Author: tarek

(Updated 1/24/2014 to reflect the fact the resolution passed.)

At its yearly winter meeting, the Republican National Committee approved a resolution calling for the repeal of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), a major law enacted in 2010 (as part of the HIRE Act) to clamp down on offshore tax evasion.

FATCA was enacted in the wake of revelations that the Swiss bank UBS had helped American citizens evade U.S. income taxes by illegally hiding income in offshore accounts. The most important provisions of FATCA basically require Americans, including those living abroad, to tell the IRS about offshore assets greater than $50,000, and apply a withholding tax to payments made to any foreign banks that refuse to share information about their American customers with the IRS.

Those who are directly affected by FATCA are likely to be few in number and they certainly have the means to fill out the disclosure form required with their federal income tax return under its provisions. The $50,000 threshold excludes housing and other non-financial assets. That means that even a relatively well-off American who works for a few years abroad and even someone who owns a house abroad will not be affected unless they hold over $50,000 in cash or financial assets in the other country.

Whatever inconvenience is caused by these requirements is far outweighed by the benefits to the U.S. and its law abiding taxpayers. According to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), FATCA’s anti-tax evasion measures are estimated to raise $8.7 billion (PDF) over their first decade of implementation. (JCT does have a history of underestimating tax enforcement measures.) Considering that the U.S. loses an estimated $100 billion (PDF) annually due to offshore tax abuses, this seems like a modest reform.

In May 2013, Senator Rand Paul introduced legislation to repeal the important parts of FATCA, claiming that this is necessary to protect privacy. But there simply is no right of Americans to hide income from the IRS. As we explained at that time, for a country with a personal income tax (like the U.S.), that kind of information sharing is indispensible to tax compliance, as the IRS stated in its most recent report on the “tax gap”:

“Overall, compliance is highest where there is third-party information reporting and/or withholding. For example, most wages and salaries are reported by employers to the IRS on Forms W-2 and are subject to withholding. As a result, a net of only 1 percent of wage and salary income was misreported. But amounts subject to little or no information reporting had a 56 percent net misreporting rate in 2006.”

Other opponents of FATCA, like the Wall Street Journal, have claimed that it is causing Americans living abroad to renounce their U.S. citizenship, but as we have pointed out, those renouncing citizenship make up a tiny fraction of one percent of the six million Americans living abroad.

On January 17, Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) and nine of their colleagues introduced the Senate version of Congressman John Delaney’s proposal providing a tax amnesty for profits that corporations officially hold offshore on the condition that they purchase bonds to fund an infrastructure bank.

Instead of tapping corporate profits that are “locked” offshore as supporters claim, this proposal would provide an enormous tax break for profits that already are in the U.S. economy but which are booked in offshore tax havens in order to avoid taxes, a practice that will be more common  if this proposal is enacted. In fact, the net effect of this bill could be to reduce employment.

Background of Delaney Bill

In the spring of 2013, Congressman John Delaney, a Democrat from Maryland, proposed to allow American corporations to bring a limited amount of offshore profits to the U.S. (to “repatriate” these profits) without paying the U.S. corporate tax that would normally be due. This type of tax amnesty for repatriated offshore profits is euphemistically called a “repatriation holiday” by its supporters. The Congressional Research Service has found that a similar proposal enacted in 2004 provided no benefit for the economy and that many of the corporations that participated actually reduced employment.

Rep. Delaney and the 50 House cosponsors to his bill seem to believe they can avoid that unhappy result by allowing corporations to repatriate their offshore funds tax-free only if they also fund a bank that finances public infrastructure projects, which they believe would create jobs in America. How much a corporation could repatriate tax-free would be determined through a bidding process, with a maximum cap of six dollars in offshore profits repatriated tax-free for every one dollar spent on the bonds. Unfortunately, as explained below, the proposal is designed to give away two dollars in tax breaks for every one dollar spent on infrastructure.

So-Called “Offshore” Corporate Profits Are Largely Invested in the U.S.

Many lawmakers seem to mistakenly believe that the $2 trillion in “permanently reinvested profits” that American corporations officially hold abroad are locked out of the American economy. This has led many to support proposals to exempt American corporations’ offshore profits from U.S. taxes, either on a permanent basis (through a so-called “territorial” tax system) or a temporary basis (with a tax amnesty for repatriated offshore profits).

