The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) offers a series of Policy Briefs designed to provide a quick introduction to basic tax policy ideas that are important to understanding current debates at the state and federal level. This week, ITEP released four updated briefs that explore issues with state corporate income taxes and tax avoidance. The Briefs offer recommendations for leveling the playing field between small in-state businesses and multi-national corporations and ensuring all corporate profits are subject to state taxation.

Combined Reporting of State Corporate Income Taxes: A Primer

Corporate Income Tax Apportionment and the “Single Sales Factor”

“Nowhere Income” and the Throwback Rule

The “QPAI” Corporate Tax Break: How it Works and How States Can Respond

Republican House Majority Eric Cantor’s memo to his caucus laying out a new “jobs agenda” includes a tax break that would allow any “small business” to deduct 20 percent of its income for tax purposes. This idea is not new but was actually part of the House GOP’s proposal put forth during the debate over the economic recovery act in early 2009.

Here’s what CTJ said about this part of the House GOP plan in January 2009:

Provisions in the House GOP Plan to Help “Small Business”

The Republican plan proposes to allow a “small business” to take a tax deduction of 20 percent of its pretax income, whether the small business is a corporation or a sole proprietor. The plan defines a “small business” as one with 500 or fewer employees. It makes no distinction based on income. A “small business” making $100 million would get to deduct $20 million of its income right off the top. (Apparently, a company with slightly more than 500 employees would have an incentive to lay off staff to qualify for the tax break!)

The Republican leadership notes that “small businesses can pay up to 35% of their income in taxes to the federal government.” But for a sole proprietor to be in the 35% income tax bracket, she would need taxable income (after deducting all expenses) in excess of $372,950. And because of the graduated tax brackets, her effective rate would be much less. For a corporation to be in a 35% tax bracket, taxable income must exceed $10 million. The architects of this proposal have an expansive definition of the word “small” to say the very least.

The plan description also states that the United States corporate tax rate ranks the 29th highest (out of 30) among the major economies of the world. Corporations currently pay federal income taxes at a statutory rate of 35 percent. But the effective rate paid by corporations (the percentage of income paid in taxes after taking into account the deductions and credits and other breaks that lower their tax liability) is far lower than 35 percent. Comparing corporate taxes as a share of gross domestic product (as a share of the overall economy), the United States actually ranks low compared to other developed nations.

It’s also worth pointing out that a 20% deduction unnecessarily complicates the tax code. Congress could simply amend code sections that are already in the law (like the corporate or individual tax rates). Anti-tax lawmakers may be afraid that a simple corporate income tax rate cut might not go over too well with a public that believes large corporations got us into the current economic downturn.

Last, but not least, a business tax cut is just about the least effective stimulus measure Congress could possibly enact. The tax cuts put more money in the hands of business. But there is very little correlation between a corporation’s cash position and its plans for investment—whether expanding capacity or hiring new employees. Businesses invest in expansion when they believe there will be an increase in the demand for the goods and services they provide. If they don’t anticipate a sales increase, they won’t expand no matter how many tax breaks the federal government gives them.

Read CTJ’s full report on the 2009 House GOP economic plan here.

The twenty companies that repatriated the most offshore profits under the temporary repatriation amnesty enacted by Congress in 2004 now have almost triple the amount of profits “permanently reinvested” (i.e., parked) overseas as they did at the end of 2005. The figures call into question a recent report from the New Democrat Network (NDN) supporting a second repatriation amnesty.

Read the report

Last week, Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo together approved a substantial increase in the toll rate paid to cross bridges and tunnels between New York and New Jersey.  The increase of $1.50 on EZ pass users (or $2 for cash payers) will go into effect next month.  This will be followed by four consecutive increases of 75 cents each annually from 2012 through 2015, for a total hike of at least $4.50 over five years.

Both governors supported the toll increases, saying that the dire fiscal situation facing the Port Authority, which is reliant on toll revenue, means that the “increase cannot be avoided.” The governors’ willingness to shore up revenue for the Port Authority through toll increases stands in sharp contrast to their reputations as “anti-tax” governors who have relentlessly refused to increase any taxes to deal with their states’ current fiscal disparities.

As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy explains, increases in tolls or other “user fees” are often used by politicians to increase revenue while avoiding having to enact anything that could be called a “tax increase.”

Josh McMahon, writing for the New Jersey News Room, argues that Christie is just playing “a game of semantics” so that he can continue the “charade that he’s not raising any taxes.”

The move by the governors is proving relatively unpopular with New Jersey voters, 54% of whom oppose the increases, according to a recent poll.

In contrast, 72% of New Jersey voters and 64% of New York voters support ‘millionaires tax’ proposals, which would help counterbalance some of the regressive features of both the New Jersey and New York tax systems. Both Cuomo and Christie went out of their way to torpedo these proposals in recent months.

Voters in both states can’t be blamed for wondering whose interests their governors are protecting.

Photos via Gisele 13 Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

This week Colorado’s Secretary of State confirmed that Coloradans will be able to vote on a measure (Proposition 103) this November that would temporarily raise the state income and sales tax rates.  While the plan isn’t the most progressive option imaginable, it is a very reasonable and important step forward in helping the state repair its education system, which has been greatly damaged by the infamous Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).

If approved by voters, Prop 103 would raise the state’s flat income tax rate from 4.63% to 5%, and the state’s sales tax rate from 2.9% to 3%.  In effect, these increases would return the state’s tax system to where it stood in 2000, when the legislature cut both taxes just as the economic boom of the late 1990’s was winding down.  Unfortunately, this time around both changes would expire after five years – at the start of 2017.  But the increases would help protect the state’s education system until Colorado can come up with a more permanent way to remedy its ongoing funding woes.

While Republican opposition to the measure has been entirely predictable, there has also been a surprising amount of reluctance among some of those on the left.  Proposition 103 is less progressive, and would raise less revenue than a previously discussed ballot measure that would have established a graduated rate income tax in Colorado.  And to be sure, establishing a graduated rate income tax would be a much better path forward for Colorado in the long-term.  But with such a solution not on the immediate horizon, Prop 103 is an important second-best option that should not be ignored.

Moreover, worries that Prop 103 would disproportionately affect low-income families are incorrect, as Colorado’s flat rate income tax – the main component of the proposed tax package – is in fact moderately progressive overall.

A list of organizations that have endorsed Prop 103 can be found here.  And for more information on this and other Colorado tax policy issues, be sure to visit the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, one of the main architects of this initiative.

Anti-tax lawmakers and activists in Kansas and Missouri continue to promote ideas to repeal their state income taxes and replace some of the revenue with a huge consumption tax. As ITEP’s Meg Wiehe explained in a recent Kansas City Star article, “A lot of education needs to happen around this issue. If you move to a consumption-based tax, the vast majority of taxpayers would likely pay more in taxes than they are under the income tax, except for the wealthiest.”

ITEP’s written testimony on one such proposal in Missouri  explains that only the richest 5 percent of Missourians would see a tax cut if the state’s personal income tax was replaced with a broad based sales tax, leaving the other 95 percent to pay higher taxes.

The corporate-controlled, anti-government American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) says approvingly that “Kansas and Missouri are at the top of the list” of states considering such proposals. To ALEC, ITEP’s estimates aren’t devastating at all. They recently claimed that “the downside of the tax swap appears to be minimal, if not non-existent.”

As a recent Kansas City Star editorial, warns, “The blessing of the council, known as ALEC, raises a red flag.”

In Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback has long been a proponent of eliminating, or at the very least, drastically reducing the state’s income tax. The Governor’s budget director anticipates that his budget for the new fiscal year will show “some significant (income tax) cuts”.

