CTJ's Steve Wamhoff contributes a bit of persuasive writing to US News & World Report's Debate Club feature this week. The question before the debaters: Should Mitt Romney Pay More Taxes?

Wamhoff writes, "The revelation that Mitt Romney received an income of $21 million in 2010 and paid just 13.9 percent of that in federal income taxes has highlighted an enormous problem in our tax code. Income from investments (or income that is manipulated to appear to come from investments) is taxed at lower rates than income from work. And this is a huge benefit for the rich.... Warren Buffett is right. People like him, and Mitt Romney, should pay more to support the society that made their fabulous fortunes possible."

Read the whole piece here, and then vote for us and against the tired old supply side arguments the experts from American Enterprise Institute and the Club for Growth are offering.

Photo of Mitt Romney via Gage Skidmore Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

• A column in the Tulsa World questions the notion touted by conservative lawmakers that Oklahoma’s personal income tax is holding back the state’s economy and therefore should be eliminated.  An ITEP analysis published earlier this month raises other concerns with plans to dismantle this important tax source- over half of Oklahoma households would actually see their tax bills rise if current proposals are enacted.
• More state leaders- and voters- are joining the call to make it easier for states to collect taxes from internet sales.  A majority of Michigan voters recently polled are receptive to paying sales taxes on the goods they purchase online.  And, Idaho Governor Butch Otter told Chamber of Commerce leaders in his state that he supports collecting online sales taxes to “level the playing field” between internet retailers and in-state businesses.
• The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government reports that while state revenues are on the rise, 36 states are still collecting less tax revenue than they were before the economic downturn.
• The Columbus Dispatch quotes ITEP Executive Director, Matthew Gardner, in a story that started out about the availability of free tax preparation help and turned into one about tax fairness.
• Rhode Island lawmakers, union leaders, and advocacy organizations kick off a “Tax the Rich” campaign.  Based on ITEP data, a bill was filed to introduce a new top bracket for taxpayers with incomes above $500,000.

There are few areas of policy where lawmakers’ shortsightedness is on display as fully as it is with the gasoline tax.  Now, with a series of twenty six new charts from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), you can see the impact of that shortsightedness in most states as shareable graphs.

Overall, state gas taxes are at historic lows, adjusted for inflation, and most states can expect further declines in the years ahead if lawmakers do not act.  Some states, including New Jersey, Iowa, Utah, Alabama, and Alaska, are levying their gas taxes at lower rates than at any time in their history.  Other states like Maryland, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Wyoming will approach or surpass historic lows in the near future if their gas tax rates remain unchanged and inflation continues as expected.

These findings build on a 50-state report from ITEP released last month, called Building a Better Gas Tax.  ITEP found that 36 states levy a “fixed-rate” gas tax totally unprepared for the inevitable impact of inflation, and twenty two of those states have gone fifteen years or more without raising their gas taxes.  All told, the states are losing over $10 billion in transportation revenue each year that would have been collected if lawmakers had simply planned for inflation the last time they raised their state gas tax rates.

View the charts here, and read Building a Better Gas Tax here.

Note for policy wonks: Charts were only made in twenty six states because the other twenty four do not publish sufficient historical data on their gas tax rates.  It’s also worth noting that these charts aren’t perfectly apples-to-apples with the Building a Better Gas Tax report, because that report examined the effect of construction cost inflation, whereas these charts had to rely on the general inflation rate (CPI) because most construction cost data only goes back to the 1970’s.  Even with that caveat in mind, these charts provide an important long-term look at state gas taxes, and yet another way of analyzing the same glaring problem.

Example:

Governor Martin O’Malley’s budget has been circulating for a few days, and it seems people are just now turning their attention to one of its smaller tax changes, that is, the Governor’s proposal to end the tax exemption for digital downloads of things like software, songs and magazines.

Maryland’s House Minority Leader had some predictably harsh words for O’Malley after learning of the proposal, but it’s hard to argue that the state should be taxing books and CD’s bought from Maryland retailers, while not taxing digital versions of the exact same products purchased over the Internet.  Viewed in that light, it’s more than a little confusing why the House Minority Leader apparently views this proposal as some kind of revenue grab.  If it’s reasonable for Maryland’s sales tax to apply to all the books, CD’s and other similar products purchased within the state’s borders, the governor’s proposal is also reasonable.  The fact is, this change would simply update the state’s sales tax code to take account of the changing ways in which Marylanders are doing their shopping.