But the premise is wrong. As a recent report from the Center for American Progress explains, American corporations’ offshore profits are actually invested in the U.S. economy already because they are deposited in U.S. bank accounts or invested in U.S. Treasury bonds or even corporate stocks. The real problem is that our tax system traps badly needed revenue out of the country by allowing American corporations to “defer” (delay) paying U.S. taxes on profits characterized as “offshore” — even if they are really earned here in the U.S.

A study from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (chaired by Carl Levin of Michigan) that examined the corporations benefiting the most from the repatriation amnesty enacted by Congress in 2004 found that almost half of their offshore profits were actually in U.S. bank accounts, Treasury bonds, and U.S. corporate stocks. Corporations are, in theory, restricted by law from using their offshore profits to pay dividends to shareholders or to directly expand their own investments. But even these rules can be circumvented when the corporations borrow money for these purposes, using the offshore profits as collateral.

Biggest Benefits Would Go to Corporations Disguising their U.S. Profits as Tax Haven Profits

The proposal would provide the biggest benefits to the most aggressive corporate tax dodgers. Often, an American corporation has offshore profits because its offshore subsidiaries carry out actual business activity. But a great deal of the profits that are characterized as “offshore” are really U.S. profits that have been disguised through accounting gimmicks as “foreign” profits generated by a subsidiary (which may be just a post office box) in a country that does not tax profits (i.e., an offshore tax haven). These tax haven profits are the profits most likely to be “repatriated” under such a proposal for two reasons.

First, offshore profits from actual business activities in foreign countries are often reinvested into factories, stores, equipment or other assets that are not easily liquidated in order to take advantage of a temporary tax break, but profits that are booked as “foreign” profits earned by a post office box subsidiary in a tax haven are easier to “move” to the U.S.

Second, profits in tax havens get a bigger tax break when “repatriated” under such a tax amnesty. The U.S. tax that is normally due on repatriated offshore profits is the U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent minus whatever was paid to the government of the foreign country. Profits that American companies claim to generate in tax havens are not taxed at all (or taxed very little) by the foreign government, so they might be subject to the full 35 percent U.S. rate upon repatriation — and thus receive the greatest break when the U.S. tax is called off.

Not a Way to Create Infrastructure Jobs

While infrastructure spending is economically stimulative, this plan is an absurdly wasteful and corrupt way to fund job creation. First, the proposal is designed to give away two dollars in tax breaks for every one dollar spent on infrastructure (and the jobs to build infrastructure) — to give away up to $105 billion in corporate tax breaks in order to raise $50 billion to finance the infrastructure bank. Because up to six dollars could be repatriated tax-free for every one dollar corporations spend on the bonds, up to $300 billion would be repatriated tax-free to raise $50 billion for the infrastructure bank. As already explained, the profits most likely to be repatriated have not been taxed at all by any government so under normal rules the full 35 percent U.S. tax rate would apply, and 35 percent of $300 billion is $105 billion.

Second, this proposal would be the second tax amnesty for offshore profits (the first was enacted in 2004), and once Congress signals its willingness to do this more than once, corporations could be encouraged to shift even more profits (and even jobs) offshore in hopes of benefitting from another tax amnesty in the future. In other words, the proposal’s net effect on U.S. job creation could be negative.

After some high-quality investigative journalism from the Orlando Sentinel last year, prominent state lawmakers in Florida are setting their sights on sunsetting or redesigning a poorly tailored tax break for companies that locate in high-crime areas. The tax provision at issue — the Urban High-Crime Area Job Tax Credit Program — allows cities to draw expansive (and unalterable) borders around purported “high crime areas” that are anything but. Companies benefiting from the loophole include Universal Orlando, which has received over $8 million from the program since the provision’s adoption sixteen years ago. Universal is planning to cash in again this year with the opening of its second Harry Potter-themed amusement park (prompting one columnist to ask jokingly if being chased by an imaginary dragon constitutes attempted murder). Dubious corporate subsidies are nothing new in Florida, and the value of this credit is not about to break the bank ($500 to $1,500 per employee and capped statewide at $5 million each year). But by highlighting these abuses, the Sentinel has provided a healthy reminder that even well-meaning corporate tax breaks often create unintended, negative consequences and should be eliminated.

