Remember how Trump sold the Republicans' $1.5 trillion-deficit-creating tax cut plan as a boon for the middle class that was going to create jobs and raise wages? That was in September, when he told congressional lawmakers at the White House that "The rich will not be gaining at all with this plan." See Washington Examiner (Sept. 13, 2017).
Let me repeat that: Trump said "The rich will not be gaining at all with this plan." (emphasis added)
No tax lawyer or professor believed that statement. Nobody that knew anything about the early drafts of the bill believed that statement. But quite a few Trump supporters have believed that statement.
It wasn't true. It was a bald-faced lie, and Trump knew it was a bald-faced lie. He has no trouble making such lies and does it multiple times a day. But this one was both manipulative and deceptive. Manipulative, because it helped to prevent any outcry from his core supporters that might have caused a Senate vote loss. Deceptive, because it was intended to mislead, as so much of what this man does in the office of the President.
Trump made absolutely clear what he really is proud of at his holiday golfing retreat at Mar-a-Lago, where memberships now cost $200,000 (were $100,000 before they counted as access to the Presidency) and members are part of the oligarchic ultra rich set that Trump so adores. Here's what he told them just before Christmas: "you all just got a lot richer" from the passage of the Republican tax cut legislation. See Bobic, Trump Told Friends 'You All Just Got a Lot Richer" From Tax Bill: Report, HuffPost (Dec. 24, 2017).
So September, Trump is claiming that the rich won't gain a thing from the tax cut but come December, Trump is boasting about how much richer the rich got from the tax cut.
Next up? The Republicans who didn't care if they created a $1.5 trillion deficit with their tax cuts for the rich now whine about the dreadful deficit (that they created) and the oh so shocking necessity, now, of cutting back on
Social Security (they want to privatize it so the rich can get rich off of passing risk onto the vulnerable elderly but this is less likely since they can't do it by reconciliation with just GOP votes) and
Medicare (they want to decimate it- and can do that with reconciliation-GOP apparently doesn't want us to have the kind of universal and cheaper health care that the rest of the developed world enjoys because there's no money in that for them) and
Medicaid (GOP can't make money off it and they don't care about the poor kids and families and old people that depend on that anyway).
That, my friends, is the kind of character we have in the White House--a man who doesn't give a damn about the ordinary people that put him in office, except when it comes to stirring up their hatred of "liberals" so that they will keep voting for him under his claimed (but false) "conservative" mantle, a man who cavorts with the ultra-elite and caters to their every need and doesn't give a damn whether they pollute our air, water, or land or destroy our public lands and oceans and wilderness areas and sacred places; a man who is as two-faced as they come--claiming no benefit from his tax cut bill and then boasting about how much richer the rich get from the bill.
And it is also the kind of so-called "leader" we have in Congress-. There's multi-millionaire Paul Ryan--p who wants to cut Medicare because it "has been my big thing for many, many years." His Ayn Rand callousness is coming to the fore. And there's (for now) multi-millionaire Orrin Hatch, who attacked programs for the poor as "wasting America's money." Id. Hatch may well be replaced by multi-millionaire Mitt Romney, who thinks anybody that isn't in the upper class economically is just a wasteful "taker" while it is the rich people that really count. (I've got news for Romney--without those hard workers at the bottom of the income scale, this country would NOT be great.) Romney's not really much different from Trump, just less crass about it when in public.
These rich Republicans are part of the new oligarchy pent on class warfare against the poor and middle class that they disdain while waving the flag and pretending they love their low-income voters. Nah, they just love the votes. They don't give a damn about anyone but themselves, and they are set on a course to destroy all the common decency that this country has established over the years, the core of moral fiber that is really what makes America great.
Here's something about the GOP House and the GOP Senate: they each passed tax bills (supposed to come out in a "conference" agreement sometime today) that diss the United States' working class taxpayers. White or black, Christian or Jew or other, citizen by birth or naturalized citizen--workers are treated as an inferior "taker" class and owners are treated as a superior "maker" class--the same old GOP class warfare that has been evidenced in Republican-driven tax legislation for decades. That shows in the provisions that have been discussed quite a bit already, even though there is no official distributional analysis and even though the Treasury Department put out a one-pager claiming to provide an analysis showing huge economic growth would eliminate any deficits (based on both the tax "reform" legislation and promised cost-cutting "reforms" to Medicare and Social Security):
the significant reduction in impact of the estate tax,
the huge reduction in the statutory corporate tax rate of most benefit to officers/shareholders (it was 35%, it will be 21% under the conference agreement, apparently, even though the "effective" corporate tax rate ranged from negative to around 24-25%--essentially more favorable than many of our fellow advanced economies' corporate tax rates);
the territoriality of the corporate tax (generally, zero tax on foreign earnings of U.S. companies);
immediate expensing of company investments (a five year provision that allows companies huge tax benefits for those five years);
the elimination of the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT), at a cost of about $250 billion in revenues.
the reduction in the top rate for wealthy individuals (from 39.6% to 37%),
the substantial reduction in the State and Local Tax Deduction for workers (thus changing entirely the economics of paying for a house already purchased, while allowing sole proprietors, partnerships and other "owners" of equity in businesses the ability to deduct such State and Local Taxes in full);
a larger standard deduction but the elimination of personal exemptions;
a larger child tax credit that only becomes refundable over time (limiting how much it helps the poor) but is available to wealthy households (starting to phase out at half-a-million of income!);
the only slight reduction in the ability of wealthy individuals to take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction (reducing the debt limit to $750,000 instead of $1,100,000)
the elimination of the corporate AMT (which cuts taxes for wealthy shareholders/owners/managers) but the retention of the individual AMT (which primarily affects the upper middle class and not the wealthiest taxpayers under the current rate bracket system);
the elimination of the Affordable Care Act mandate and penalty (which reduces the amount of Medicaid and insurance subsidy funds for poor and middle-income taxpayers, as well as guaranteeing the deconstruction of the health care system for 13 million or more Americans by 2027 and increasing insurance premiums for upper-middle-class taxpayers); and
the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to rape by fossil fuel oligarchies (a piddling amount of revenue, but sufficient to buy off the principle-less Sen. Lisa Murkowski from Alaska );
making the corporate tax changes permanent (and effective without any transition period) while making the individual tax cuts other than benefits for the wealthy like the estate tax changes temporary.
(just to name a few).