Just as taxing services and online sales is the right response to a changing consumer marketplace, so is a tax on digital downloads.

Photo of of Governor Martin O'Malley via Chesapeake Bay Program Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

The rapid-fire succession of GOP debates has continued, with four more occurring in just the last couple weeks. Here we deconstruct the most ludicrous or notable quotes from each candidate:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: …when I was speaker, we had four consecutive balanced budgets...

It was exciting to see Ron Paul finally call Gingrich out during the latest debate for repeatedly claiming that he balanced the federal budget four years in a row. Citizens for Tax Justice’s Bob McIntyre thoroughly debunked this claim over 9 months ago when Gingrich first starting making it, yet until now none of the GOP candidates have called him out for it.

Former Governor Mitt Romney: I'm proud of the fact that I pay a lot of taxes.

Romney does not pay “a lot of taxes.” He paid an effective tax rate of less than 14% on his $22 million in 2010, which is actually a lower rate than many individuals making just $60,000 pay.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: I'm prepared to describe my 15 percent flat tax as the Mitt Romney flat tax. I'd like to bring everybody else down to Mitt's rate, not try to bring him up to some other rate.

Gingrich’s $18 trillion tax plan would not bring everyone down to the rate that Romney pays because it would actually further reduce Romney’s tax rate to almost zero. Even Romney seemed to think that reducing his tax rate to zero would be going too far and went out of his way during a recent Republican debate to point this out to Gingrich.

Former Senator Rick Santorum: I talk about five areas where I allow deductions… one of them would be, be able to deduct losses from the sale of your home. Right now, you can't do that. You have to pay gains, depending on the amount, but you can't deduct the losses.

Ever trying to play the role of a blue collar populist, Santorum highlighted his idea to allow taxpayers to deduct losses from the sale of their home. He left out the fact that current law already allows an individual to exclude up to $250,000 of capital gains from the sale of a home. How could it be fair to exclude the gains but deduct the losses? He also ignores the fact that homeowners are already subsidized to the tune of $75 billion through the home mortgage interest deduction. A much more effective approach to helping struggling homeowners (and renters for that matter) would be for state lawmakers to enact strong property tax circuit breakers, which are better targeted to low-income households.

Representative Ron Paul: I would like to see income tax reduced to near zero as possible.

Although he has not laid out a specific long term tax plan, Paul has frequently called for the complete repeal of the 16th amendment (which allows the creation of the income tax) and might seek to replace it with a national sales or flat tax. He does not typically mention that such a plan would be extremely regressive no matter how you structure it.

Citizens for Tax Justice director Bob McIntyre wrote in the American Prospect this week, “With the two leading Republican presidential contenders arguing over whether super-wealthy investors should pay 15 percent or zero percent in federal taxes, it would seem that President Barack Obama has a potent campaign issue against either of them… Sadly, Obama hasn’t yet proposed to let all of the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.”  

                                                                   Read the article.

Citizens for Tax Justice has calculated that President Obama’s “Buffett Rule” would, if in effect this year, raise $50 billion in a single year and affect only the richest 0.08 percent of taxpayers — that’s just eight percent of the richest one percent of taxpayers.

During his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed that Congress enact his Buffett Rule, inspired by billionaire Warren Buffett’s complaint that he has a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

CTJ has long argued that the most straightforward way to fix this problem is to end the special low tax rate for capital gains and stock dividends.

A document released from the White House on Wednesday suggests the President would take a different approach. It explains that

the President is now specifically calling for measures to ensure everyone making over a million dollars a year pays a minimum effective tax rate of at least 30%. The Administration will work to ensure that this rule is implemented in a way that is equitable, including not disadvantaging individuals who make large charitable contributions.

The last sentence apparently means that charitable deductions for millionaires would not be affected.

To calculate the $50 billion figure, we assumed that there would be a minimum tax that applies to adjusted gross income (AGI) minus charitable deductions. (We’ll call this modified AGI.)

We assumed that a taxpayer with modified AGI greater than $1 million would face a minimum tax of 30 percent of modified AGI. The taxpayer would pay whichever is greater, their personal income tax under the existing rules or this minimum tax.

Revenue Impact Would Depend on Details

Of course, taxes always have to be a little more complicated than that. We had to assume that this minimum tax is phased in over a certain income range rather than allow it to kick in fully for everyone with exactly $1 million or more in modified AGI. Otherwise, a person with modified AGI of $999,999 might have an effective rate of 15 percent, and if they make $2 more their effective tax rate will shoot up to 30 percent. Congress generally avoids enacting any tax rules that have this sort of “cliff” effect.