Despite failing to win over the legislature with his tax swap proposal last year, Nebraska’s Governor Heineman is back to hawking large reductions in the personal income tax. While it’s true that Nebraska is sitting on a budget surplus, the legislature’s Tax Modernization Committee held hearings last year and recently recommended only minor changes. Perhaps some middle ground comes in the form of two tax proposals introduced by legislators this month that target relief to low- and middle-income families (imagine that!). Senator Conrad (D-Lincoln) has called for an increase in the state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). And Senator Bolz (D-Lincoln) is proposing an increase in the state’s child care tax credit for middle income families. Conrad’s legislation would increase the refundable state EITC from 10% of the federal credit to 13%, which would make a substantial difference in the lives of Nebraska’s working poor. For a family with three children earning the maximum EITC benefit in 2014, such a change would put more than $180 back in their pockets. Bolz’s bill would increase the child care credit for those making more than $29,000 from 25% of the federal credit to 28%. Unlike the federal government, Nebraska already makes its child care tax credit partially refundable (for those making less than $29,000 a year), an admirable feature of the state’s tax code. Bolz’s proposal wouldn’t change the refundability equation and could be better targeted at low-income families, but, like Conrad’s EITC bill, is a step in the right direction.

The Baltimore Sun has rightly poured cold water on an idea from some Maryland legislators to gut the state’s estate tax. House Speaker Michael Busch and Senate President Mike Miller have proposed increasing the value of an estate that can be passed on tax-free from $1 million to $5.25 million (more information on the mechanics of state estate and inheritance taxes can be found here).  The state comptroller has also signed onto the idea.  But the Sun editorial points out that supporters’ reasoning — that Maryland has become an inhospitable place for rich people to die — is faulty.  According to a recent study, 7.7 percent of Maryland households are millionaires — the highest percentage of any state — and only 2.8 percent of Maryland estates pay any state tax under the current regime.  Maryland policymakers — including Governor O’Malley, who has not yet committed either way hould resist this election-year giveaway to the rich.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker learned last week that the state is expecting a $912 million surplus. The Governor is expected to propose both property and income tax cuts.  But the Wisconsin Budget Project (WBP) rightly cautions that tax cuts aren’t necessarily the best way to spend the surplus.  WBP argues that this revenue “gives lawmakers an excellent opportunity to invest in Wisconsin’s economic future and to put the state on a sounder fiscal footing by filling budget holes.”

The newly passed $1.1 trillion bipartisan budget appropriations bill includes myriad spending cuts, but the $526 million cut to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has to be the most foolish. Under the new budget, the IRS’s 2014 budget will be $11.3 billion, which is $1.7 billion less than the administration requested and about $2.5 billion higher than the radical 25 percent cut proposed by some House Republicans earlier this year.

As Nina Olsen, the non-partisan United States Taxpayer Advocate, notes in her recent annual report, cutting the IRS budget makes very little sense since every “dollar spent on the IRS generates more than one dollar in return – it reduces the budget deficit.” In fact, as we’ve noted before, every dollar invested in the IRS can generate as much as $200 in deficit reduction.

Unfortunately, lawmakers have not seen it this way in recent years. Since 2010, the IRS has been forced by an 8 percent cut in its budget (adjusting for inflation) to reduce its staff by 11,000 people and its spending on training its employees by 83 percent. These cuts have taken place even though there are now 11 percent more individual and 23 percent more business tax returns for the agency to handle.  As IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified at his confirmation hearing in December, a recent report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) found that at least $8 billion had been lost in compliance revenue due to budget cuts.

The impact on customer service has also been dramatic. In 2013, customer service representatives from the IRS were only able to answer 61 percent of the calls made from taxpayers seeking help, which is a substantial drop from the 87 percent that were answered ten years ago. In other words, some 20 million calls by taxpayers seeking help went unanswered last year, even before this new round of budget cuts.

