough economy.”

Photo of Governor Steve Beshear via Gage Skidmore and photo of Art Laffer via Republican Conference Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

A new report from the IRS estimates that individuals and businesses failed to pay $385 billion of the taxes they owed in a single year — a figure that many experts believe is an understatement. This comes just months after Congress cut funding for IRS enforcement activities that could recoup those dollars.

The IRS report estimates that taxpayers paid $450 billion less than was owed in 2006 and that the IRS eventually recovered $65 billion of that, leaving a net “tax gap” of $385 billion — which is roughly 14.5 percent of all taxes due.

As CTJ director Bob McIntyre explained in his testimony before the Senate Budget Committee a few years ago, he and other tax experts have long thought that the tax gap is actually larger than what the IRS estimates, particularly the portion that results from income hidden in offshore tax havens.

The IRS is less able to counter this type of tax evasion than it was in the past. Congress drastically slashed the IRS budget in the 1990s with the rationale that the agency was a bother to taxpayers. But another report released today by the National Taxpayer Advocate (a Bush appointee) concludes that the paltry budget for the IRS is itself the source of irritation for taxpayers who are affected by the various short-cuts the IRS must take in administering the tax system with fewer staff.

The more fundamental problem with the tax gap is that it means the vast majority of Americans, who pay the taxes they owe, are effectively subsidizing those who do not.

Most middle-income working people don’t have many opportunities to evade taxes because their employers report their wages to the IRS and withhold a portion of them for taxes. On the other hand, corporations and business owners are responsible for a majority of the tax gap.

For example, underreporting of business income, corporate income, and compensation by self-employed individuals together make up a majority of the tax gap, according to the IRS report.

Congress’s cuts to IRS funding are bizarre because this is one type of government spending that pays for itself several times over. In some cases a dollar of additional IRS funding can generate $200 of revenue. In other words, lawmakers have forced cuts to the IRS budget knowing full well that this is one type of spending cut that actually increases the budget deficit.

In addition to restoring IRS funding, there are other measures that Congress can take to increase income reporting and crack down on institutions that facilitate offshore tax evasion, as McIntyre called for in his testimony. Most of those proposals have still not been enacted, partly because they’re opposed by the Tax Cheaters Lobby.

Photo of Tax Preparation via Money Blog Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

It seems impossible, but on the eve of the Iowa Caucus the once unstoppable ethanol tax credit expired. After three long decades and over $20 billion dollars spent, the relatively quiet expiration of this once sacred tax credit is surprising considering the pitched battles that took place earlier this year between Grover Norquist and Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn over its repeal.

The fact that the credit expired on the eve of the Iowa Caucus, long considered the political bulwark against repeal, demonstrates just how far politically the credit has fallen. In fact, a survey found that even among Iowa Republican caucus goers, 57% of them favored Republican candidates calling for outright repeal of the credit.

Although the ethanol tax credit was ostensibly created to promote ethanol as a greener form of fuel, the credit has long been criticized by a wide variety of groups as a wasteful special interest tax break. As Citizens for Tax Justice Director Bob McIntyre once explained, the critical problem with subsidizing ethanol is the product itself takes “more energy to make than it saves” and that even with an exorbitant subsidy of $0.50 for every $1 gallon it was still not very competitive.

For their part, ethanol industry representatives admitted defeat, explaining that the ethanol industry had “evolved” and that now was the “right time for the incentive to expire.”

It is also the right time for scores of other tax credits to expire permanently. The ethanol tax credit is 1 of the 53 such provisions – called “extenders” because Congress quietly extends them every couple of years or so for their favored constituencies – which expired at the end of 2011, most of which are handouts to business interests. In a word, they are pork.

Let’s hope the ethanol subsidy’s death is permanent, and a sign that tax sanity is making a comeback in Congress.

Photo of Ethanol Production via Bread for the World Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0