So we assumed that the minimum tax would be phased in for taxpayers with income between $1 million and $2 million. That means that only half of the minimum tax applies if you make $1.5 million, and the entire minimum tax applies if you make $2 million or more. This means that the Buffett Rule could raise less revenue or more revenue if Congress chose different rules to phase it in.

CTJ Report Explains Need for Buffett Rule

A report from Citizens for Tax Justice explains how multi-millionaires like Romney and Buffett who live on investment income can pay a lower effective tax rate than working class people.

As the report explains, there are two reasons for this. First, the personal income tax has lower rates for two key types of investment income, capital gains and stock dividends. Second, investment income is exempt from payroll taxes (which will change to a small degree when the health care reform law takes effect).

The report compares two groups of taxpayers, those with income in the $60,000 to $65,000 range (around what Buffett’s famous secretary makes), and those with income exceeding $10 million.

For the first group, about 90 percent have very little investment income (less than a tenth of their income is from investments) and consequently have an average effective tax rate of 21.3 percent. For the second group (the Buffett and Romney group) about a third get the majority of their income from investments and consequently have an average effective tax rate of 15.2 percent. This is the problem that the Buffett Rule would solve.

Photo of Warren Buffett via Track Record Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

After Mitt Romney conceded that CTJ’s estimate of his effective tax rate of 14 percent was correct, Newt Gingrich said that he believed everyone should pay a similar effective tax rate and that this was an argument for his proposed optional 15 percent “flat tax.” Gingrich fails to mention that his plan would actually lower Romney’s effective tax rate almost to zero percent.

CTJ epxlained to TIME that the optional “flat tax” in Gingrich’s plan actually has two tax rates — 15 percent for the income that most of us earn, and zero percent for the investment income that Romney lives on.

TIME also reported on CTJ’s findings that Romney would save $3.4 million a year under his own plan, but would save $6.4 million under Gingrich’s plan.

Note to Readers: Over the coming weeks, ITEP will highlight tax policy proposals that are gaining momentum in states across the country.  This article takes a look at efforts to roll back business taxes in states based on the shopworn, erroneous argument that tax cuts are good for the economy.

Robust corporate income taxes ensure that large and profitable corporations that benefit from publicly subsidized services (transit that delivers customers, education that trains workers, electricity that powers industry, etc.) pay their fair share towards the maintenance of those services. But, as ITEP’s recent report, Corporate Tax Dodging in the Fifty States, 2008-2010, found, twenty profitable Fortune 500 companies paid no state corporate income taxes over the last three years, and 68 paid none in at least one of those three years, even as state budgets are stretched to the point of breaking.  

As a new legislative season gets underway, too many political leaders are bashing taxes in general and business taxes in particular.  Here are some states to watch for more bad business tax policy (followed by a few glimmers of hope).

South Carolina – South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is following through on her misguided campaign promise and recently proposed eliminating the state’s corporate income tax over four years. This despite the fact that South Carolina’s corporate income taxes as a share of tax revenue are among the lowest in the country, at a mere 2.4 percent.

Kentucky – State Representative Bill Farmer has filed legislation that, instead of strengthening the tax, would repeal the state’s corporate income tax entirely. Farmer worked as a “tax consultant” and has been an anti-tax crusader in the Kentucky legislature since 2003.

Nebraska – Governor Dave Heineman recently unveiled his plan to reduce the top corporate income tax rate from 7.81 to 6.7 percent (and eliminate other key state revenue sources, too).

Florida – In his recent State of the State address, Governor Rick Scott said that taxes and regulations were “the great destroyers of capital and time for small businesses.”  And – no surprise here – he also called for lowering business taxes.

Idaho – Governor Butch Otter has called for $45 million in tax cuts but is leaving the details to the legislature.  Of course, when a lobbyist from the Idaho Chamber Alliance of businesses calls the governor’s position “manna from heaven,” there’s a good chance some of those cuts will be given to business.

A few signs of sanity. In Connecticut , the governor is looking to improve the return on tax-break investment for the Nutmeg state. Perhaps he’s learned from states like Ohio, where a recent report issued by the attorney general showed that fewer than half of all companies receiving tax subsidies actually fulfilled their commitments in terms of job creation or economic growth.   We also see combined reporting getting attention in a couple of states.  It’s smart policy that discourages companies from creating multi-state subsidiaries to shelter their profits from taxes. We will report on other positive developments as warranted – so watch this space.