Ironically, many lawmakers have used the IRS “scandal” (the agency’s targeted scrutiny of organizations seeking tax-exempt status by screening for political words in their names) to argue that it be punished with these and even larger budget cuts. The reality is that the lack of budgetary resources was a major driver of the short-cuts that created the “scandal.” Further budget cuts will only create more problems at the agency.

If Congress is really interested in making the IRS work more effectively and in reducing the deficit, it should substantially increase the IRS’s budget. When Congress cuts the IRS’s budget, the only people who are really punished are the honest American taxpayers. 

Note to Readers: This is the second of a five-part series on tax policy prospects in the states in 2014. Over the coming weeks, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) will highlight state tax proposals that are gaining momentum in states across the country. This post focuses on tax shift proposals.

The most radical and potentially devastating tax reform proposals under consideration in a number of states are those that would reduce or eliminate state income taxes and replace some or all of the lost revenue by expanding or increasing consumption taxes. These “tax swap” proposals appeared to gain momentum in a number of states last year, but ultimately proposals by the governors of Louisiana and Nebraska fell flat in 2013. Despite this, legislators in several states have reiterated their commitment to this flawed idea and may attempt to inflict it on taxpayers in 2014. Here’s a round-up of where we see tax shifts gaining momentum:

Arkansas – The Republican Party in Arkansas is so committed to a tax shift that they have included language in their platform vowing to “[r]eplace the state income tax with a more equitable method of taxation.” While the rules of Arkansas’ legislative process will prevent any movement on a tax shift this year, leading Republican gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson has made income tax elimination a major theme of his campaign.  

Georgia – The threat of a radical tax shift proposal was so great in the Peach State that late last year the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute published this report (using ITEP data) showing that as many as four in five taxpayers would pay more in taxes if the state eliminated their income tax and replaced the revenue with sales taxes. This report seems to have slowed the momentum for the tax shift, but many lawmakers remain enthusiastic about this idea.

Kansas – In each of the last two years, Governor Sam Brownback has proposed and signed into law tax-cutting legislation designed to put the state on a “glide path” toward income tax elimination.  Whether or not the Governor will be able to continue to steer the state down this path in 2014 may largely depend on the state Supreme Court’s upcoming decision about increasing education funding.

New Mexico – During the 2013 legislative session a tax shift bill was introduced in Santa Fe that would have eliminated the state’s income tax, and reduced the state’s gross receipts tax rate to 2 percent (from 5.125 percent) while broadening the tax base to include salaries and wages. New Mexico Voices for Children released an analysis (PDF) of the legislation (citing ITEP figures on the already-regressive New Mexico tax structure) that rightly concludes, “[o]n the whole, HB-369/SB-368 would be a step in the direction of a more unfair tax system and should not be passed by the Legislature.” We expect the tax shift debate has only just started there.

North Carolina – North Carolina lawmakers spent a good part of their 2013 legislative session debating numerous tax “reform” packages including a tax shift that would have eliminated the state’s personal and corporate income taxes and replaced some of the revenue with a higher sales tax. Ultimately, they enacted a smaller-scale yet still disastrous package which cut taxes for the rich,hiked them for most everyone else, and drained state resources by more than $700 million a year. There is reason to believe that some North Carolina lawmakers will use any surplus revenue this year to push for more income tax cuts.  And, one of the chief architects of the income tax elimination plan from last year has made it known that he would like to use the 2015 session to continue pursuing this goal.

Ohio – Governor John Kasich has made no secret of his desire to eliminate the state’s income tax. When he ran for office in 2010 he promised to “[p]hase out the income tax. It’s punishing on individuals. It’s punishing on small business. To phase that out, it cannot be done in a day, but it’s absolutely essential that we improve the tax environment in this state so that we no longer are an obstacle for people to locate here and that we can create a reason for people to stay here.” He hasn’t changed his tune: during a recent talk to chamber of commerce groups he urged them “to always be for tax cuts.”  

Wisconsin – Governor Scott Walker says he wants 2014 to be a year of discussion about the pros and cons of eliminating Wisconsin’s most progressive revenue sources—the corporate and personal income taxes. But the discussion is likely to be a short one when the public learns (as an ITEP analysis found) that a 13.5 percent sales tax rate would be necessary for the state to make up for the revenue lost from income tax elimination. 