When the health care mandate removal is combined with the other provisions, "On net, the poor would actually lose out in all years once this effect is taken into account." Dylan Matthews, The Republican tax bill that could actually become law, explained, Vox.com (Dec. 14, 2017). The following Tax Policy Center graph from the Vox article (using the Urban-Brookings Microsimulation Model) shows that by 2027 the top 0.1% end up doing much better (average tax cut for the top 0.1 percent is $221,550 a year). The bottom 20% do worse while the middle--the second and third quintiles--have a very insignificant plus (average tax cut of the third quintile is $490). Within the third or middle quintile, more than 62% of taxpayers that earn between $54,700 and $93,200 would see their taxes go up, "[b]ut only about 0.1% of the very richest one-thousandth of Americans would see a tax hike." Id. Early gains--though small, intended perhaps to benefit the GOP in earlier votes--don't last because the individual cuts aren't permanent. A change to chained CPI for indexing brackets amounts to a tax increase on individuals, while the permanent corporate tax cuts mean rich and very rich do well while middle and upper-middle lose out.
Maybe the most damnable characteristic of these House and Senate provisions, other than the sheer favoritism for the already wealthy, is the favorable treatment in determining the rate at which income is taxed for "owners" compared to the disfavored treatment for taxation of workers' wages. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the Senate version of the tax bill "would reduce taxes on business owners, on average, about three times as much as it would reduce taxes on those whose primary source of income is wages or salaries." Paul Krugman, Republicans Despise the Working Class, NY Times (Dec. 15, 2017), at A27. And this dissing of the working class goes along with treating partners in real-estate partnerships (like the Trump family and many other real estate developers) with kid gloves: "a partner in a real estate development firm might get a far bigger tax cut than a surgeon employed by a hospital, even though their income is the same." Krugman, Republicans Despise the Working Class, NY Times (Dec. 15, 2017) (quoting Howard Gleckman at the Tax Policy Center).
The Vox article describes the pass-through provision as part of its "here's who would be better off" section:
Pass-through companies, like the Trump Organization, which get a new deduction reducing their tax burden. The House-Senate compromise bill allows people with pass-through income to deduct a portion of that income from their taxes; the deduction is reportedly for 20 percent of pass-through income, less than the 23 percent under the Senate-passed bill. Dylan Matthews, The Republican tax bill that could actually become law, explained, Vox.com (Dec. 14, 2017).
Note that this is an off-the-top reduction of what would otherwise be personal taxable income taxed at the taxpayer's individual tax rate. Workers who are paid wages get no such break. And wealthy people will use good lawyering and tax planning to organize their businesses so that their income is counted as pass-through income rather than wages. This is just a continuation of a trend of favoring passive ownership of capital in this country. See, e.g., the Berkeley Blog, Wealthy investors to win bigly with Republican tax plan ( Nov. 9, 2017).
Imagine a company where two siblings as owners and a third sibling is the principal employee. They all receive about the same income from the company--for the worker bee, as wages and for the other two, as a profit share. The worker bee does all the creative thinking and working. So the two owners pay tax under this provision on 20% less income than the worker bee. And this is true in an economy in which economists are generally agreed that pass-throughs are currently taxed favorably, taking everything into consideration, and "don't need another break". Dylan Matthews, The Republican tax bill that could actually become law, explained, Vox.com (Dec. 14, 2017). This pass-through provision is as clear a snubbed nose to all those who work hard to earn a decent living as one can imagine. Fact is, the "owners" are often the takers, and the "workers" are the makers.
PS. The Vox article suggests that the corporate tax break is justifiable, based on the GOP "economic theory" that claims that a lower corporate tax rate will "spark so much additional investment in the United States that it would bid up wages and leave the middle class better off through its indirect effects." Id. This is just another way to state the "supply-side" "trickle-down" theory that has been relied on for decades by right-wingers but has never been shown to be justified empirically. In 2004, the GOP made the same claim for its "repatriation tax holiday" for multinational corporations, claiming that the low tax would allow those corporations to invest and expand, leading to job creation. It didn't. It led, instead, to share buybacks and more money for the shareholders. In fact, a large number of repatriating corporations that did share buybacks with the money also laid off thousands of workers.
PSS. The Vox article also suggests that the limitation of the state and local tax deduction for individual taxpayers (but not for businesses) has a "reasonable case" supporting it. Sure, the benefit of the state and local tax deduction is regressive, in that higher income taxpayers in larger houses with larger property taxes and larger incomes get more of a deduction. And yes, it tends to benefit those states with higher state income taxes that are used to develop infrastructure and education. But that misses several points in response. First, for people at the upper-middle income bracket, the Alternative Minimum Tax generally limits the availability of the state and local tax deduction. Second, people who currently own homes and are paying taxes on those homes and living in states with higher taxes likely took the availability of a property tax deduction into account in determining what they could pay for their home: the bill does nothing to provide a reasonable transition for these folks that takes their expectations into account. Third, when the GOP is trying to counter a Democratic president, it always makes the argument that it makes more sense to support states in allowing them to experiment with different ways of raising revenues and supporting their economics. That's what the "blue" states have done: they have recognized that having higher taxes allows development of infrastructure, support for education, funding for research and other priorities, and these expenditures have created a more sustainable economy and better standard of living in those states--exactly what the "state experimentation" is supposed to do. Yet the GOP provision on state and local taxes is now justified as a way to undo the benefit for "rich" states without doing anything to help the "poor" states. (In fact, Ryan and McConnell have made it clear that their goal is to harm the poor states by reducing funding for Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security on which those states in particular depend.)
The GOP is cruising towards passage of its class warfare tax legislation that continues the long trend of Republican tax policy to redistribute upwards to the very rich. The legislation, however, is supported by a small minority of the American public (latest polls put support for the tax legislation at less than 30%). See, e.g., Allan Smith, Polls show key Republicans could get whacked by the tax bill, Business Insider.com (Dec. 4, 2017). That's astonishing when you consider that one provision in both the House and Senate bills that is used as a "revenue raiser" to pay for the huge tax subsidies to corporations and wealthy taxpayers will be especially hard hitting to lots of middle class and lower-income people, including many who voted for Trump.
The legislation will gut the "casualty loss" provision that currently allows taxpayers to deduct losses from hurricanes and fires and other accidents and forces of nature, to the extent those losses aren't covered by insurance (after a $100 per loss limitation). Thus, people who were flooded by Harvey can claim casualty losses on their 2017 tax returns for amounts not covered by insurance. People who lost their homes in the fires that raged earlier this fall in northern California can claim casualty losses on their 2017 tax returns for amounts not covered by insurance. But, as Bob Cesca notes for Salon.com, As L.A. Burns, Republicans Vote for a Tax Hike on the Victims (Dec. 8, 2017). See also Thomson Reuters Tax & Accounting News, 2017 Tax Reform: proposed individual tax changes in the 'Tax Cuts & Jobs Act' (Nov. 3, 2017) and Sally Schreiber et al, Details of Tax Reform Legislation Revealed, Journal of Accountancy (Nov. 2, 2017) (noting that the personal casualty loss is repealed, except, in the House version, for such losses associated with special disaster relief legislation--which requires congressional action for each one); Tony Nitti, Senate Releases Tax Bill: Here's How It Compares to Current Law & the House Plan, Forbes.com (Nov. 10, 2017).
