Category: Taxation

Taxation in America – First Principles

George Noga
As America debates tax reform, MLLG provides the appropriate perspective.
Taxation in America – First Principles
By: George Noga – June 25, 2017
      This begins our series about taxation in America; it coincides with the debate over tax reform and Trump’s tax proposals. Our tax series consists of several parts that will run during the summer; some parts will run consecutively and some intermittently. We begin by presenting ten wholly objective and nonpolitical principles.
  1. Taxes should be simple and transparent. Citizens should demand transparency and simplicity; however, it is in the interest of government to make taxes complex and opaque. A sales tax collected from consumers at the point of sale meets these criteria as people know they are paying a tax and the amount. Conversely, a VAT, embedded in the cost of products, is opaque; consumers don’t always know they are paying a tax nor the amount. Business taxes, which are passed along to consumers as higher prices, are totally opaque. Government always goes to great lengths to maximize opacity.
  2. Only living, breathing humans pay taxes. Businesses and corporations do not pay taxes; they may remit taxes, but it is not their money. The burden of all business taxes falls on owners, employees and (95% of the time) on customers as higher prices. Business taxes are a myth propagated by government to beguile voters into believing they are not paying tax. The 50% of payroll taxes “paid” by employers is really borne by the employee – not the employer – and is simply government maskirovka.
  3. Taxes should not impede growth. The goal of taxation should be to maximize economic growth. Politicians can and should debate how to carve up the pie but never should do anything to shrink the pie as this harms all Americans. Taxes on capital (such as capital gains) are harmful to economic growth and result in locked-up capital, misallocation of resources, under-investment and loss of productivity.
  4. Taxes must be stable. Once enacted, a tax regimen should be permanent and rarely amended. Politicians can’t resist using the tax code for class warfare and political fundraising. Individuals and businesses need long-term tax stability to plan their lives and investments. Uncertainty is a mortal enemy of investment and productivity.
  5. Taxes should be neutral. Taxes should impose identical burdens on all taxpayers regardless of the nature of their businesses. Under the current tax code, businesses with substantial fixed assets are taxed much differently than service businesses.
  6. Know Hauser’s Law. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is constant regardless of the top marginal tax rate. From 1945 to 1963 when tax rates were 90%, tax revenue was 15%-18% of GDP. In the late 1980s when the top rate was 28%, tax revenue was 18% of GDP. Tax revenues vary according to economic conditions but not tax rates. Hauser’s Law works because taxpayers modify their behavior based on tax rates.
  7. Taxation is not for corporate welfare. Simple, transparent, neutral and low corporate taxes would eliminate most of the rationale for corporate welfare. Businesses never should be rewarded for lobbying activity more than for growing their businesses.
  8. Governments should compete on taxes. Nations and states should compete on rates. People always win with competition. Competition from much lower tax rates abroad has created tax inversions. Ultimately, this will be solved by lowering US tax rates.
  9. Taxation is not for social policy. Taxes are for raising revenue in the simplest, most efficient, transparent and economic friendly manner possible; they never should be an instrument for social policy. To the extent government has legitimate social goals, they should be addressed directly and not via the tax code. The worst abuse of this principle is the death tax, which is not about revenue but about class warfare and politics.
  10. Understand the Laffer Curve. Tax revenue maxes out at 30%-35% for individuals and 20%-25% for corporations; anything higher actually produces less total revenue.
      Keep these ten principles in mind throughout our series on taxation in America and as Congress debates tax reform this summer. The closer the final outcome conforms to these principles, the better for every American.
Don’t miss our next posting on Independence Day (July 4th); it is a real keeper!

Inequality in America II – Income, Taxation and Spending

George Noga

Part II of our series, Inequality in America, focuses of inequality of income.

By: George Noga – May 8, 2016

  There are numerous and mind-numbing statistical methods for calculating income inequality. The Census Bureau alone reports the Gini coefficient, Theil index and MLD (mean logarithmic deviation). Many of these statistics do indeed show more inequality now than in past decades; however, peeking inside the numbers is revealing. Note: Most data herein are from US Census Bureau and BLS reports published in 2013-2014.

   By every measure extant, inequality rose more under Clinton than Reagan – Theil at double and MLD at triple the rate. The same is true with Obama’s first six years vs Bush 43. The Gini coefficient rose triple the rate under Obama; MLD rose 37% more; and Theil is up sharply while it fell under Bush 43. It is not a giant leap to deduce that most of the putative increase in income inequality results from progressive policies.