Today Citizens for Tax Justice submitted comments to the Senate Finance Committee on the discussion draft that the committee recently published under the direction of its chairman, Max Baucus of Montana. Tax reform seems to be on hold, with Baucus’s expected departure to serve as ambassador to China being just one of many complications. But the discussion draft may nonetheless be a starting place for future debates on how the corporate tax should be overhauled.

And that would pose problems because, as CTJ’s comments explain, Baucus’s discussion draft fails to accomplish what should be three goals for tax reform:

1. Raise revenue from the corporate income tax and the personal income tax.
2. Make the tax code more progressive.
3.Tax American corporations’ domestic and offshore profits at the same time and at the same rate.

As CTJ’s comments explain, the discussion draft would, in a proclaimed revenue-neutral manner, impose U.S. corporate taxes on offshore corporate profits in the year that they are earned. But it would do so at a lower rate than applies to domestic corporate profits.

The goal of revenue-neutrality causes the discussion draft to fail the first goal of raising revenue as well as the second, because any increase in corporate income tax revenue would make our tax system more progressive. The discussion draft also fails to meet the third goal. Although it would tax domestic corporate profits and offshore corporate profits at the same time, it would subject the offshore profits to a lower rate, preserving some of the incentive for corporations to shift investment (and jobs) offshore or to engage in accounting gimmicks to make their U.S. profits appear to be generated in offshore tax havens.

Read CTJ’s comments (8 pages) on the Finance Committee discussion draft.

A fascinating analysis published by the Tulsa World reveals how a growing share of Oklahoma’s budget has been put on auto-pilot, and how other areas of the budget have suffered as a result.  Despite actually seeing an increase in tax revenues this past year, Oklahoma’s elected officials now have $170 million less to appropriate, and state agencies are bracing for potential cutbacks as a result.

The biggest offender here is one we’ve explained before: the growing trend of funneling general tax revenues toward transportation in order to delay having to enact a long-overdue gas tax increase.

A spokesman for Governor Fallin recently paid lip service to the problem, explaining that “the governor … believes … the more money we skim off the top of general revenue, the less flexibility the state has to respond to situational needs and concerns. We certainly don’t want taxpayers to lose influence into how their money is used by their government.”  But when it comes time to talk specifics, Fallin stands firmly behind her decision to direct a growing share of the state’s limited revenues toward roads and bridges.

The Tulsa World details how the portion of formerly “general fund” spending now swallowed up by transportation has grown almost fivefold since 2007, and how more increases are planned in the years ahead.  It’s hard to see how that trend will ever be reversed unless Oklahoma lawmakers finally address the fact that their traditional source of transportation revenue—the gasoline tax—hasn’t been raised in nearly 27 years.

Note to Readers: This is the first of a five-part series on tax policy prospects in the states in 2014.  This post provides an overview of key trends and top states to watch in the coming year.  Over the coming weeks, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) will highlight state tax proposals and take a deeper look at the four key policy trends likely to dominate 2014 legislative sessions and feature prominently on the campaign trail. Part two discusses the trend of tax shift proposals. Part three discusses the trend of tax cut proposals. Part four discusses the trend of gas tax increase proposals. Part five discusses the trend of real tax reform proposals.

2013 was a year like none we have seen before when it comes to the scope and sheer number of tax policy plans proposed and enacted in the states.  And given what we’ve seen so far, 2014 has the potential to be just as busy.

In a number of statehouses across the country last year, lawmakers proposed misguided schemes (often inspired by supply-side ideology) designed to sharply reduce the role of progressive personal and corporate income taxes, and in some cases replace them entirely with higher sales taxes.  There were also a few good faith efforts at addressing long-standing structural flaws in state tax codes through base broadening, providing tax breaks to working families, or increasing taxes paid by the wealthiest households.

The good news is that the most extreme and destructive proposals were halted.  However, several states still enacted costly and regressive tax cuts, and we expect lawmakers in many of those states to continue their quest to eliminate income taxes in the coming years.  