You have to wonder just how the Republican Party and Trump administration became so completely heartless. And why they think that Americans won't notice that they only care about multimillionaires in the "one percent".
The Republicans' proposed tax legislation--whether the House or Senate version--is despicable. It will exacerbate the already devastating income and wealth inequality in this country, leave the federal government without adequate funds for real infrastructure and social safety net needs, and place in almost inviolable power the wealthiest oligarchs of the country (and even the good ones exert a power that no one should possess in a democracy).
My previous posts on this so-called "tax reform" "simplification" package (it is neither) have outlined a number of pernicious provisions in the bills. There are a few I haven't mentioned, such as the likely inclusion of taxation of tuition benefits to undergraduate and graduate students. That will have an immediate impact on education and on basic scientific research. Not surprising, given Paul Ryan, Donald Trump, and Mitch McConnell's aversion to fact-based science and intellectuals, but nonetheless devastatingly harmful to the country in loss of prestige for our universities, loss of the top minds to other countries, and loss of entrepreneurial and innovational thinking that will hamstring commerce and productivity. Another is the "new" talk in the House of lowering the tax rate on the weathiest bracket by as much as two and a half percentage points--adding to the largesse for the wealthy otherwise larding the legislation and making it even more obvious that the only Americans the Republican Party sees itself as serving are those with at least millions and probably billions of net worth. The Republican charade of right-wing "alternative facts" (shown most clearly by the Treasury Secretary's inability to provide a supported rationale for the absurd corporate and oligarch-favoring tax cuts) would have a destructive impact on the entire U.S. economy. And it is not simplification--it is a huge complication that is ripe for tax abusers to abuse the complicated categories of differently taxed income.
But today there is a ray of hope that this tax scam might just not get passed --or might get turned around very quickly if it does get passed. Doug Jones' defeat of constitutional scofflaw and likely multiple-sexual-predator Roy Moore should cause any thinking Republican in the House and Senate to take a step back and listen to the views of constituents across the country, where dislike of this tax legislation is the majority view. The #MeToo movement and its impact on powerful media and other industry harassers, together with the fact that Democrats and Independents got out the vote in Alabama and defeated Roy Moore -- and another 20,000 likely lifelong Republicans decided to write-in another Republican name other than Roy Moore--should tell current GOP congresspeople that "the times they are a changin' ". Reaganomics--trickle-down, supply-side tax policies--don't work. Kansas proved that, if anybody actually had any doubt before. If the Republican majorities in the House and Senate pass this " Class War" tax legislation--written and argued and honed to a tee to serve the wealthiest multinational corporations and individual campaign donors while stabbing the middle and low-income classes in the back--they will potentially pay a big price at the polls in 2018 and 2020. They will pay that price because their tax legislation will send the U.S. economy into another tailspin that will lead to cuts in the standard of living of ordinary people so people like the Trumps can have even more gaudy gold faucets in their many mansions.
I call on everyone who can to write and call Jeff Flake (Arizona)--ask him to stand on principle and vote against the end of the Obamacare mandate, the giveaway to the wealthy and big corporations, the ridiculous scammable complication of different rates for the same income depending on what job the taxpayer worked at or whether the taxpayer owned the business or was an employee. Ask him to vote down this despicable tax legislation for the good of the country and ALL the people. Do the same for Susan Collins (Maine), who already has expressed real concerns about the impact of the elimination of the health insurance mandate. Even her 'bargained for' (but not actually promised) two-year patch wouldn't do much good: millions of people, the most vulnerable amongst us, will lose health insurance and therefore health care if this tax legislation passes. And let Bob Corker (Tennessee) know how much we all respect him for actually standing firm against this tax legislation travesty--and ask him to stand even taller by resisting the pleas to compromise principles 'just to get a win for Trump'. Let's push our Senators and Representatives to stand tall for a sustainable economy based on fiscal responsibility (don't create a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit) and distributive justice (don't push the middle class into dead-end living conditions) and end the giveaways to the wealthy oligarchs.
I predict that if this bill passes the expected accounting for the Republican Party will come even sooner and with even more strength against those who supported Trump's daily vitriol of falsehoods and the Trump Administration's filling the DC swamp with those who put pollution, despoiling the environment, destruction of the wilderness and national public lands foremost on their agenda.
The Republicans in the House and Senate continue on their downhill rush to pass their so-called "tax reform" plan before the holiday break. It's a mad rush to nowhere, a corrupt process of "please the oligarch" that will cause a huge deficit increase (on the scale of $1 to $1.5 TRILLION over ten years) and be used by the Ryan, McConnell and Trump cadre of liars to justify a domino effect of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cuts. It is class warfare of the one percent against everyone else. And it is being sold to the American people with a litany of falsehoods.
Almost all the provisions in the bill are designed to be generous to the ultra wealthy and stingy to the middle class and poor.
Corporations and their owners and managers--among the wealthiest people in the country--get the only permanent tax breaks. It's done in the name of competitiveness, but that's bunk. It essentially encourages corporations to continue to move profits out of the US because foreign profits are taxed at zero while US profits are taxed at 20%. It pretends that the multiple tax breaks for big corporations are necessary (under disproven trickle-down and supply-side theories) to lead to more investment in business in the US and to more jobs and higher pay for workers. But in fact corporations are enjoying record profits under current law and they aren't using those record profits to pay their workers more or to create more jobs or even necessarily to invest in the US. Mostly they are just doing share buybacks for shareholders (ie, owners/managers and other shareholders) that include the wealthiest people who own the most corporate stock. That's because it is demand, not capital, that determines what business expansion is needed and results in labor shortages that give workers leverage to demand more pay. Tax cuts for corporations just add to the already existing capital glut.
The estate tax cut (elimination in the House bill; doubling the exemption to levels that only the very few multi-billionaires will pay any at all in the Senate) ensures that the wealthy will pay almost no tax at all. They borrow against their wealth while alive. Their estates pay no tax on the accumulated wealth when they die. Their children inherit with a "step up" in basis so they get a huge windfall. And their children can pay off the parents' debt by selling a few items (because of the basis step-up, with no taxes either) and live on their windfall without ever lifting a finger to do any real work.