Missouri lawmakers have tried for the past couple of years to pass legislation that would eliminate the income tax entirely, but the legislation has not successfully passed both houses of the legislature.

Since cooler heads prevailed in the legislature, mega-rich troublemaker Rex Sinquefield has filed 11 ballot initiatives with the Secretary of State’s office that all do basically the same thing — eliminate state income taxes and replace the revenue with a broader sales tax. 

It’s expected that Sinquefield will eventually fund signature-collection for one of these ballot questions. If enough signatures are gathered, Missouri voters would likely be asked to decide about this radical shift in November 2012.

The proposals in Kansas and Missouri threaten those states’ ability to provide core and critical services because they would result in permanently lower revenue, while also tilting each state’s tax system even more heavily in favor of the well-off.

Photos via KDOTHQ Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Hot off of signing an expensive and unfair $400 million tax cut for Mainers in June, Maine Governor Paul LePage is now promoting a new regressive tax break targeted to older adults. 

He would like for state lawmakers to fully exempt all pension income from the state income tax, a move he thinks will help fixed-income older adults and bring wealthy retirees to the state. While most states with broad-based personal income taxes, including Maine, allow some sort of pension income exclusion, only Illinois, Mississippi and Pennsylvania fully exempt it from taxation. 

Maine currently allows retirees to deduct a maximum of $6,000 per spouse of their pension income less Social Security benefits received.  In other words, older Mainers with annual Social Security income over $6,000 ($12,000 if married) do not currently benefit from the pension deduction.

LePage’s proposal is a poorly-targeted and unnecessarily expensive tax break that will make Maine’s tax system less sustainable and less fair.

As a newly released ITEP brief points out, state income tax breaks for older adults, especially those that exempt all pension income, typically reserve the lion’s share of their benefits for better-off elderly taxpayers. Such poorly targeted tax breaks shift the cost of funding public services towards non-elderly taxpayers, many of whom are less well-off than the seniors benefiting from the tax breaks.

Also, long-term demographic changes threaten to make such a pension income tax break unaffordable in the long run. Older adults are the fastest growing age demographic in the country.  According to the US Census, between 2000 and 2010, the US population of adults 55 and older grew by more than 30 percent while the population of those under 55 grew only by 4 percent.  This change was even starker in Maine where the 55 and older population grew by 32 percent while the population under 55 actually shrank by 4.5 percent.  Over time, this demographic shift will mean that a shrinking pool of workers will be forced to fund tax breaks for an expanding pool of retirees — heightening the need to target these tax breaks appropriately in order to minimize their cost. 

Maine Revenue Services has estimated that this special tax break for older adults would cost the state $93 million.  Given that Maine is still climbing out of a budget hole ripped by the ongoing recession, services would have to be cut or other taxes would have to be increased to pay for LePage’s proposal.

Maine lawmakers would be wise to reject LePage’s proposal and should either stick to their current pension income deduction or consider a break which is better targeted to the state’s neediest older adults.

Photos via Maine Public Broadcasting Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Given the recent and unprecedented government shutdown, you’d like to think that lawmakers in Minnesota would want to make it easier, not harder, for the state to balance its budget. But some lawmakers haven’t learned their lesson and are, in fact, proposing to use the state constitution to ban any tax increase that does not receive a supermajority of votes in both chambers. 

Folks at the Minnesota Budget Project (MBP) argue, “The amendment would guarantee gridlock by creating extra hurdles for passing a responsible budget, leading to more budget gimmicks as policymakers seek to fund critical state services.” MBP also points out that surveys show that a majority of Minnesota residents want lawmakers to use both spending cuts and revenue increases to deal with deficits.

In these difficult economic times, lawmakers need more, rather than fewer, tools and options to address budget shortfalls and rising needs. In a state that just survived a horrific budget battle, it should be clear that the more options on the table, the better — for all Minnesotans.

By now everyone has heard about presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s statement that “corporations are people.” “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people,” Romney explained to hecklers in Iowa.

Of course, it’s true that corporate earnings eventually go to people and that taxes on corporate earnings are borne by people. Those people are primarily the shareholders, who receive smaller stock dividends and or capital gains because companies pay corporate income taxes. Corporate executive pay is also affected by corporate taxes because so much of it is in the form of stock options and similar vehicles.

The serious problem is that the shareholders who own these corporations are not paying enough, thanks to the loopholes that allow corporations like GE, Boeing, Verizon and others to avoid taxation entirely.

However, some corporate lobbyists and economists who sympathize with them now argue that the people who ultimately pay corporate income taxes are actually the workers. Up to 80 percent of corporate income taxes, they claim, actually fall on labor, rather than the owners of capital. This happens, they argue, because corporations will respond to U.S. taxes by lowering wages or moving operations and jobs to countries with lower taxes, which will also hurt American workers.

They’re wrong. As we have advocated reforms to raise revenue by closing corporate tax loopholes, some have cited these misguided economic models and asked us whether or not higher corporate taxes would ultimately harm the working people we want to help. The answer is absolutely not. 

Tax expert Lee Sheppard makes the obvious point that we’ve often made (subscription required): “if labor bore 80 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax, corporations wouldn't care about it at all. They don't fight high value added taxes in Europe, because the burden is clearly borne by consumers.”

Indeed, corporations lobby Congress furiously for reduced corporate income taxes, and they would not bother if they did not believe their shareholders were the ones affected by them.

Higher Taxes Won’t Drive U.S. Corporations Offshore

American corporations certainly have been moving operations and jobs overseas in the past decades. But low labor costs in many foreign countries appears to the main force driving this trend, not lower foreign income taxes.

A recent article explains that GE has shifted operations offshore, but it actually pays higher taxes in those foreign countries than it does in the U.S. (Of course, one feature of our tax system, “deferral,” probably does encourage companies to move jobs offshore and we have urged Congress to repeal it.)

The Debate among Economists

ITEP and other organizations that provide distributional analyses of tax policies, including the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, assume that corporate income taxes are ultimately borne by the owners of capital (corporate shareholders and owners of other businesses indirectly affected).  Since capital is disproportionately owned by the wealthy, corporate income taxes are therefore very progressive taxes.

But in recent years some economists have claimed that corporate taxes simply push investment out of the country, meaning workers in the U.S. lose their jobs or settle for lower-paying jobs (meaning labor ultimately bears the burden of the tax). 

But other economists and analysts disagree. For example, a working paper from the Congressional Budget Office suggests that investment cannot move across international borders with perfect ease and that goods produced in one country are not always perfectly substitutable for those produced in another country.

The working paper further suggests a model that takes into account the corporate taxes of other countries, meaning corporations cannot escape taxation so easily because most places where they could reasonably operate will have some level of corporate taxation.

When the economic models take all this into account, they lead to the conclusion that most of the corporate income tax is borne by capital.

The People Who Own Corporations Are Not Paying Enough in Taxes

Once we establish that the owners of capital are ultimately paying the corporate income tax, the next question is whether or not they should be paying more than they do now. Mitt Romney seems to believe they pay more than enough already.

As middle-class Americans are told they must sacrifice some of their public services in order to help balance the federal budget, the obvious question is whether or not the owners of capital, who ultimately pay corporate income taxes, can afford to sacrifice as well. The answer is: absolutely.

Many corporations use loopholes to avoid paying the corporate income tax, as our recent report on 12 corporate tax dodgers demonstrates.

Corporate profits can accumulate tax-free before they are paid out as dividends, and two-thirds of those dividends will go to tax-exempt entities like pension funds or university endowments where they can continue to accumulate tax-free before they reach any individuals. The one-third of corporate stock dividends that do go directly to individuals are currently taxed at a low, top rate of 15 percent. (We have explained before that these are reasons why corporate profits are not double-taxed, as some believe they are.)