Photo of Rick Scott via Gage Skidmore and Photo of Nikki Haley via Mary Austin Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

During his State of the Union address, President Obama said that "no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas." We couldn't agree more. However, a CTJ report explains that his proposed solutions fail to raise revenue, retain and expand the loopholes that allow corporations to avoid taxes, and mark a further retreat from earlier, stronger proposals.

Read the report.

In his recent State of the State speech, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman unveiled his three-pronged tax reduction proposal:  income tax rate reductions and broadening of income tax brackets, a reduction in the corporate income tax rate, and complete elimination of the inheritance tax. He said that “Our highest priority should be tax relief for Nebraska’s hard-working, middle class taxpayer.”

But the Governor misses an opportunity to help those who feel the brunt of the state’s current tax structure the most and makes it harder for local governments to provide necessary – and often state-mandated – services.

Nebraska’s tax structure is already regressive and asks more of lower income families than better off families. In fact, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) found that the poorest 20 percent of Nebraskans pay an average of 11.1 percent of their income in state and local taxes compared to just 6.1 percent, on average, that the top one percent of Nebraskans – those with incomes averaging over $1.4 million – pay. This discrepancy is largely due to the state’s high reliance on property taxes (which are regressive) relative to personal income taxes (which are progressive). The Governor’s proposal does nothing to reduce property taxes, does little to assist the lowest income Nebraskans, and would actually make this disparity worse.

The governor did no favors for local governments either. The state’s inheritance tax generates about $40 million in revenue annually that goes to the state’s 93 counties. The governor’s proposal eliminates this revenue source entirely and doesn’t offer any replacement funds. To make matters worse, his last budget already completely eliminated state aid to local governments. Concern is spreading in county seats across the state, and in Omaha, the Douglas County Board has actually passed a resolution opposing the governor’s plan to kill the inheritance tax because it will “force” them to raise property taxes.

We have documented, however, that this governor is not alone in his campaign to eliminate the state inheritance tax and give the biggest tax breaks to his richest constituents.  

During his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed that Congress enact his “Buffett Rule,” inspired by billionaire Warren Buffett’s complaint that he has a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

President Obama said, “Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.”

This might mean that Congress would enact a new minimum tax of 30 percent for those with incomes over $1 million. But a simpler way to implement the Buffett Rule would be to simply end the tax preference for capital gains and stock dividends, which is the reason people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett can pay such low tax rates.

CTJ Report Explains Why Romney and Buffett Pay Such Low Tax Rates

A report from Citizens for Tax Justice explains how multi-millionaires like Romney and Buffett who live on investment income can pay a lower effective tax rate than working class people.

As the report explains, there are two reasons for this. First, the personal income tax has lower rates for two key types of investment income, capital gains and stock dividends. Second, investment income is exempt from payroll taxes (which will change to a small degree when the health care reform law takes effect).

The report compares two groups of taxpayers, those with income in the $60,000 to $65,000 range (around what Buffett’s famous secretary makes), and those with income exceeding $10 million.

For the first group, about 90 percent have very little investment income (less than a tenth of their income is from investments) and consequently have an average effective tax rate of 21.3 percent. For the second group (the Buffett and Romney group) about a third get the majority of their income from investments and consequently have an average effective tax rate of 15.2 percent.

This problem could be largely solved by doing what President Reagan did with the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which taxed all income at the same rates.

The Washington Posts's Greg Sargent cites figures from CTJ and concludes

If Romney, whose wealth is estimated at as much as $250 million, is elected president and gets his way on tax policy, he would pay barely more than half as much in taxes than he would if Obama is reelected and gets his way — and the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire and an additional Medicare tax as part of the Affordable Care Act kicks in.

Read the article.

Here we go again: another governor who thinks it’s okay to cut taxes for the rich and raise them on everyone else.  Kansas Governor Sam Brownback last week unveiled his long anticipated tax plan. Sweeping changes to reduce the state’s reliance on a progressive, personal income tax are at the core of the proposal, but the question of whose taxes will be cut is dogging the governor.  His plan, already dubbed “Robin Hood in reverse,” may cut income tax rates across the board, but because it also eliminates a variety of income tax deductions and credits, and permanently raises the sales tax, in the end, it’s actually a tax hike on the majority of Kansans – especially the poorest.