Individual workers really lose out in these bills. Under the House bill, the rate on the lowest wage earners is INCREASED 20%--from 10% to 12%. And all of the 'tax cuts' for ordinary taxpayers sunset after a few years, while the corporate cuts are permanent. Shows where the GOP loyalties lie--not to the worker base that put them in office, but to the wealthy oligarchs like the Koch Brothers who donate to the GOP political campaign chests.
The pass-through provisions (a 23% "deduction" from income before tax is one version)--along with the ability of businesses but not individuals to deduct state and local taxes--are a great boon for wealthy owners of real estate partnership interests, like the Trump family. But they make no sense at all. The more different kinds of income categories that are created with different rates, the more you empower the wealthy to gamesmanship with the tax system. That's what this legislation does in spades.
And after the American people spoke up in Town Hall after Town Hall that they wanted the Affordable Care Act health insurance system protected, the Senate's version of the so-called "tax reform" bill (developed in utter secrecy by Republicans bargaining with Republicans as though nobody else counts) eliminates the individual health insurance mandate (and accompanying penalty). Without that, the entire idea of affordable insurance through government-operated exchanges fails, because the only people on those exchanges will be those who are sick enough or old enough or vulnerable enough to realize that they will need health insurance soon. Insurance works by diversification of risk--that's why the Republican insurance plan in Massachusetts, the model for Obamacare, called for an individual mandate and penalty. Without that core feature, the exchanges can't work because the risk isn't sufficiently diversified. The Republicans who are trying to gut Obamacare know that, and apparently they don't care that this particular "tax cut" will in fact cost more than 8 million Americans the possibility of having affordable health care, likely leading to early deaths for a large number of that group. They don't care, I guess, because "those people" are less likely to be wealthy and less likely to vote Republican. If you are so blinded by partisan fealty that you no longer care about legislating for the good of the nation, you descend to the garbage dump level of this Republican tax bill.
Of course, the elimination of the individual tax cuts, the expansion of the real-estate-industry favorable tax cuts, the inclusion of what can only be called a 'mock' provision to deal with carried interest (it doesn't), the elimination of the medical expense deduction (in the House bill) that will leave the disabled, the injured, and the elderly in dire straits, the decimation of the casualty loss provision that helps ordinary people recover from natural disasters, the huge cutback to the state and local tax deduction for individuals (while continuing to allow it for all businesses)--all these provisions prove that Republicans don't care a fig about ordinary people. We won't be spending money on basic scientific research (needed to be competitive in a global marketplace and needed to save lives from cancer and other diseases). We won't be spending money on infrastructure (needed to have safe roads, trains, airports. etc). We won't be spending money on education (other than Betsy DeVos's favored religious charter schools that teach falsehoods on a daily basis). We won't be creating a sustainable economy that serves all of our citizens.
Oh, but we will be decimating the environment, as Trump's lineup of industry trolls continues to reduce wilderness areas, as Lisa Murkowski sells her tax and healthcare vote to get to open pristine and irreplaceable Arctic wildlife refuge to the oil and gas fossils that have grown obese off 200 years of government subsidies (see The tax bill is bringing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge closer than ever, Vox.com (Nov. 28, 2017)), as Zinke reduces FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER national monuments set aside by other presidents so that those obese coal and oil and gas guys can get even wealthier (see Zinke backs shrinking more national monuments and shifting management of 10, Washington Post (Dec. 5, 2017)), as Pruitt ensures that nobody at the EPA does anything to protect the air, water and land from industry pollution, see Goodby science, hello industry, LA Times editorial board (Nov. 6, 2017). .....
The passage of a tax bill that will create an additional one-to one-point-five trillion-dollar deficit is proof that the Republicans don't care if they destroy this country in their effort to return to the Gilded Age of the past (or, in Roy Moore's definition of the time that America was great, the slavery era when (white) families stayed together and were able to sell black babies away from their black mothers (or half white babies away from their raped black mothers)).
What is the Republican response to the deficit and mal-distribution problems created by such a huge tax cut for the already wealthy?
1) The tax cut will pay for itself. This is trickle-down gobbledy-gook. The vast majority of economists and tax experts are quite clear that this is simply not a supportable claim. It's pie-in-the-sky ideology with no basis in fact when there have been a number of attempts to find such a basis. It wasn't true for Reagan, back in an economy for which tax cuts held much more promise of economic stimulus than they do for our current situation. The Kansas experiment shows this trickle-down reasoning is without foundation. Russell Berman, You Better Learn Our Lesson: Kansas Republicans say they are worried that Congress and the Trump administration will repeat the mistake they made in enacting budget-busting tax cuts, The Atlantic (Oct. 11, 2017). But Treasury has now put out a one-page analysis--compared to the careful, extensive, fact-based analyses usually prepared to support well-researched tax proposals--saying that the GOP plan would produce record growth and that growth would pay for the tax cuts. See Alan Rappeport and Jim Tankersley, Treasury Defends Tax Plan Cost with One-Page Analysis (Dec. 11, 2017). Event the speculative Treasury 'defense' assumes away half of the deficit with legislative cuts that aren't even on paper yet. It's pure fiction.
2) Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid (the "entitlement" programs) will have to be cut to make up for any deficits. That, of course, is the underlying plan. See Jeff Stein, Ryan says Republicans to target welfare, Medicare, Medicaid spending in 2018, New York Times (Dec. 5, 2017). Create a deficit and use it to 'starve the government' to justify cutting any programs that don't serve the oligarchs. Most of that minority of people who voted Trump into the presidency (assuming there wasn't a good bit of ballot falsification, which I think went on in Detroit to not count everyone's ballot) will suffer from this--they depend on Social Security when they retire and on Medicaid when they become incapacitated in their old age and need nursing home or assisted living care. Under the Republicans, we'll return to the "good old days" of the Great Depression when old folks became homeless and the government didn't have to bother with caring about the vulnerable.
We all should be hitting the phones and telling every GOP member of Congress that they are not there to protect their wealthy donors: they are there to protect us and ensure that the economy is sustainable and viable for all of us. This tax legislation stinks. Tell Congress to ditch it in the sewers where it belongs.
There's no surprise here. The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) is a right-wing "think" (i.e., propaganda) tank that has consistently argued for tax policies that favor multinational corporations and the wealthy. So IPI has a posting on Sept 29 that is supportive of the so-called "tax reform framework" put out by the Trump administration.