So the short answer to Mitt Romney is, yes, corporate taxes are ultimately paid by people, the shareholders, and Congress needs to close the loopholes that currently allow them to avoid these taxes.

Photos via Gage Skidmore and IMF Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Texas Governor and presidential candidate Rick Perry has endorsed both the concept of a flat income tax and the so-called “Fair Tax,” which is a national sales tax. A three-page report from CTJ explains that both of these proposals would result in substantial tax increases for the poor and middle-class and significant tax cuts for the rich.

Read the report.

Photos via Gage Skidmore Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

We couldn’t help but laugh when we saw the title of last week’s Wall Street Journal editorial.  For those of you that have followed the “millionaire migration” debate, it should be a very familiar one.

First, a little background: Over the last couple years, the Wall Street Journal has run three editorials claiming that state income tax hikes in Maryland and Oregon were major factors in the shrinking of those states’ millionaire populations.  According to the Journal, while the recession did reduce the number of rich folks in those states, the tax hikes enacted by the “redistributionists” and “class warriors” (to use their words) just had to have something to do with it as well.  No self-respecting rich person would sit around and pay more in taxes when they could quit their job, pull their kids out of school, and move to a state with lower taxes on the rich – like South Dakota.

Our sister organization, ITEP, went to great lengths to point out the problems with the Journal’s migration theory, responding to those editorials in three separate reports, one letter to the editor, and a Huffington Post piece.  All of those publications analyzed official state data and reached the same conclusion: there’s no evidence to suggest that the shrinking of Maryland and Oregon’s millionaire populations was anything other than a predictable result of the recent recession.

That’s what makes last week’s Journal editorial so amusing.  It’s been a little over two years since the Journal first popularized the Maryland millionaire migration myth with a 2009 piece titled “Millionaires Go Missing.”  Apparently, members of the Journal’s editorial board have short memories, because they’ve recycled that same title, but used it to argue the opposite point (and the one ITEP insisted was the case all along): new federal tax data shows that the recession caused a huge decline in the number of millionaires all across the country.  “Told you so” just doesn’t seem sufficient.

Looking back, it’s really unfortunate how much influence the Journal’s made-up story about “Maryland’s fleeced taxpayers fighting back” (as the sub-title of their 2009 article read) actually had.  It resulted in countless misinformed debates about a “millionaire migration” phenomenon that never even existed, and played no small role in the eventual defeat of efforts to extend a very good tax policy in Maryland.

But even against that backdrop, perhaps we should all feel just a bit relieved right now.  At least the Journal opted not to use the new federal data to concoct a fiction about wealthy Americans migrating to low-tax Mexico.  Well, at least not yet.

Unless Congress acts, federal gas and diesel taxes will fall by about 80 percent on September 30.  If this is allowed to happen, spending on our nation’s already inadequate roads and transit systems will likely plummet, and Congress will face massive pressure to make up the difference through deficit spending or rerouting spending from other vital priorities.

Clearly, these outcomes are not ideal.  That’s why extending the gas tax – albeit at low rates – has always been a routine and bipartisan undertaking.  Today, however, the visceral opposition to taxes by many in Congress has led some observers to believe that the debate will be more hostile than usual, and that there is a real possibility – though small – that the gas tax will actually be allowed to expire.  Simply put, there is less and less that is “routine” in our nation’s capital anymore.

In a surprising and fortunate twist to this story, Grover Norquist stated flatly recently that a gas tax extension would not violate the no-tax pledge that 277 members of Congress have signed.  This should have already been obvious to anybody who’s taken the time to read Norquist’s 57-word pledge (it clearly applies only to income taxes), but his admission was nonetheless helpful in making that fact known.

Perhaps more surprising, though, was a confession by one of Norquist's employees that allowing the gas tax to fall so quickly would be too disruptive.  You know the situation is serious when even Norquist's group is cautioning against tax cuts.

Less encouraging was Norquist’s recent promise to push for a system in which states could opt-out of the federal Highway Trust Fund, and instead finance their roadways entirely with tax revenues generated inside their borders.  If allowed to happen, this would mark a major retreat from the federal government’s long-running role in helping to maintain our nation’s Interstate highways.

It should go without saying that the Interstate highway system is of immense importance to interstate commerce, and that there is an obvious federal role to be played in ensuring the smooth functioning of that system.  For example, the federal government has always seen to it that large, sparsely populated states are able maintain their expansive highway networks for the good of the national economy.

With this in mind, it should come as little surprise that the organization representing state transportation departments (AASHTO) believes that the federal government's involvement must continue.  As AASHTO representative Jack Basso recently remarked to Stateline, “The real question is can you maintain a national system, given the diversity and the breadth of geography in the country and the population situation, without some kind of national program? I think the answer is ‘No.’”

Unfortunately, while there appears to be a growing consensus that the gas tax should be extended, there's still a possibility that it will be "taken hostage" -- just like the debt ceiling and most of the Bush tax cuts were within the last year.  If that happens, it's very likely that the outcome of the current transportation debate will be much more skewed toward Norquist's priorities than would otherwise be the case.

Photo via Gage Skidmore Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

If you’ve ever bought something online, then most likely you’ve cheated on your taxes.  Not many realize it, but people making online purchases are required to pay sales taxes on those purchases directly to their state government.  Unfortunately, hardly anyone reports these taxes (either because of ignorance or a desire to save a buck), and the law is essentially unenforceable.

In an effort to remedy this situation, Senator Dick Durbin (D- IL) has once again introduced the Main Street Fairness Act.  The bill would require online retailers above a certain size to remit taxes on sales made in states that have taken steps to simplify their tax systems.  Essentially, this bill would relieve the buyer of their responsibility to calculate and pay the sales tax themselves.  It’s a bill that has been introduced before, but with online shopping (and state efforts to tax it) growing at an increasing rate, it’s now more relevant than ever.

Opponents of the bill have incorrectly labeled it as a tax hike.  The bill doesn’t actually create a new tax, nor does it raise an existing one.  Rather, it merely creates a mechanism to collect taxes that have always been owed.

Failing to collect these taxes creates two major problems:
1) States are losing out on badly needed revenue.
2) Traditional brick and mortar stores are at a competitive disadvantage when their customers have to pay a tax that online shoppers are able to evade.

As an extreme example of this second problem, in many instances customers will go so far as to examine and “try out” merchandise at stores, only to return home and purchase the same product online in order to evade their sales tax responsibility.

It’s no surprise then that numerous organizations representing retail owners, such as the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), support the bill.  As one of their spokespeople said, “It is time to close this decades-old loophole and level the playing field for all retailers.”  And specific “brick and mortar” companies, ranging from Wal-Mart to independent book stores, have come out in support of the legislation as well.

Notably, the bill contains two important provisions meant to address concerns among online retailers about the difficulty of complying with state sales tax laws.  First, the bill would only allow states to require online sellers to collect sales taxes if they have first simplified their tax systems. Second, the bill would also exempt “small sellers” from the requirement, since small businesses are the least likely to have the resources necessary to comply with state sales tax laws.

Amazon has long opposed the small seller exemption, a position reiterated most recently in itsJuly 29 letter to Senator Durbin.  (Michael Mazerov of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggests three reasons why Amazon opposes this exemption in the Appendix of his November 2010 report.)  And while Amazon thanked Durbin for introducing the newest version of this bill, it has stopped short of an outright endorsement.  It remains to be seen how seriously Amazon plans to push for eliminating the small seller exemption, and whether such a push could endanger the entire bill.