Here is how that works. For most middle- and low-income Kansans, the tax break from the income tax rate cuts would be completely offset by the loss of income tax credits and itemized deductions, as well as a higher sales tax rate. A new analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) found that the bottom 80 percent of the state’s income distribution would collectively see a tax hike under the Brownback plan, while the best off 20 percent of Kansans would see substantial tax cuts.

In fact, ITEP found that under Governor Brownback’s proposal, the poorest 20 percent of Kansas taxpayers would pay 2.2 percent more of their income in taxes each year, or an average increase of $242.  Upper-income families, by contrast, reap the greatest benefit with the richest one percent of Kansans, those with an average income of over a million dollars, saving an average of $16,933 a year. Read ITEP’s two-page analysis here.

Photo of Sam Brownback via KDOTHQ Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Note to Readers: Over the coming weeks, ITEP will highlight tax policy proposals that are gaining momentum in states across the country.  This week, we’re taking a closer look at proposals which would reduce or eliminate state inheritance and estate taxes.  If you haven’t already, be sure to read our inaugural article in the series on proposals in some states to roll back or eliminate income taxes, which are the uniquely progressive feature of our tax system.

Whether state or federal, inheritance and estate taxes play an important role in limiting concentrated wealth in America. Warren Buffett views the estate tax as key to preserving our meritocracy, and the great Justice Louis Brandeis famously warned that we could have concentrated wealth or we could have democracy, but not both.  While the federal estate tax is often the source of passionate debate, these taxes are particularly important at the state level because they help offset some of the stark regressivity built into most state tax systems.  Unfortunately, lawmakers in some states have bought into the bogus claims of the American Family Business Institute (a.k.a. nodeathtax.org), Arthur Laffer, and others in the anti-tax, anti-government movement that repealing estate and inheritance taxes will usher in an economic boom.

Nebraska – Governor Dave Heineman has proposed repealing Nebraska’s inheritance tax entirely, determined, it seems, to pile on to the tax cuts already enacted earlier in his term.  (Inheritance taxes are very similar to estate taxes, except that inheritance taxes are technically paid by the heir to the estate, rather than by the estate itself.)  Unfortunately, in addition to worsening the unfairness of the state’s tax system, the Governor’s proposal would also kick struggling localities while they’re down, since revenue from Nebraska’s inheritance tax flows to county governments.

Indiana – Senate Appropriations Chairman Luke Kenley recently made the same proposal as Nebraska’s governor: outright repeal of the inheritance tax.  Kenley has floated the idea of using sales taxes on online shopping to pay for the repeal, but while Internet sales taxes are good policy on their own, this change would amount to an extremely regressive tax swap overall.  Indiana’s inheritance tax is already limited, however, and exempts spouses of the deceased entirely, as well as the first $100,000 given to each child, stepchild, grandchild, parent, or grandparent.

Tennessee – Governor Bill Haslam’s inheritance tax proposal may be less radical than those receiving attention in Nebraska and Indiana, but not by much.  Rather than repealing the tax entirely, Haslam would like to increase the state’s already generous $1 million exemption to a whopping $5 million.  It’s surprising, to say the least, that one of Haslam’s top tax policy priorities should be slashing taxes for lucky heirs inheriting over $1 million.

North Carolina – Efforts to gut the estate tax in North Carolina haven’t gained backers as visible as those in Nebraska, Indiana, and Tennessee.  But there are rumblings that repeal could be on the agenda of some legislators, as evidenced by the vehemently anti-estate tax testimony that a joint House-Senate committee heard from the American Family Business Institute this month.

President Obama's jobs council has released a report full of recommendations, including somewhat misguided points on the federal corporate income tax. The report rightly points out that the corporate income tax is full of loopholes that should be closed, but fails to call for a reform that actually raises revenue to support under-funded public services and investments. The report also perpetuates some misunderstandings about the effects of the U.S. corporate income tax on our economy and on working people.

Read CTJ's response.

Photo of Council on Jobs and Competitiveness via NCSU Web Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ending Tax Breaks for Companies Moving Jobs Offshore

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

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

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

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

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

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

Santorum is No Blue-Collar Populist

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

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

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

Gingrich on a Tax By Any Other Name

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

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

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

Huntsman’s Tax Loophole Consolidation Plan

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

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

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

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

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

Read the report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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