As an earlier post on A Taxing Matter noted, the Trump framework is a wish list for the wealthy, providing one tax cut for the ultra rich after another:
elimination of the estate tax (that only affects the heirs of estates worth more than $11 million);
territoriality (that advantages multinational corporations that actually operate from the U.S. but claim headquarters in low-tax jurisdictions);
a flat 25% rate on "pass-through income" that gives almost a 15% rate cut to wealthy owners of partnerships in the real estate, joint venture, oil and gas and other businesses (and affects very few true small business owners whose effective tax rate is already no more than 25%, if that much);
elimination of the top rates on the progressive individual rate structure (reducing the top rate from 39.6% to 35% (or less));
reducing the statutory rate for corporations to a low 20%, when corporations already pay much much less in taxes than they have generally paid under the income tax system while making record profits and paying their key managerial personnel the kind of salaries and percs that have exacerbated the increasing income inequality gap in the U.S.;
elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), a provision that was enacted to ensure that wealthy taxpayers are not able to use so many loopholes and special provisions that they escape taxation altogether on their income (the elimination of the AMT being a pro-wealthy tax cut that ordinary folk in the lower two-thirds of the income distribution will benefit not one whit from); and
permitting immediate expensing for five years of equipment and similar expenditures by businesses (another provision that will allow mega corporations to make even more profits that can be shared--through bonuses, higher salaries, and share buybacks with the wealthy managers and shareholders of the enterprise and a provision that runs explicitly counter to the actual economics of the business, in which new equipment stays at close to original value in the early years with wear and tear actually economically backloaded onto the last years of the useful life).
As a result of these provisions, the wealthy who own the vast majority of financial assets (including stock in corporations and partnership interests in real estate and other partnerships) will enjoy hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax cuts. In fact, the major portion of the tax cuts will go to the very wealthy who need them least.
Meanwhile, the rate of taxation on the lowest income group in the country, the bottom percentile, would be increased by 20% (from a 10% rate to a 12% rate)--a truly significant and revealing increase for people who are struggling to make ends meet in an "as needed" worker environment where steady full-time jobs for a regular paycheck are vanishing as corporations call workers in when they want them and send them home sometimes after only a few hours. (This is of course accompanied by a continuing right-wing assault on worker rights and the attempt to shrink labor's power and ability to negotiate with extraordinarily powerful employers in unison rather than individually.) While the standard deduction (and possibly child care credits) will be increased, the personal exemptions will be eliminated, as well as perhaps other deductions that sometimes stave off disaster, such as the medical expense deduction. This means that many of the low to lower-middle income families with children will pay the much higher rate of tax on a larger portion of their income--i.e., their taxes will increase. For the rest of the lower income and middle income classes, tax relief will be minimal--a few hundred to a thousand dollars, most likely.
Note that the members of the Republican Party establishment who are pushing this framework have in the past said that they were very concerned about deficits. Their concern about deficits was the purported reason for limiting the infrastructure plan to jumpstart growth after the Great Recession. Their concern about deficits was the purported reason for nearly shutting the government down time after time over the decision to raise the debt limit for payment of debt obligations the United States government had already incurred. Their concern over deficits was a purported reason for wanting to "reform" Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security--the programs that exist to help the most vulnerable Americans. But now those same Republican Party establishment figures are saying they don't care at all about the deficits. They are willing to allow the deficit to mushroom in order to give yet another gigantic tax cut to the very wealthy. The budget resolution put forward by the Senate Budget Committee would allow a $1.5 trillion tax cut over 10 years, but this plan is likely to cost between $3 trillion and $7 trillion (or more). (Note that the $1.5 trillion figure already includes gimmicky thinking--instead of using the actual law as the baseline, the GOPers are assuming a baseline that assumes that expiring tax cuts don't expire, which gives them more room for additional cuts than if they had to account for actually extending those tax cuts too. So much for McConnell's pledge that any tax reform would have to be revenue neutral. See Tentative U.S. Budget-Tax Deal Gets Nod from Two Republicans, Bloomberg (Sept. 19, 2017). Republicans, as usual, claim dynamic scoring will work, because it will show that growth will make up for lost revenue. Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican tax cut ideologue, claimed that tax-cut induced growth would actually reduce the federal deficit, and Wisconsin Senator Johnson agreed (especially with the aid of "dynamic scoring", maybe done outside the CBO). Id. Sadly, that is not supportable. This is utter hypocrisy.
And while Trump and various functionaries in his administration have explicitly said that their tax "reform" framework is meant to aid the middle class and not give a bunch of tax cuts to the wealthy, there's no evidence in support of that statement. Their program aids the wealthy and ignores or harms the middle class and poor. See, e.g., Trump Says His Tax Plan Won't Benefit the Rich--He's Exactly Wrong, The Atlantic.com (Sep. 29, 2017); Trump Proposes the Most Sweeping Tax Overhaul in Decades, NY Times (Sept. 27, 2017) (noting that Trump described the overhaul as "an economic imperative" for whom "the biggest winners will be the everyday American workers as jobs start pouring into our country, as companies start competing for American labor and as wages start going up at levels that you haven't seen in many years" though there was scant detail on how working people would benefit from "a proposal that has explicit and substantial rewards for wealthy people and corporations"). Trump explicitly said in his Indianapolis speech that wealthy people like him would not benefit (see New YOrk Times article, cited above). And Mnunchin said the same thing months ago ("no absolute tax cut for the upper class"). See Trumps Tax Plan: Prioritize Cuts for the Rich. That statement is simply not true, since the estate tax, the AMT and the reduction of taxes on pass-through income and on corporate income would each directly benefit the Trump family. He also said the framework would "protect low-income and middle income households, not the wealthy and connected". See New York Times article on Indianapolis speech, above. Again, that statement is simply not true: it will provide huge tax breaks for the wealthy and connected and minimal tax breaks or even tax increases for the low and middle income households. And Steve Mnunchin effectively admitted that the plan will result in tax breaks for the rich, essentially by disingenuously claiming that you can't do a tax cut aimed at the middle class without also giving something to the rich. See, e.g., Eric Levitz, Trumps Tax Plan: Prioritize Cuts for the Rich, Say He Isn't, Daily Intelligencer, New York Mag.com (Sept. 27, 2017); Can't guarantee tax cut for entire middle class: Mnuchin, Reuters.com (Oct. 1, 2017) and by saying that the statement that there would be no tax cut for the rich "was never a promise. It was never a pledge...It was [just] what the president's objective was". Trumps Tax Plan, NYMag.com (Sept 27, 2017). And of course, Gary Cohn, similarly has refused to guarantee that no middle-class family would face a tax increase. See Cohn, Mnuchin Draw Line on Corporate Rate, Tease Debt Reduction, Tax Analysts.org (Sept. 29, 2017) (Mnunchin claiming $2 trillion of growth with a claim that the tax cuts would cause a 2.9 percent GDP growth rate over the decade and a cut in the deficit; Cohn claiming enough growth to pay for the entire tax cut). Note that one of the gimmicks that Mnunchin used to avoid the real effect was to separate the estate tax from the regular income tax cuts--so they admit that they are benefitting the wealthy with the estate and AMT taxes, and then claim they are not with the income taxes. In fact, the income tax cuts also are beneficial for the wealthy.