On the plus side, the increasing level of interest states are showing in solving this problem themselves has intensified the push for a comprehensive federal solution.  Battles over online sales taxes have been waged in over twenty states in just the last three years, and there are no signs that interest in the issue will wane any time soon.  But as ITEP explains in its recently updated policy brief, only a federal solution can solve this problem entirely.  As Durbin put it, “If you do it on a national basis, there’s hardly a complaint one state is being disadvantaged over another.”

The Main Street Fairness Act has had bipartisan support in the past, though this time around only Democrats have signed on so far.  In theory, conservatives should be very interested in the bill as it removes a longstanding economic distortion.  It’s a common sense solution to a longstanding problem and is a win-win in that it can generate revenue for cash-strapped states while also improving the competitiveness of Main Street businesses.


Photos via American Progress Action Fund & Soumit Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Texas Governor and presidential candidate Rick Perry said that he is “dismayed at the injustice that nearly half of all Americans don’t even pay any income tax.”

He should know that Americans pay other types of federal taxes besides just federal income taxes, and that they also pay state and local taxes. A two-page statement from CTJ explains that this is particularly true in Texas, which, despite its reputation, is actually a high-tax state for the poor.

The statement cites a recent ITEP finding that Texas imposes higher taxes on its poorest 20 percent of non-elderly residents than 45 other states. In other words, Texas has the fifth highest taxes for low-income families.  Texas also has the 17th highest taxes on the next 20 percent of non-elderly residents. These are the same families that Governor Perry believes should contribute more in taxes.

Photos via Gage Skidmore Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) offers a series of Policy Briefs designed to provide a quick introduction to basic tax policy ideas that are important to understanding current debates at the state and federal level. Over the next two weeks, ITEP will release eight new and updated Briefs that explore various elements of the state Personal Income Tax and offer options for improving its adequacy, stability, and fairness. The new briefs this week are:

· Income Tax Simplification: How to Achieve It

· Indexing Income Taxes for Inflation: Why It Matters

· Why States That Offer the Deduction for Federal Income Taxes Paid Get it Wrong

Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, called for higher taxes for millionaires in a widely-noted op-ed this week. As expected, the Wall Street Journal reacted with a variety of misleading counter-arguments. We conclude that:

1. Buffett is correct that the tax breaks that benefit the wealthy investor class, like the capital gains and dividends preferences, are unfair.
   
   
2. The Wall Street Journal’s arguments that these types of investment income are double-taxed are incorrect.
   
   
3. Contrary to what the Journal claims, President Obama’s tax plan is in keeping with Buffett’s call for higher taxes on millionaires.

Billionaire Investor Is Right to Call for Higher Taxes for the Rich and End of Breaks for Investment Income

Buffett points out that middle-class Americans are being asked to “sacrifice” as Congress and the new twelve-member “super committee” search for ways to reduce the budget deficit, but millionaires have not been asked to sacrifice anything. He argues that the super committee should ask millionaires to pay at higher rates than they pay today and should also end or reduce special tax preferences for investment income, which makes up most of the income of millionaires.

Citizens for Tax Justice has long made the case that these tax preferences — the special low income tax rates for capital gains and stock dividends, should be repealed entirely.

CTJ offers the example of an heiress who owns so much stock and other assets that she does not have to work. She receives stock dividends, and when she sells assets (through her broker, of course) for more than their original purchase price, she enjoys the profit, which is called a capital gain. On these two types of income, she only pays a tax rate of 15 percent.

Now consider a receptionist who works at the brokerage firm that handles some of the heiress’s dealings. Let’s say this receptionist earns $50,000 a year. Unlike the heiress, his income comes in the form of wages, because, alas, he has to work for a living. His wages are taxed at progressive rates, and a portion of his income is actually taxed at 25 percent. (In other words, he faces a marginal rate of 25 percent, meaning each additional dollar he earns is taxed at that amount).

On top of that, he also pays the federal payroll tax of around 15 percent. (Technically he pays only half of the payroll tax and his employer pays the other half, but economists generally agree that it’s all ultimately borne by the employee.) So he pays taxes on his income at a higher rate than the heiress who lives off her wealth.

What make this situation even worse are the various loopholes that allow wealthy individuals to receive these tax breaks for income that is not really even capital gains or dividends. As Buffett explains, fund managers use the “carried interest” loophole to have their compensation treated as capital gains and taxed at the low 15 percent rate, while the “60/40 rule” benefits traders who “own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.”

CTJ has found that if Congress simply repealed the preference for capital gains entirely, three fourths of the tax increase would be borne by the richest one percent of taxpayers. (See page 19 of this report for estimates.) The tax preference for dividends expires at the end of 2012 if Congress does not extend it.

The Myth of Double-Taxed Investment Income

The Wall Street Journal starts with the following complaint about Buffett’s argument that his capital gains and dividend income is insufficiently taxed:

“What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%.”

Anti-tax ideologues often claim that corporate profits are taxed twice, once under the corporate income tax and then again under the personal income tax when the shareholders receive them in the form of capital gains and dividends. There are several fatal flaws in this argument:

First, many corporate profits are not taxed, as GE, Verizon, Boeing, and many other corporations have demonstrated.

Second, two thirds of those dividends are actually paid to tax-exempt entities like pension funds or university endowments.

Third, a capital gain from selling a corporate stock is not necessarily a form of corporate profit. If stock value rises based on some expectation of a future increase in profits (which a drug company might enjoy after the FDA approves a new product, for example) that does not have anything to do with profits that the company has already received or paid taxes on.

In any case, the capital gains earned outside of tax-exempt plans are not taxed until shareholders sell their corporate stock at a profit, meaning those gains can be deferred indefinitely. Even when shareholders do report capital gains they often offset them with capital losses.

If one applies the logic of the “double-tax” argument more broadly, one would have to conclude that the wage and salary income of ordinary Americans is subject to several forms of taxes that wealthy investors don’t worry much about. For most Americans, income consists entirely of wages and all of it is subject to Social Security taxes and much or most of it is subject to the federal income tax. Then when people spend their income, a great deal of their purchases are subject to sales taxes.

Somehow the Wall Street Journal and its devotees only express concern over taxing income multiple times when wealthy investors are involved.

Ending Tax Cuts for Income Over $250,000 Actually Targets Millionaires

The Wall Street Journal also complains that, “Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Buffett speaks about raising taxes only on the rich. But somehow he ignores that the President's tax increase starts at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.”

But President Obama’s plan does target millionaires. A recent report from Citizens for Tax Justice explains that if enacted in 2011, 84 percent of the revenue savings from Obama’s income tax plan would come from people who make more than $1 million annually.

What is often not understood is that Obama’s plan would leave in place the Bush income tax reductions for the first $250,000 of adjusted gross income (AGI) for all married couples (and the first $200,000 for all unmarried taxpayers).

A married couple with adjusted gross income of $250,001 would pay higher taxes on at most one dollar, and face a tax hike of only 3 cents at most. But even that tiny tax hike would be extremely rare, since almost all couples at that income level itemize deductions. Typically, couples would have to make more than $295,000 before they lost any of their Bush income tax cuts.

Married taxpayers with incomes between $250,000 and $300,000 would lose just one percent of their Bush income tax cuts, on average, under President Obama’s plan.

The Wall Street Journal calls taxpayers with AGI in excess of $250,000/$200,000 “middle-class.” CTJ estimates that in 2013, when the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire, only 2.6 percent of taxpayers will have adjusted gross income in excess of the $250,000/$200,000 threshold.

This shows that President Obama is asking too few, rather than too many, Americans to pay higher taxes than they do today. 