   Despite all the esoteric statistics, we really know very little about income inequality because all the data are – to use a highly technical term – crapola! Every study is fatally flawed by inconsistencies and limitations affecting source data; the major flaws are:

  1. Statistics are based on AGI (adjusted gross income) and not on all income. Much income is not included in AGI, such as contributions to IRA and 401(k) plans. AGI excludes the non-taxable portion of Social Security, EITC, Medicare, Medicaid and SNAP. Every one of these, if included in AGI, would significantly reduce inequality.
  2. Data use household instead of individual income. This renders all comparisons between time periods and income quintiles meaningless because the number of people per household changes over time and also changes between quintiles. For example, the number of one-person households has sharply increased in recent years (mostly in the bottom income quintile) making it appear there is more inequality among households even though, in reality, there is much, much less inequality among individuals.
  3. Quintiles are inconsistent. The top quintile has 3.2 people per household whereas the bottom quintile has 1.7; the income in the top quintile must be spread among twice as many people as the bottom quintile. It also means there are 25 million more people in the top quintile versus the bottom. Use of household data paints a deeply flawed picture of increased inequality between income cohorts – inequality that doesn’t exist.  
  4. Aggregate statistics don’t compare the same groups. Statistics showing inequality increasing over time don’t track the same people. New people (most poor immigrants) keep entering the back of the line, skewing all data downward. If they tracked the exact same people (and excluded new people), the data would show decreasing inequality.

   Does our tax system result in inequality? In one word, no. The US has one of the most progressive tax regimens in the world. Even Social Security and Medicare are somewhat progressive when taking (as should be done) the benefits into account. Moreover, increasing marginal tax rates on the wealthy would not result in their paying more in taxes – a principle well documented and even codified in Hauser’s Law.

   No discussion of income inequality would be complete without genuflecting to the so-called gender gap. However, economic analysis shows that the gap between incomes of men and women completely disappears when properly adjusting for level of education, type of degree, experience, hours worked and level of danger.

   The Census Bureau also reports data on spending by income quintile. The lowest quintile spends $2 for every $1 of reported income. Some of this comes from the underground economy – which logically is the province mostly of that cohort. If we were to gauge inequality based on actual spending rather than on fatally flawed measures of income, the effect would be a signal decrease in inequality in America.    

The next post in this series on May 15th addresses the $15 minimum wage.

Truths About Tax Inversions

George Noga
Obama’s attack on tax inversions is nothing but liberal anti-business class warfare
and demagoguery that caters to widespread ignorance and causes economic harm.
By: George Noga – April 17, 2016

     A goal of the new MLLG blog is to be more responsive to current issues; in that spirit, this post addresses corporate tax inversions (such as the Pfizer-Allergan merger stymied by the Obama justice department) with a perspective you will not encounter elsewhere. Upcoming posts will focus on the $15 minimum wage and inequality in America including a comparison with Nordic countries – Sweden and Denmark.

     A tax inversion is the relocation of a US corporation’s headquarters to a lower tax nation (usually via merger with a foreign company) so that it “inverts”, i.e. becomes a foreign corporation for US tax purposes. The benefits to the inverting company are twofold: first, tax on income earned abroad is payable at the much lower foreign rate; second, foreign profits can be returned to the US without further taxation. Following are the principal truths you should know about corporate tax inversions.

  1. Tax inversions are an imaginary enemy! Progressives can’t solve real problems facing America such as terrorism, economic growth or failed schools. Instead, they pander to their base and to low-information voters by conjuring imaginary enemies such as tax inversions, climate change, institutional racism, campus rape culture, inequality and war on women. Yes, it’s really that simple.
  2. Corporations don’t bear the tax burden. Taxes may be collected from businesses but the burden (those who ultimately pay the tax) falls on all Americans via higher prices as corporate taxes are passed on to consumers. Business taxation is misdirection intended to beguile voters into accepting higher overall taxes.
  3. Taxation intentionally is opaque. Politicians make taxation opaque so Americans are fleeced with as little push-back as possible. It’s always in taxpayers’ interest for taxes to be direct and transparent. Liberals instead disguise tax collections, always preferring borrowing or stealthy tax increases to cutting spending or raising taxes directly. That’s why they strongly prefer business taxes.
  4. Inversions can be beneficial. Following an inversion, cash can be brought back to the US without added tax and invested to create American jobs. The increased productivity from this investment helps all Americans in the long run.
  5. The rule of law has been abandoned. In its place is retroactive, capricious, ad hoc and arbitrary imposition of political power. It is precisely this imperative of political dogma over the rule of law that is responsible for the economic malaise of the past seven years, creating slow economic growth and tiny wage gains.
  6. Inversions can be ended quickly and easily. The US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world at 41% (35% federal, 6% state). Everyone agrees it should be lowered and the $2+ trillion overseas should come home. A political solution is low hanging fruit; however, President Obama sees more value politically in keeping the issue alive for continued class warfare and demagoguery.

     As long as liberals remain in control, trillions of dollars will remain offshore and working Americans will continue to suffer low growth and wage stagnation. All this damage accrues solely because Obama chooses to flog imaginary enemies for perceived political gain while failing to deal with the real problems facing America.