By the way, as a tax professional and tax academic, I can tell you many ways that you can provide tax cuts for the middle class and poor without providing tax cuts for the rich. Just to consider a few:
do not eliminate the estate tax--it only taxes the very wealthiest of the wealthy, so it can only benefit the very wealthiest of the wealthy. The claim that eliminating the estate tax "saves" small businesses and family farms has been debunked time after time.
do not eliminate the AMT--it only taxes the top quintiles of the income distribution. If you want to save the affluent rather than the real middle class, you can structure the AMT to hit only the top quintile.
do not cut the corporate tax rate to 20%--that primarily benefits the wealthy who own most of the financial assets and hold the high-paying managerial positions
do not cut the pass-through tax rate to 25%--that only benefits the ultra wealthy, since small businesses already pay a rate at or below 25%
do not move to a territorial tax system--that primarily benefits the wealthy and will do nothing to increase jobs;
do not increase the bottom rate paid by the low-income Americans from 10% to 12%--that only hurts those taxpayers.
do not eliminate the highest tax rates (the investment income tax, etc.) Consider adding a financial transaction tax.
eliminate the "carried interest" provision that allows wealthy managers of joint ventures to enjoy capital gains instead of ordinary income rates on their compensation along with, often deferral of any income inclusions.
eliminate the section 1031 like-kind exchange provision, that benefits real estate professionals like the Trump clan with near permanent deferral of income.
As Ron Wydon put it "if this [Trump/GOP] framework is all about the middle class, then Trump Tower is middle-class housing. It violates Trump's tax pledge that the rich would not gain at all under his plan by offering sweetheart deals for powerful C.E.O.s, giveaways for campaign coffers, and a new way to cheat taxes for Mar-a-Lago's loyal members." Id. In other words, saying it is for the middle class is a whopping fairy tale. And of course, it doesn't provide any particulars about the nitty gritty issues that would have to be addressed, like preventing abuse of the 25% pass-through rate, limiting the deductibility of interest expense, or phasing out the expensing write-off after 5 years. Anyone with any understanding of the history of tax provisions knows that lobbyists will start immediately with demands for 1 or 2 year extensions to the expensing elimination, and as soon as the public's awareness of the issue has ebbed, Congress will cave and make it permanent.
IPI likes the plan, nonetheless, because most of the things that IPI claims are "pro-growth" tax policies are actually "pro-wealthy" tax policies that have almost no evidence in support of helping to spur greater growth. IPI specifically mentions expensing (highly profitable for large corporations, since smaller companies can already expense most new investments); the move to territoriality (favors multinational corporations that have moved their key IP abroad); the elimination of the AMT (favors the wealthy); the elimination of the estate tax (favors the ultra wealthy); and the reduction of corporate tax rates from a statutory 35% rate (paid by almost no corporation) to a statutory 20% rate (lower than the statutory rate of our so-called "competitor" nations, that also have a VAT, which the US does not have).
There is no real evidence that any of these tax changes will spur economic growth, and Congress has never funded the research that would be necessary to show that they do or don't. It has depended on little more than Arthur Laffer's napkin drawn curve (not based in empirical evidence) and general Chicago School "free marketarian" and "trickle-down" theories. Oh, and gimmicks like using "dynamic scoring" that assumes a large rate of growth to justify tax cuts that otherwise clearly create huge deficits. Kansas's experiment in slashing taxes for businesses and wealthy was supposed to prove that cutting taxes was a great way to engender growth. It proved exactly the opposite. Reagan's 1981 tax cut was supposed to prove that big tax cuts cause huge economic growth--instead, deficits mushroomed and every other year of his term there were tax increases of one kind or another--mostly hitting little guys and not the wealthy. Similarly, Bush 2 cut taxes and saw a surplus turn to a deficit, and ended his term with a Great Recession because of a speculative boom fueled by loose money in banks and financial businesses.
In contrast, there is real evidence that public expenditures to improve infrastructure, protect the environment, support basic research not funded by corporations, and fund educational opportunities have real positive impacts on economic growth that is beneficial for the entire society.
Let's call a spade a spade. This plan for so-called tax "reform" is really just a smokescreen for shrinking government and making it even harder to protect the environment, enforce the laws, make polluters stop polluting, protect the vulnerable and do the other things that the people acting together through government can do but that the people each acting individually simply cannot do. Like Trump's typical lies (about how "great" his response to the Puerto Rican devastation has been, when he waited days to act, sent much fewer military personnel much later and otherwise treated Puerto Ricans like unimportant Americans compared to the way he treated Texas and Florida), the tax "reform" framework is a lie. It is a boon for the rich, a boondoggle for the poor and middle class, and a bad joke for the future economic growth of the country.
And that's why Trump has already started threatening Democrats that don't support his plan. In his Indiana address, he threatened to campaign against Democratic Senator Donnelly if he did not support the tax boon for the rich that will result in at least a $2 trillion increased deficit over a decade. (Of course, given his failures with Senator Strange in Alabama, maybe that threat, like so much else Trump does, is truly hollow.)
Did you know that the Republicans inserted a change to the administration of the Voice of America (VOA) network in the December military authorization 'must pass' bill? The VOA has always been administered by a bipartisan broadcasting board of governors--distinguished nonpartisan media experts. The change was to have the $800 million budget Voice of America run by a CEO appointed by and directly responsible to the President of the United States.
Trump has now appointed (maybe temporarily) two twenty-something Trump political operatives to oversee the VOA. Matthew Schuck is a 2012 graduate from the nondescript Montgomery College who got his start with the Heritage Foundation and then the (alt) right-wing site Daily Surge and worked for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin. The other, Matt Ciepielowski, does not have even that modicum of (mis)understanding of journalistic standards: he is a 2012 graduate of Quinnipiac University and a Republican political strategist who worked for the right-wing Americans for Prosperity organization before he became the NH state director for the Trump campaign. He also has ties to Ron Paul (Texas libertarian). See, e.g., Trump moves to put his own stamp on Voice of America, Politico.com (Jan. 23, 2017); Donald Trump sends two aides to Voice of America studios, raising fears he's going to politicize the outlet, Salon.com (Jan. 24, 2017).