Photos via The White House Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Earlier this year, governors in West Virginia and Arkansas signed legislation to lower their states’ sales tax on food, a policy both had championed.  West Virginia lowered the state’s sales tax on food from 3 to 2 percent and Arkansas’ was reduced from 2 to 1.5 percent.

Unlike most states, West Virginia and Arkansas were doing just fine budget-wise, so the tax cut was “affordable” and did not come at the expense of critical and core public services, which are often sacrificed for tax cuts.  Pursuing cuts to food sales taxes also set Mike Beebe (AK) and Earl Ray Tomblin (W.VA) apart from other governors who pushed for regressive tax cuts that primarily benefited upper-income households and businesses.

West Virginia’s Tomblin recently upped the ante, too, asking lawmakers during a special August 2011 session to end the state’s sales tax on food altogether, given the state’s finances were continuing to perform well.  The House and Senate heeded the governor’s request and agreed to phase out the remaining two percent sales tax on food by July 1, 2013. 

The phase-out is contingent on the health of the state’s Rainy Day Fund, which must be equal to or greater than 12.5 percent of the General Revenue Fund at the end of 2012. If that goal is met, the sales tax on food will be reduced to one percent on July 1, 2012 and totally eradicated on July 1, 2013.

While West Virginia’s decision to eliminate the sales tax on food is certainly more beneficial to more families than other states’ efforts to eliminate corporate and personal income taxes, there are smarter, more targeted strategies available to lawmakers seeking to improve the fairness of the sales tax and support working families.

As an updated ITEP brief explains, targeted tax credits are a preferred alternative to exempting products, such as food, from the sales tax base. 

Sales tax exemptions have two main disadvantages as policy. First, they make the sales tax base (that is, the total dollar amount collected from taxable items) much narrower, and reduce the yield of the tax.  Second, they make the exemptions available to all taxpayers, regardless of need or income.  For example, the poorest 40 percent of taxpayers typically receive only about 25 percent of the benefit from exempting groceries while the rest goes to wealthier taxpayers who can more easily afford to pay the grocery tax.

Targeted credits, on the other hand: are designed to apply to specific income groups deemed to be most in need of tax relief; are available only to in-state residents; can be less expensive than exemptions, and; do not affect the stability of the sales tax as a revenue source.

Rather than wholly eliminate the sales tax on food, West Virginia lawmakers could have followed the model of 24 states which have wisely enacted a state Earned Income Tax Credit to ensure the tax cut will primarily benefit low- and moderate-income families, those who need help the most and spend a larger proportion of their incomes on food.  Alternatively, a refundable food tax credit, implemented in Kansas, Oklahoma and Idaho, which helps offset sales taxes paid on food, would be a more preferable policy as it is also 1) targeted to taxpayers who need it most and 2) less disruptive to the state’s revenue – two characteristics of the smartest tax policies.

Photo via Judy Baxter Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Republican Candidates Completely Walk Away from Balanced Approach

“Just making sure everyone at home and everyone here knows that they all raised their hands. They’re all saying that they feel so strongly about not raising taxes that a 10 [spending cuts] to one [tax revenues] deal, they would walk away from,” Fox News host Bret Baier confirmed for the audience at the first Iowa Republican Primary debate.

With a simple raising of hands, the debate revealed that the entire Republican field would reject any sort of compromise measure that included revenue increases, even if such a compromise heavily favored spending cuts. Even a deal raising just one dollar in revenue for ten dollars in spending cuts is now off the table for the Republican candidates.

This no-compromise approach on taxes demonstrates that ultimately the winner of Thursday night’s Republican debate is Grover Norquist, whose no-tax pledge has become an absolute requirement which every Republican presidential candidate must religiously abide.

Republican Candidates Run Away from Previous Compromises

Not only did the candidates promise to not increase any taxes in the future, many of them ran away from their own record of raising taxes in the past.

During the debate, the Washington Examiner’s Byron York asked former Governors Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Representative Michele Bachmann in turn about specific times that they had voted for or signed some form of a (gasp!) tax increase.

Each in turn, attempted to explain away their former support for the tax increases. Bachmann blamed Pawlenty for forcing her into a box, saying that she had to vote for the tax increase in order to support abortion restrictions. Pawlenty emphasized his high ratings from the CATO Institute and said that he regretted the cigarette fee he had agreed to in order to end a government shutdown. Romney did not dispute the specific incident brought up from his record, but he emphasized that he decreased taxes overall and that he had managed to get Massachusetts’s credit rating to be increased.

None of the candidates were willing to stand up and defend the core truth at issue: responsible lawmakers are sometimes required to make compromises based on the realities they face.

Each of these Republican candidates was forced at some point to make the responsible decision to vote for tax increases and defy Norquist’s absolutist pledge.

What makes these attempts to run away from their tax record particularly ironic is that both Romney and Pawlenty have long catered to anti-tax forces by advocating fiscally irresponsible policies.

Jon Huntsman Wrong on Flat Tax, Herman Cain Still Wrong on Repatriation

Although touting one’s opposition to any tax increase was the theme of the night, a couple candidates advocated their own problematic approaches to tax reform.

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman lauded his creation of a flat tax in Utah, saying that such an approach is “exactly what needs to happen in this country.” As Citizens for Tax Justice has noted before however, Huntsman’s flat tax made the state’s tax system even more regressive and lost an unexpectedly large amount of revenue, making it a case study of bad tax policy.

For his part, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza Herman Cain had a moment of surprising candor when discussing the proposed repatriation holiday. When pressed on the failure of the 2004 repatriation holiday to create jobs, Cain admitted that he was “not concerned” with what actually happens to offshore corporate profits repatriated under the holiday, so long as the are back in the US. In other words, he does not care whether corporate tax breaks lead to job creation.

As we noted during the last debate, what Cain fails to realize is that a permanent or even temporary tax holiday on repatriated profits would ultimately incentivize companies to move more of their investment and jobs offshore.

Check out a complete transcript of the debate here

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) offers a series of Policy Briefs designed to provide a quick introduction to basic tax policy ideas that are important to understanding current debates at the state and federal level. This week, ITEP released four Briefs that provide an overview of basic tax policy ideas that help explain how all state and local taxes work.

· Tax Principles: Building Blocks of A Sound Tax System

· Tax Policy Nuts and Bolts: Understanding the Tax Base and Tax Rate

· How State Tax Changes Affect Your Federal Taxes: A Primer on the “Federal Offset”

· Introduction to ITEP’s Tax Incidence Analysis

As predicted, the bad news about Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo’s infamous property tax cap is already starting to roll in as local governments begin to grapple with the law’s implications.

In the Town of Southhampton, for instance, the local comptroller told the town board that on top of several years of tough austerity measures, the cap will likely force another $5 million in cuts. Southhampton Councilwoman Bridget Fleming was so frustrated by the cuts that she accused the area’s state assemblyman of “essentially crippling” the town’s ability to provide services.

Over in Canadaigua, New York, school officials are worried that the cap may “severely  limit” their options in putting together next year’s budget. The Superintendent of Canandaigua Schools expressed his own frustration with the cap saying that it addresses “only a symptom” of the state’s fiscal challenges as it does not address decreasing state aid or the increasing costs of mandates coming from the state level.

Looking statewide, a recent report by the credit-rating agency Moody’s noted that the property tax cap could endanger local governments and school districts by putting “additional pressure on local government financial operations already strained by declining state aid, weakened tax revenue, high fixed expenditures and state-mandated services.” The report even pointed to the specific examples of the Town of Fishkill and Monroe and Rockland counties as the governments most in peril from the cap.