The historic elections of 2012, which left most states under solid one-party control (many of those states with super majorities), are a big reason why so many aggressive tax proposals got off the ground in 2013.  We expect elections to be a driving force shaping tax policy proposals again in 2014 as voters in 36 states will be electing governors this November, and most state lawmakers are up for re-election as well.

We also expect to see a continuation of the four big tax policy trends that dominated 2013:

• Tax shifts or tax swaps:  These proposals seek to scale back or repeal personal and corporate income taxes, and generally seek to offset some, or all, of the revenue loss with a higher sales tax.

  At the end of last year, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker made it known that he wants to give serious consideration to eliminating his state’s income tax and to hiking the sales tax to make up the lost revenue.  Even if elimination is out of reach this year, Walker and other Wisconsin lawmakers are still expected to push for income tax cuts.  Look for lawmakers in Georgia and South Carolina to debate similar proposals.  And, count on North Carolina and Ohio lawmakers to attempt to build on tax shift plans partially enacted in 2013.  

• Tax cuts:  These proposals range from cutting personal income taxes to reducing property taxes to expanding tax breaks for businesses.  Lawmakers in more than a dozen states are considering using the revenue rebounds we’ve seen in the wake of the Great Recession as an excuse to enact permanent tax cuts.  
  
  Missouri lawmakers, for example, wasted no time in filing a new slate of tax-cutting bills at the start of the year with the hope of making good on their failed attempt to reduce personal income taxes for the state’s wealthiest residents last year.  Despite the recommendations from a Nebraska tax committee to continue studying the state’s tax system for the next year, rather than rushing to enact large scale cuts, several gubernatorial candidates as well as outgoing governor Dave Heineman are still seeking significant income and property tax cuts this session.  And, lawmakers in Michigan are debating various ways of piling new personal income tax cuts on top of the large business tax cuts (PDF) enacted these last few years.  We also expect to see major tax cut initiatives this year in Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, New Jersey, North Dakota, and Oklahoma.

  Conservative lawmakers are not alone in pushing a tax-cutting agenda.  New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Maryland’s gubernatorial candidates are making tax cuts a part of their campaign strategies.  

• Real Reform:  Most tax shift and tax cut proposals will be sold under the guise of tax reform, but only those plans that truly address state tax codes’ structural flaws, rather than simply eliminating taxes, truly deserve the banner of “reform”.

  Illinois and Kentucky are the states with the best chances of enacting long-overdue reforms this year.  Voters in Illinois will likely be given the chance to convert their state’s flat income tax rate to a more progressive, graduated system.  Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear has renewed his commitment to enacting sweeping tax reform that will address inequities and inadequacies in his state’s tax system while raising additional revenue for education.  Look for lawmakers in the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Utah to consider enacting or enhancing tax policies that reduce the tax load currently shouldered by low- and middle-income households.

• Gas Taxes and Transportation Funding:  Roughly half the states have gone a decade or more without raising their gas tax, so there’s little doubt that the lack of growth in state transportation revenues will remain a big issue in the year ahead. While we’re unlikely to see the same level of activity as last year (when half a dozen states, plus the District of Columbia, enacted major changes to their gasoline taxes), there are a number of states where transportation funding issues are being debated. We’ll be keeping close tabs on developments in Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Utah, and Washington State, among other places.
  

Check back over the next month for more detailed posts about these four trends and proposals unfolding in a number of states.  

Some Indiana legislators aren’t too excited about Governor Mike Pence’s plan to take a major revenue source away from local governments.  Instead of prohibiting localities from taxing businesses’ equipment and machinery, House Speaker Brian Bosma has a more modest plan that would give local governments the option of eliminating those taxes on new investments.  But the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns doesn’t think Bosma’s plan is likely to do much good, explaining that “the more we slice the revenue side the less opportunity we have to create those kind of things which are just as big an economic development tool as reducing taxes.”

After cutting taxes for businesses and wealthy individuals these last couple years, Idaho Governor Butch Otter has changed his tune–at least slightly.  While the Governor wants to continue the state’s tax cutting race to the bottom, he says that boosting funding for education is actually his top priority this year.  Otter’s realization that public services matter to Idaho’s economic success is certainly welcome.  But rather than setting aside $30 million for tax cuts in his current budget, he may want to address the fact that “he’s not proposing any raises for teachers … nor is he proposing funding raises for any of Idaho’s state employees, despite a new state report showing state employee pay has fallen to 19 percent below market rates.”