In other words, it appears that the Trump enterprise in the White House wants to convert the Voice Of America into a propaganda arm for Trump's "alternative facts" reality show in the White House, just as Sean Spicer, the Press Secretary, has served as a spouter of misinformation and what Trump's "beliefs" are rather than what the actual facts are. Compare Kellyanne Conway's statement that we shouldn't listen to what Trump says but should "look at what's in his heart". See e.g., Aaron Blake, Kellyanne Conway's laughable 'look at what's in his heart' defense of Donald Trump, Washington Post (Jan. 9, 2017). Just ways of claiming that lies and distortions don't matter and allowing Trump political operatives to say whatever they want.
The Voice of America director Amanda Bennett did pull a tweet on Spicer's erroneous statement reiterating Trump's "biggest inauguration ever" claim. Her claim is that stories aren't "balanced" unless they have a response from the Trump administration. That's hooey. Having to have Trump's version of alternative facts embedded in every VOA story converts the story from news to propaganda.
This is sounding more and more like a tin pot dictatorship. As Stuart Stevens tweeted (noted in the Politico article cited above): "Irony is that VOA's reason for existing was to provide truth to those who lived where the government controlled the press." (emphasis added)
And this matters for tax policy. Ask yourself. How can we have any kind of legitimate discussion or legislation on tax when the Trump administration distorts information and presents "alternative facts" that suit the 70-year-old narcissist in the White House, whether or not they have anything to do with the evidence or issues at hand?
As most everybody is aware by now, the IRS has been under considerable strain for a number of years from budget and staff reductions that have left it underfunded, understaffed, and under pressure. This is part of the right's effort to "shrink the government to a bathtub and drown it." If the main organization for helping Americans understand their tax obligations is understaffed, it is likely that many people will become irritated with the agency and blame it (and taxes) for all their problems. If the main organization for enforcing the U.S. tax laws fairly has too few people to audit the most likely scoflaws and too little money to prepare guidance and rulings to make it harder for scofflaws to scoff at the law, then many people will become irritated with the agency and blame it (and taxes) for their problems while many other people (especially the privileged rich) will continue to scoff at the law by overstating their basis when they sell capital assets, hiding assets in tax havens, and just hiring lots of expensive tax attorneys and accountants to come up with schemes for wiggling through the loopholes in the Code to avoid more taxes.
And of course, if the main organization for ensuring that tax-exempt organizations are not abusing their tax exempt status by using "dark money" to allow the domestic elite and foreign powers to influence and control federal elections and legislation, then odds are the rich and elite and foreign powers will wield more and more influence and control over who gets elected and what kind of legislation they pass. Odds are we will see even more of the kinds of absurd legislation disenfranchising the poor and minorities by making it harder to vote, harder to get a State-issued I.D. card, harder to wait in line for hours at the polls (if you will be fired for not reporting to work), etc.
None of this is any surprise.
None of it is good government.
All of it is supported by the current radicalized uber-right-wing Republican Party hacks that are running many state governments and hold the majority right now in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
As the New York Times editorial board noted, "[c]laiming a 'social welfare' tax exemption has become a tool for powerful political operatives like Karl Rove, the Republican campaign guru. His Crossroads GPS group, which has 501(c) status, has spent $330 million on ads and candidates since it was created in 2010." See Editorial, Dark Money and an I.R.S. Blindfold, New York Times (Apr. 28, 2016). And of course, with all the ranting about it being a problem to pick a group with "Tea Party" or "Progressive" in their name for closer scrutiny (when any common sense analysis will tell you that such a group is quite likely to be engaged in forbidden lobbying activities), "the IRS has groiwn ever more gun-shy about enforcement."
So the latest bill wreaking havoc on democracy, put forward by Republican Peter Roskam in the House of Representatives, would eliminate the current law that requires those who donate more than $5000 to a nonprofit to be disclosed to the IRS (though redacted for public versions of organizations' tax forms).. See, e.g., Richard Rubin, House Republicans Seek to Block IRS Collection of Non-profit Donor Data, Morningstar, Apr. 28, 2016. That means a foreign corporation or a foreign sovereign power could contribute enormous sums to shape the legislative and regulatory regimes in our country, and there would be NO WAY TO POLICE THE PROBLEM.
Further, it is hard to understand why any donor to a tax-exempt organization should be entitled to anonymity. The organization is able to avoid paying any taxes on the funds received, and--especially under the current malevolent eye from Congress towards the IRS--the IRS is hamstrung in enforcing the law against political campaigning with 501(c)(3) funds. What we should do instead of allow complete anonymity and the power plays that encourages is the opposite: the name of every donor who gives anything more than some de minimis threshold amount to any tax-exempt organization should be publicly available, and the amount given should be publicly available. After all, if money is "speech", "speech" is supposed to be heard. Remember the old saying about the tree that fell in the forest and whether there would even be any sound if there were no eardrum available to hear it. That's certainly the case with speech. If giving money is a form of speech, than the gift and giver shouldn't be hidden under a bushel but should be broadcast far and wide for anyone who wants to know.
Note that the bill would also mean that the 'dark' groups under 501(c)(4) wouldn't even have to provide information about the number of large versus small donors that it has.
By the way, if you have any doubts that Peter Roskam has no interest in the best interests of ordinary Americans, remember that back in November he was one of the gang of four that proposed pre-empting the rule expected from the Labor Department to impose a "best interest" standard on retirement advisers. They were so worried (weepy face) that some professionals who handle money for retirees might refuse to do it any more if they weren't allowed to continue paying more attention to lining their own pockets rather than providing sound advice to their clients. See Teresa Tritch, A New Threat to Your Retirement, New York Times (Nov. 19, 2015) (with a swarmy picture of Peter Roskam).
Somehow it seems that the more absurd the congressional Republicans get, the greater their hubris and gall in proposing ideas that would hit government programs hard and create havoc for critically important government activities.
The latest is the right-wing "Republican Study Committee", a caucus of 172 of the far-right members of the GOP, and their "Fixing the Tax Code" release. They argue, for example, for Goodlatte's bill to "terminate the tax code" in 2019 in order to "force" Congress to implement a new tax system by a firm deadline. (Goodlatte, by the way, is a typical obstructionist right-winger Republican from Virginia who has evidenced numerous rather absurd positions in the past. He should not be listened to by anyone.) Their recommendations--more redistribution to the wealthy by lowering rates overall to 25% and cutting the tax on the types of income that the wealthiest Americans receive most of (capital gains and dividends) to a flat 15% rate.
This is, to put it bluntly, insane.