To avoid these eventualities, the Wall Street Journal reports that many local governments are devising ways to “stretch” loopholes to increase the amount of money they can raise. Peekskill city for instance is hoping to use two exemptions -- one for pension costs and another for debt service -- to  raise property taxes as much as 5.9%. The Cuomo administration, however, has disputed interpretations of the cap law that would allow for such extensive exemptions and argues that localities should focus more on cutting spending.

Meantime, the New York based advocacy group Community Voices Heard (CVH) has it right: they say that the best thing the state government could do to improve schools and other public services would be to extend the millionaire’s tax, a move Cuomo opposes.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy concurs with CVH in its own report on how to fix New York’s education funding system, noting that a policy like extending the millionaire’s tax would not only make the state’s tax system more fair, but it could go a long way towards improving fiscal sustainability at the state and local level.

UPDATE 8/12/11: It appears there may now be a third path forward. The Tennessean reports that Gov. Haslam recently began negotiations with Amazon in order to have the company collect sales taxes. Such a deal would likely involve giving the company hefty subsidies.

Traditional “brick and mortar” retailers are becoming increasingly frustrated that Amazon.com and other online retailers aren’t collecting sales taxes owed on their customers’ purchases.  Online shopping makes up a significant (9%) and fast-growing share of all retail sales, and many online retailers are using their exemption from collecting sales taxes to expand that share. 

Against this backdrop, a group representing some of Tennessee’s most powerful retailers recently threatened to file suit if Amazon.com is not required to collect sales taxes – just like traditional sellers – when two new distribution centers in the state are up and running.

The saga in Tennessee began when former Governor Phil Bresden struck a backroom deal with Amazon while on his way out of office.  The deal reportedly included a promise that the Internet giant would not have to collect sales taxes in Tennessee, even if the company established distribution centers in the state (which by most accounts would constitute “physical presence” and therefore require that the company collect taxes).

But a regulation that would have cemented the deal failed to make it onto the books, and now Amazon is on less certain footing in claiming that it does not have to collect taxes because the new distribution centers are technically owned by a subsidiary, not Amazon itself.  This line of argument is basically identical to one the company tried to use in Texas, so far unsuccessfully.

At this point, there are two separate paths forward for making Amazon collect sales tax just like most other retailers.  First, lawmakers could pass legislation clarifying that the company is in fact subject to the state’s sales tax collection requirement.  Legislation that would have done exactly that stalled in the last session while its sponsors waited for legal guidance from the state’s Attorney General (he eventually confirmed that the legislation would have been constitutionally permissible).  The sponsors are apparently interested in pushing for the legislation again in 2012.

The second path would go through the courts.  The Retail Industry Leaders Association – which includes such heavyweights as Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Home Depot – recently announced that it may file suit if the state does not force Amazon.com to begin collecting sales taxes once the company’s new distribution centers begin operating.  While details of the suit remain sparse, it would presumably try to show that Amazon.com does in fact have a physical presence in the state, all claims about “subsidiaries” to the contrary.  If the courts agree on that point, Amazon will likely be required to collect sales tax.  The legal requirement that sellers collect the tax is not optional and could only be waived through actual legislation, not just a secret agreement with the Executive Branch.

Ultimately, the legislative path is more straightforward than going through the courts, but if Amazon is able to scare enough lawmakers into opposing the legislation, it’s oddly reassuring to know that big box retailers are prepared to fight for a more even-handed application of the state’s sales tax laws.

Photo via Markuz and Brent Nashville Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today appointed members to fill the three seats allotted to her for the 12-member “super committee” created under the recent debt deal.

Last December, all three voted against the “compromise” that extended the Bush tax cuts entirely, even for the richest Americans, for two years. All three also received high scores from CTJ’s legislative report card during the previous administration for opposing President George W. Bush’s regressive tax cuts.

Pelosi’s appointees are Xavier Becerra of California, James Clyburn of South Carolina, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.

This move by Pelosi provides needed reassurance to advocates of tax fairness. The six Republican members of the super committee have all taken Grover Norquist’s infamous “no new taxes” pledge. The Senate Democrats appointed to the committee have a more mixed record on taxes (see related post.)

Photo via Campus Progress Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Super Committee Should Either Focus Entirely on Revenue, or Simply Allow Automatic Sequestration to Go into Effect

Numerous surveys show that large majorities of Americans want Congress to address the deficit with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. The first half of deficit reduction accomplished under the newly enacted debt deal will be entirely through spending cuts. This means that the second half of the deficit reduction — which is to be determined by a Congressional “super committee” — should be accomplished entirely by increased revenue. Responsible members of the super committee should walk away from any deal that falls short of this goal.

The super committee has many options to increase revenue, particularly by eliminating or reducing subsidies provided through the personal income tax and corporate income tax to business and wealthy investors. As CTJ director Bob McIntyre explained to the Senate Budget Committee in the spring, these tax subsidies cost a billion dollars a day.

If the super committee cannot agree on such revenue-raising measures, they should do nothing. The $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that would result from the super committee’s failure to reach agreement are not the worst possible outcome. Half of the automatic spending cuts would come from defense spending (which has increased by 70 percent since 2001). If the super committee comes to an agreement that avoids the automatic cuts but lacks revenue increases, the consequences could be far worse. For example, the committee could choose to focus cuts instead on public services that working Americans rely on in order to protect powerful defense contractors.

Further, President Obama and responsible members of Congress will have another opportunity to take an anti-deficit stance at the end of 2012, when they can demand that the Bush tax cuts will either expire for the rich or expire entirely. The Bush tax cuts expire under current law at the end of 2012, and proponents of the tax cuts have no power to extend them without the support of President Obama and the Democratic leadership in the Senate.

The Budget Control Act

The Budget Control Act, signed into law last week to raise the debt ceiling, reduces the deficit and lifts the ceiling in two stages. First, caps on discretionary spending (both defense and domestic) are in effect and will save $900 billion over ten years. Second, a Congressional “super committee” of six Senators and six Representatives, divided evenly by party, must by Thanksgiving come up with measures to save between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion over ten years. Whatever plan is approved by a majority of the committee could then be passed by a simple majority in the House and Senate and sent to the President.

If this process fails (or fails to save as much as $1.2 trillion) then automatic triggers will go into effect that sequester $1.2 trillion of spending (or the difference between what the super committee’s plan saves and $1.2 trillion) over ten years. The spending sequestered would be divided evenly between domestic and defense.

Republican Super Committee Members Pledge No Taxes. Will Democratic Members Start with Compromise?

There is no responsible way for Democratic members of the super committee to “compromise” without convincing Republicans members to violate their pledge. The United States is one of the least taxed countries in the industrial world. (Only Mexico and Chile collect less taxes as a share of their economy.)

The Democrats generally seem vastly more likely to cave on their core principles, given their recent agreement to raise the debt ceiling without any guarantee of increased revenues.

It’s true that Congress has a very difficult time providing immediate solutions when the political parties have irreconcilable worldviews. But there is a process to resolve that, and it’s called an election. And this process will work if voters know which lawmakers prioritize tax breaks for corporations and wealthy investors, and which lawmakers prioritize Medicare, Social Security, education and the other public services that working Americans rely on.

Photo via Gage Skidmore and The White House Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

At the end of last week, Standard & Poor’s (S&P), one of the three major credit rating agencies, downgraded the credit worthiness of the United States for the first time and specifically stated that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthy would justify a return to the highest possible rating.

S&P’s report says that its “upside scenario,” which could allow the rating to be upgraded to “stable” “incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating.”