Jason Bailey, Director of the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy gets it right in this op-ed describing how desperately the state needs tax reform and what the goals of tax reform should be. He notes that first and foremost “tax reform should raise significant new revenue now to begin reinvesting in Kentucky’s needs.” He goes on to make the case that the tax reform should also improve the state’s tax structure in terms of fairness. He cites an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) analysis which found that  currently ”low- and middle-income people pay nine to 11 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in Kentucky while the highest-earning one percent of people pay only six percent.” Thankfully it looks like Governor Steve Beshear is on board with at least some of the principles outlined in this piece. During last week’s State of the Commonwealth (PDF) address he called for “more resources” to help restore cuts to vital services. The Governor’s own tax reform plan is scheduled to be unveiled later this month.

This piece in the Marietta Daily Journal discusses the radical “fair tax” proposal in Georgia. Some lawmakers are interested in eliminating the state’s income tax and replacing the revenue with a higher sales tax. When the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) analyzed this proposal we found that this tax shift, despite not raising a dime of new revenue for the state, would actually increase taxes on most families.

Economists agreed last week that Michigan is set to see a nearly $1 billion revenue surplus over the next three years.  But, deciding on what to do with the boost in revenue will not be quite so easy.  There is some agreement amongst lawmakers that at least a portion of the surplus should be spent on tax cuts, some even calling tax cuts “inevitable.” Proposals vary greatly from lowering the state’s flat income tax rate (a permanent change) to handing out one-time rebate checks to taxpayers (recognizing that most of the surplus is one-time money) to restoring cuts to the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit (targeting tax cuts to low- and moderate-income taxpayers).   

A new report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) explains that, despite the well-known complaints of America’s largest multinational corporations, our tax system is not trapping corporate profits offshore. In fact, the profits characterized as “offshore” are invested in the U.S. economy already because they are deposited in U.S. bank accounts or invested in U.S. Treasury bonds or even corporate stocks. The real problem is that our tax system traps badly needed revenue out of the country by allowing American corporations to “defer” (delay) paying U.S. taxes on profits characterized as “offshore” — even if they are really earned here in the U.S.

Many lawmakers seem to mistakenly believe that the $2 trillion in “permanently reinvested profits” that American corporations hold abroad are locked out of the American economy. This has led many to support proposals to exempt American corporations’ offshore profits from U.S. taxes, either on a permanent basis (through a so-called “territorial” tax system) or a temporary basis (with a tax amnesty for repatriated offshore profits).

But nothing restricts corporations from investing these profits in the U.S. The CAP report cites a study from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (chaired by Carl Levin of Michigan) that examined the corporations benefiting the most from the repatriation amnesty enacted by Congress in 2004 and finding that almost half of their offshore profits were actually in U.S. bank accounts, Treasury bonds, and U.S. corporate stocks.

American corporations continue to designate these profits as “permanently reinvested earnings” offshore (to use the technical term) because these profits will be subject to U.S. corporate taxes when they are officially “repatriated” (brought to the U.S.).

Corporations are, in theory, restricted by law from using their offshore profits to pay dividends to shareholders or to directly expand their own investments. But even these rules can be circumvented when the corporations borrow money for these purposes. Because these companies have so much accumulated profits (offshore and often in the U.S. also) they are effectively able to borrow money at very low or even negative interest rates. The report explains how Apple and Microsoft both borrowed in this way to finance dividends and share buybacks.

Apple and Microsoft are also examples of another problem, which is that much of these “offshore” profits are actually U.S. profits that the companies characterize, using accounting gimmicks, as earned in countries like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands that do not tax them (offshore tax havens). The existing rule allowing American corporations to “defer” U.S. taxes on their offshore profits already encourages companies to engage in these tricks. Rather than expanding that break into a bigger one (a territorial system or a repatriation amnesty), the CAP report suggests either repealing deferral or cracking down on the worst abuses of deferral, as Senator Carl Levin has proposed.