You don't set the way the tax code works by some a priori decision to lower rates so the wealthy pay less tax.
You determine how the tax code works, and how much revenue it should raise, by what kinds of obligations already exist that have to be paid and by considering carefully government programs and appropriate and fair ways to raise tax revenues to fund them.
You can't "terminate the tax code" on a fixed date and expect anything other than anarchic chaos to result. It is enormously hard to write a full tax code that adequately addresses all of the human activities (and entity transactions) that have to be taken into consideration. To come up with the 1986 recodification of the tax code took a year and a half of concentrated work by a team of congressional taxwriters trying to reach a bipartisan result--something that hasn't existed for at least the eight years of the Obama administration. And that group wasn't trying to completely redo the entire code. It didn't "terminate" the existing code, but rather worked within that system to make determinations about provisions that were unworkable, outdated, or just plain bad.
For example, it eliminated the capital gains preference, because it is clear that the characterization of income as capital or ordinary is one of the major complications of the code that allow for gamesmanship by rich people and support redistribution to the wealthy by privileging the type of income they mostly receive. Congress, of course, responded to intense lobbying by the wealthy and reinstated the privileged tax rate within 2 years (retroactively).
This is further evidence that the Republican majority in Congress is incapable of dealing with actual facts about how tax systems work, what revenues are needed, and what the needs in the U.S. are for revenues.
It also reveals the abject hypocrisy of the rightwingers in Congress. They won't uphold their duty to "advise and consent" on a presidential nominee for the highest court in the land, because they want to be able to obstruct the appointment of anybody that isn't as right-wing as they are. They claim it is because the people should have their voice heard by electing the next president (though that's just a sham argument--they want to obstruct things they don't like, whatever the Constitution should actually allow).
But they don't see any problem with a radical treatment of the tax code along the lines they want, even though they may not be in the majority of the Congress after this election. Hypocrits. Liars. Self-serving corrupt ideologues. That's what this right-wing caucus is all about.
The IRS is a government agency that endures all kinds of hostile attacks. Most people don't really like to pay taxes. Even I don't really "like" paying taxes, though I do recognize the importance of paying taxes and supporting the societal infrastructure that pays for the Centers for Disease Control, basic research, the space telescope, programs for those in or near poverty, Pell Grants for students to attend college and many other important and necessary federal programs (not to mention the tax-guzzling military budget that probably could be cut in half, if only we had the gumption to do it). So the right-wing effort to "drown the government in a bathtub" and make the world safer for the corporatist elites to sock away their wealth without paying a dime to support the society that made that wealth possible tends to demonize the IRS at every possible opportunity under a Democratic president.
ASIDE: This is on a par with the way other things are treated. Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and then increased them every year thereafter, mostly increasing the burden on those in the lower end of the income distribution, so Reagan is remembered as the great tax cutter. Reagan's administration had the Beirut bombing that killed 241 U.S. soldiers in their barracks, but Obama's administration bears the millions of dollars spent in eight (and counting) investigations of the four deaths in the Benghazi attacks. There is a tendency for people to remember events and fiscal policy to suit their preconceived view of things.
So the New York Times on Friday reported on the havoc that the right's attacks on the IRS's budget and its employees' morale has wrought. Congress writes the tax laws, but the right tends to talk about the executive agency as though it 'owns' the tax laws instead. I.R.S. Fights Back Against House Republicans' Attacks, New York Times, Apr. 22, 2016. As the article notes, "the agency even got the blame for the hated tax code, which Congress writes and Republicans have promised for five years to rewrite and simplify." (And remember, simplification is the wrong aim--it is part of the propaganda that wants ordinary Americans to support a tax code rewrite that tilts the code even further towards the wealthy. See the last two posts on A Taxing Matter.)
As certain as death and taxes, tax season political attacks on the I.R.S. go back decades. But in recent years, the intensity has grown and the agency’s funding in turn shrank more than any other time in memory. The campaign gained strength in 2013, when Republicans seized on management failures to allege that I.R.S. employees had singled out conservative groups for greater scrutiny and delays in reviewing their applications for tax-exempt status as “social welfare” organizations, though liberal-leaning groups were examined as well, investigations showed.
Clearly, the IRS is a centrally important agency that cannot be eliminated. We need to collect taxes, and we need an agency with the expertise to advise Congress about tax law and policy as well as to interpret the laws in a way that makes it possible to implement them. (Congress has a tendency to leave anything really difficult to the IRS to figure out, by authorizing or ordering the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations carrying out the intent of specific provisions.) We need to have sufficient IRS staffing to enforce the law through tough audits, especially of the wealthy and corporate enterprises. We need to have sufficient funding to maintain updated technology--one of the problems with the cuts in funding to the IRS is that the computer systems are more easily hacked than they should be. That fault lies with Congress, which expects managerial miracles from an agency with constant battering from the right-wing to try to demoralize its employees and constant resource cuts that make budget planning and regular maintenance of systems practically impossible. When Congress adds additional functions to the agency (whether in the form of additional tax systems to oversee, such as the penalty provisions in the Affordable Care Act, or additional tax expenditures operating as a subsidy to one or another of Congress's favored groups, such as the section 199 "manufacturing" deduction) but fails to add funding to cover the additional responsibility, it means that the IRS's ability to carry out its task well will be jeopardized, and service to taxpayers will decline.
“The Congress on one hand adds complexity to the tax system by the tax laws they enact but will not recognize the costs and administrative burdens placed on the agency to carry out the laws it passes,” said G. William Hoagland, who was a senior budget adviser to Senate Republican leaders for more a quarter-century.
The fact is, the IRS makes money when Congress gives it funding to ensure tax compliance: as the article states (and many studies support), "the agency collects at least $4 for every $1 it spends for tax compliance." Former IRS commissioners--during Republican and Democratic administrations--therefore joined together to urge Congress to undo the perverse results of underfunding the IRS.
“Over the last 50 years, none of us has ever witnessed anything like what has happened to the I.R.S. appropriations over the last five years and the impact these appropriations are having on our tax system,” they wrote.
Federal reports document the impact. Tax audits are at the lowest level in a decade, affecting fewer than 1 percent of taxpayers. Reduced efforts to enforce compliance cost an estimated $6 billion in uncollected revenues in 2014 and $8 billion in 2015. The I.R.S. has a backlog of almost a million pieces of correspondence from taxpayers.
Stan Collender, a budget analysis, is right when he says (as quoted in the article):
“You really shouldn’t be able to reduce the amount you spend on I.R.S., decrease their performance ability and then complain about their performance.”
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9864717/tpc1.png)
Recent Comments