S&P: The Broken Clock

Of course, S&P is right that allowing the Bush tax cuts to partially expire for the rich (at least) would improve our fiscal situation. But S&P’s accurate observation on this point is akin to the broken clock giving the correct time twice a day.

It’s worth pointing out that this is one of the rating agencies that convinced an awful lot of people that mortgage-backed securities were perfectly safe in the run up to the economic collapse that triggered bank bailouts by the Bush administration. Investors seemed entirely unconvinced by the report on Monday, when they traded in stocks and bought up the very Treasury bills that S&P claims now carry some risk of default. Some observers have even suggested that S&P’s downgrade is a threat to prod Congress and the Administration to undo the stricter regulations on credit rating agencies that were enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of S&P’s report is the $2 trillion mistake that the Administration identified, which S&P responded to by simply changing the rational for its downgrade from an economic one to a political one. S&P told the Administration that the $2 trillion mistake did not substantially alter its conclusion. But as observers have noted, the report makes clear that ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich (which would only save $950 billion) would alleviate the need for the lower rating.

Stating the Obvious: Congress Is Dysfunctional and Held Hostage by the Tea Party

All that being said, the report’s conclusions about America’s politics are correct, if rather obvious. “The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed,” the report admonishes. “The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.”

Of course Congress is less effective than ever. In fact, it’s utterly dysfunctional. No legislation of any significance can be passed in the Senate without a supermajority of members in support, which has not been the case historically (contrary to what many believe). As a result, President Obama’s proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts entirely for all but the richest two percent failed to pass last year despite support from a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate.

Now Republicans have established that they will vote against any increase in the debt ceiling (which is comparable to refusing to pay a credit card bill after you knowingly made half your purchases on it) unless they receive major policy concessions that most Americans do not support.

Tea Party lawmakers are willing to hold the legislative process hostage. In fact, the Republican Senate leader now uses the words “hostage” and “ransom” to describe the party’s legislative strategy regarding debt ceiling negotiations. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor responded to S&P’s report by exhorting his party to hold firm against any proposal to raise revenue.

Despite the many shortcomings of S&P, last week’s downgrading of the U.S.’s credit rating ultimately is the Tea Party Downgrade.

The three Democratic Senators appointed by Harry Reid to sit on the “super committee” established under the debt deal voted for the President’s disastrous budget compromise in December of 2010 that extended the Bush tax cuts for another two years.

Sending these three in to negotiate with members who passed an anti-tax litmus test to get there is worrying.

How did the three perform on other tax votes? Senators John Kerry and Patti Murray have a record of voting against costly and regressive tax cuts, while Senator Max Baucus has a mixed record. 

Baucus actually received a failing score on CTJ’s legislative report card during the Bush years because of his support for many regressive tax cuts.  On the other hand, Senator Baucus led the charge in 2010 to end the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

All three of these Senators deserve credit for voting last year to extend the Bush tax cuts only for those earning below $250,000, which was, at least, better than the Republican proposal to extend the tax cuts entirely.

If these are the Senators charged with holding the line against no-revenue-no-way Republicans, then they’re going to need some reinforcements.  

On Sunday, 45,000 Verizon employees went on strike to protest the company’s push for employees to give back $1 billion in health, pension, and other contract concessions. What makes these demands particularly galling is that Verizon is both highly profitable and already a model of poor corporate citizenship.

Despite earning over $32.5 billion over the last 3 years, Verizon not only paid nothing in corporate income taxes, it actually received nearly $1 billion (the same amount as the concessions they are seeking) in tax benefits from the federal government during that time.

If Verizon thinks its employees should pay $1 billion more for their benefits, we think Verizon should pay A LOT more for the benefits it receives from the federal government.

In fact, if Verizon paid its corporate income tax at the official rate of 35 percent, it would have owed more than $11 billion (rather than negative $1 billion). This alone is enough to  avoid the recent cuts in the debt deal to student loan programs..

For its part, Verizon has disputed the claim that it does not pay enough in taxes. Their math however is misleading because it includes taxes that they will owe in the future, not those they actually pay in a given year.

Verizon’s tax dodging is now so infamous that it has become one of the primary targets of US Uncut, a grassroots organization dedicated to getting corporations to pay their fair share.

The Communication Workers of America (CWA), who is leading the strike along with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), also notes that while calling for a benefit cut from workers, the top 5 executives at Verizon received more than a quarter of a billion dollars in compensation over the last 4 years.

Given their record on taxes and compensation, it’s hard to believe Verizon will come around to being a good corporate citizen anytime soon, yet unions and the public alike need to keep up the pressure by asking Verizon: Can you hear us now?

A bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress proposes to help companies that engage in “life sciences” research by combining two terrible tax policies — the research and experimentation (R&E) credit and a tax holiday for repatriated offshore profits — into one monstrosity.

The bill, which has been introduced by Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) in the Senate and Devin Nunes (R-CA) in the House, gives the pharmaceutical and biotech companies, and some companies that make medical devices, two options. They could take a special 40 percent R&E credit (which would be double the value of the existing R&E credit) for up to $150 million in research expenses.

Alternatively, they could repatriate up to $150 million in offshore profits, which would be taxed at just 5.25 percent instead of the normal 35 percent that applies to corporate profits. This would particularly benefit pharmaceutical companies and others who are notorious for using intellectual properties to shift profits to offshore tax havens. The bill would allegedly require the repatriated offshore profits to be used for the research.

A coalition of companies that would benefit is promoting the bill.

Neither of the tax breaks offered under the bill would create jobs.

The R&E Credit Rewards Companies for Research They Would Do Anyway

The R&E credit, introduced during the Reagan administration, has been the subject of many tax scandals as companies have tried, often successfully, to treat activities that are obviously not scientific research — such as developing hamburger recipes or accounting software — as qualified R&E.

The R&E credit has a curious following among politicians who normally style themselves as free-market advocates, but who nevertheless maintain that big business needs to be subsidized to do research. In fact, a 2009 report from the Government Accountability Office found that “a substantial portion of credit dollars is a windfall for taxpayers, earned for spending they would have done anyway, instead of being used to support potentially beneficial new research.”

The Repatriation Holiday that Will Actually Reduce Jobs in the U.S.

A separate coalition of companies has been promoting a repatriation holiday for months, but has lost steam in the face of estimates that their proposal would cost $79 billion, partly because companies would respond by shifting even more of their jobs and profits offshore. Congress tried this type of measure in 2004, and the Congressional Research Service found the benefits went to corporate shareholders and not towards job creation.

The new proposal is different in that it would target the repatriation holiday at companies that engage in “life sciences” research, and couple it with an increased R&E credit. But none of this makes the repatriation holiday any less ill-advised.

The requirement that repatriated funds must be put towards life sciences research simply won’t work because money is fungible. A company can put the money towards research it would have done anyway, which would free up other money to pay larger bonuses or for any other purpose. In fact, Martin Regalia, a senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said at a panel discussion on March 25 that because money is fungible, you cannot really direct a company to do any particular thing with cash it receives.

It’s Not Enough for Lawmakers to Say They’re Doing “Something” to Create Jobs

Some members of Congress are desperate to appear to be creating jobs while knowing full well that Tea Party-backed lawmakers will block the sort of spending programs that actually can create jobs. Some of them have settled on this proposal, hoping that it includes a large enough tax giveaway to win over the “life sciences” companies (and their lobbyists and campaign contributions).

For these companies, each batch of grim unemployment data must seem like an opportunity. They are increasingly able to request tax breaks in the name of “job creation” that will never happen.

Photo via Wellstone.Action Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Levin-Grassley Incorporation Transparency Bill Would Help Identify Mysterious $1 Million Contribution to Romney Campaign

Today, NBC News reports that a Delaware company made a $1 million contribution to a PAC supporting Mitt Romney about six weeks after it was formed, and then dissolved two months later. This ripped-from-the-headlines story of a corporation that was created for the sole purpose of laundering massive political contributions highlights the need for a bill that was just introduced this week in the U.S. Senate.

The company, called W Spann LLC, filed a certificate of formation on March 15 with no information about the owners or the business purpose of the entity. On April 28, the LLC made a $1 million contribution to a political action committee supporting Mitt Romney.

The company then dissolved on July 11, leaving no trail of the real people behind the political mega-donation. Lawrence Noble, former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, called it a "roadmap for how people can hide their identities" and disguise their political contributions.

This technique would be blocked if Congress enacts a bipartisan bill introduced this week to require states to collect information about who really controls corporations and limited liability companies (LLCs) that are formed in their jurisdictions. Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act (S. 1483) on August 2.

The bill's provisions are vital to law enforcement who are trying to investigate crimes ranging from arms dealing to money laundering and tax evasion. But it will also help combat another problem - the clandestine funding of politics.

Last year, a Senator from a certain state known for its loose incorporation laws blocked this bill from moving forward. (See Criminals, Inc.: Delaware's Fight to Keep Opaque Incorporation Rules is Helping Tax Cheats and Terrorists, June 25, 2010.)

The reasons for supporting this law continue to multiply. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle should be lining up to cosponsor the Incorporation Transparency Act.

Photo via Gage Skidmore Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Late last week the Massachusetts legislature passed, and the Governor signed, legislation making Massachusetts the 17^th state to offer a back-to-school sales tax holiday.  This is the same Deval Patrick who recently said he supported the legislation “frankly, not because it is particularly fiscally prudent, but because it is popular…. People want it."

We couldn’t agree more. Sales tax holidays may be politically popular, but they are poor fiscal policy. There’s scant evidence they make a long term difference for retailers, and they fail to target tax relief to those consumers most in need.

The holidays can also be costly to the treasury (Massachusetts expects to lose $20-25 million) and create administrative headaches.

We hope Governor Patrick will take a look at our brief on sales tax holidays between now and next year; it will give him the facts and courage he needs to say no to lousy policy.

Photo via WebN-TV Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Being a member of the working poor has never been easy, but these past few years have been particularly tough on working families who must contend with increasing health care costs, high unemployment, food inflation and high gas prices, among other things.  This makes now an ideal time for policymakers to work together to make it a little easier for families to make ends meet.

But Iowa Governor Branstad appears to be moving in the opposite direction. Exhibit A is his veto last week of a minor increase in the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). This credit has received bi-partisan support for decades because of its unique ability to lift working families out of poverty. It is smart, targeted policy that everyone can get behind.

But the Governor couldn’t find his way clear to increase Iowa’s EITC credit from seven to ten percent of the federal credit; and with 15 percent being the national average, ten is not even particularly generous.  For now, Branstad says he is most interested in “reducing those taxes that are impeding our state’s ability to compete for new business and jobs.” Yet another governor who’s been drinking the Chris Christie kool aid.

This may be one of the worst cases we’ve seen of kicking them while they’re down.  We share the sentiments of the Iowa Fiscal Partnership when they write the veto “hurts working people and the economy.”

Photo via Gage Skidmore Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

The so-called “Budget Control Act” that President Obama signed into law this week to increase the federal debt ceiling and reduce the federal budget deficit marks the second time the Obama administration has capitulated on tax policy to the most extreme elements in Congress, those who are least in touch with the American people and most willing to risk economic disaster to get their way.

While our political leaders should be doing all they can to boost consumer demand and create jobs, the administration and Congress have instead agreed to slash public services without guaranteeing any increase in revenue.

To be sure, a revenue increase could result from the process established under this deal, despite Republicans’ claims to the contrary. But anti-tax lawmakers have already demonstrated that they will risk everything — including economic catastrophe — to block any and all revenue increases. As a result, we believe the only hope for a balanced approach depends on President Obama finding the courage (which he has lacked so far) to allow all of the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012.

Read the full statement.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) offers a series of Policy Briefs designed to provide a quick introduction to basic tax policy ideas that are important to understanding current debates at the state and federal level.  This week, ITEP released four new Briefs that explain how the primary state and local tax sources work:

How State Personal Income Taxes Work

How Sales and Excise Taxes Work

How Property Taxes Work

How State Corporate Income Taxes Work

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback’s budget chief, Steve Anderson, has announced that a new tax study committee will be formed to recommend ways to reduce or even eliminate the state’s income tax, according to an article in the Wichita Eagle. 

Legislation to phase out individual income taxes and lower corporate tax rates died in the legislature this past session, but evidently the Brownback administration isn’t giving up on its regressive agenda. State representative Jim Ward was being generous when he called this proposal “shameful.”

The graduated income tax is Kansas’s only major progressive tax levied; reducing or eliminating the income tax would ensure that regressive property and sales tax rates would have be raised, or services would have to be cut.  If the Brownback administration gets its way, the state’s most vulnerable will suffer the most. Ironically, Brownback came out against an effort to reduce the sales tax just this last November, citing the budget deficit and insisting the state couldn’t afford it.

In a recent speech to a local Republican club, budget chief Anderson fell just short of admitting that corporate leaders are writing the administration’s economic plan.  He told his audience the story of a CEO friend who threatened the state of Oklahoma that he would move his company to Texas because it has no income taxes. Anderson said it “drove home to me how important it is to get [income tax] down to that point that you’re at the lowest rate you can be, hopefully zero.”

States too often fall for, and suffer the consequences of, a race to the bottom with other states over taxes.  Corporations regularly lead states down this path, and unfortunately, the leadership in Kansas is apparently all too willing to follow their corporate pals.

Representative Ward is right to point out that numerous studies have shown taxes are just one of many factors -- alongside education and other government services -- that corporations consider when making their relocation decisions.  A tax code that adequately funds the communications, transportation, power and public safety that support the state’s economy is good for Kansas – both its businesses and its residents.

Photo via KDOTHQ Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

In a year when most state leaders across the country embraced an anti-tax, cuts-only approach to addressing short- and long-term budget shortfalls, Connecticut lawmakers agreed to a budget for the current fiscal year that addressed the state’s deficit crisis with a balance between spending cuts and (if you can believe it) significant new taxes.

Not just new taxes that fall heavily on the working poor, which are politically easy but fiscally insignificant (and far more common that you’d think), but new taxes on the rich, which are often political suicide even as they are fiscally smart.

Starting yesterday, August 1, high income taxpayers started seeing more taxes withheld from their paychecks, and Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, (whose party opposed the package) wailed, “It is a sad day when state government decides to reach back in time to garnish the wages of our hard working residents because it can't get its own fiscal house in order."

But wait. Middle-income households with taxable incomes (not salaries, but adjusted gross income) under $100,000 ($50,000 if single), will not see any change in their withholding. And, as Connecticut for Children’s Voices points out using ITEP data, even though the tax changes boosted fairness by reducing taxes for low-income residents and increasing them for wealthy ones, the state and local tax system remains highly imbalanced: the wealthiest Connecticut households still only pay on average 5.5 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes while the poorest 20 percent pay 11.4 percent of their incomes.

The other, mostly progressive, tax package features kick in this summer, too, including sales tax changes that took effect in July.

The Connecticut budget is a national model. It introduces a program (Earned Income Tax Credit) repeatedly proven to boost economic activity, and it increases taxes on those in the highest brackets to help restore revenues needed for core services and municipal budgets.  We wish the state well, and will check back as the results begin to take effect.