The next post is April 24th and begins our series: Inequality in America.
MLLG

What You Should Know about Tax Inversions

George Noga
By: George Noga – October 24, 2014
      I had not planned a posting about corporate tax inversions but I am working this in because I believe you will read a perspective herein not to be found anywhere else and, as a CPA, I don’t need to invest a lot of time in research. To begin, a tax inversion is the relocation of a US corporation’s headquarters to a lower tax nation so that it “inverts“, i.e. becomes a foreign corporation for US tax purposes. The US, unique among developed nations, imposes taxes on income earned abroad by American corporations – but the tax is not payable until the income (cash) is repatriated, i.e. returned to the US from abroad. Although there often are crucial non-tax considerations involved in inversions, the main driver usually is avoidance of US tax on income earned abroad and the ability to repatriate such funds.
    Because US taxes are not due until the foreign-earned profits are repatriated, US corporations with foreign operations keep the money offshore. For perspective, 75% of US corporations’ cash is kept outside the US – about $2.1 trillion currently. For example, Microsoft has $70 billion but less than $10 billion is in the US. Money held outside the US can’t be used for investment in plant, equipment or training in the US or to hire Americans; instead, it stays abroad.
       The Obama administration rails against inversions because they assert it reduces the amount of corporate income tax collected. Bear in mind that most companies currently do not pay the tax anyway – that’s why they keep the $2.1 trillion overseas. Following an inversion however, profits (cash) can be brought back into the US without tax and be used to invest within the US to create new American jobs. The increased productivity from this added investment in capital goods, job training and hiring of new workers helps all Americans and increases their standard of living. Arguably, inversions are a net blessing to America in the long run even if corporate tax collections suffer in the short run.
       I return to tax inversions and repatriation infra, but inversions do not exist in a vacuum. They are but one part – and a rather small one at that – of the overall US tax scheme. To put inversions into a proper framework, we must step back, understand what is really going on and look at US tax policy from 30,000 feet.
Getting the Most Feathers from the Geese with the Least Amount of Hissing
       As described in the above aphorism from Louis XIV’s finance minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, politicians approach taxation as an art form in which they pluck the geese (taxpayers) to get the most feathers with the least hissing. The main alternatives (cutting spending or raising taxes directly) are anathema. Politicians always enact or raise taxes to make everything as opaque as possible to taxpayers. This, of course, is diametrically opposed to the best interests of taxpayers who should want all taxes to be as transparent and direct as possible. The best tax for taxpayers would be a tax on consumption or a flat tax on income with no deductions or exemptions whatsoever.
“Don’t tax me; don’t tax thee; tax the man behind the tree.” 
       Let’s postulate the US had a flat consumption tax of 19% with no other federal taxes, exemptions, or  deductions whatsoever and that 19% tax represented 100% of the revenue to the government. If politicians wanted to increase spending, the only alternative would be to raise the tax rate to 20% or higher. Such a tax increase would be 100% transparent to every American every time he/she purchased anything. Citizens would know the true cost of government and everyone would have an interest in keeping spending under control. The reason we have a corporate income tax (and are now discussing tax inversions) is because it is a tax that takes many feathers from the geese without the geese ever being aware they are missing feathers. This is an important concept and is explained below.
Corporations Never Pay Taxes – Only People Pay Taxes
        Wouldn’t it be nice if no homo sapiens ever again paid tax? Only artificial constructs like corporations, with no heartbeat or pulse, would be taxed. This is like the mythical Germanic kingdom where candy grew on trees, lemonade flowed in rivers and the fattest, ugliest and stupidest  man was king. Alas, non humans paying tax can’t happen even though politicians would like you to believe it. All taxes always are paid by real, living, breathing people; corporations never have, do not now and never will pay a penny of tax. If the government increases the tax on a company by “say” $1 gazillion, there are three, and only three, possibilities for bearing the burden of the tax.
       It is true that businesses may remit tax revenue to the government, but it is not their money; they are simply transmitting funds to the government they have collected from other people. If the business chooses to pay the tax by reducing its profits by $1 gazillion, the owners (stockholders) pay the tax via lower dividends and/or a lower stock price. Most stockholders are ordinary thinking, feeling Americans investing through mutual funds, IRAs or 401(k) plans. Second, the company can cut its costs $1 gazillion; this of course means firing employees –  again, very much alive ordinary Americans. Third, the company can increase its prices by $1 gazillion (and this is what happens 90% of the time) meaning consumers, again scient, feeling ordinary Americans, are paying the tax in the form of higher prices.
       In reality, unlike in the mythical German kingdom, corporations don’t pay income taxes; there are only real-life human beings paying taxes; but politicians want to beguile you into believing fat-cat corporations are somehow not paying their fair share. Politicians want you to buy into their class warfare canard and they are counting on keeping you ignorant. In reality, the issue of tax inversions is moot and is a contrived tempest-in-a-teapot. Moreover, as observed supra, inversions in the long run may be a net benefit to ordinary Americans as it enables more money to be repatriated which can be used in America for capital investment to increase productivity and to employ more Americans.
       Now that we all understand just how inconsequential inversions are, we still are faced with a political issue searching for a solution. The US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world at 35% federal and 6% state for a total of 41%. Everyone, including President Obama, agrees it should be lowered. Everyone also agrees the $2.1 trillion being kept abroad should be repatriated. A reasonable compromise would be to lower the US tax rate to 20% for a combined federal/state rate of 26% even though this still is higher than many countries that are between 12.5% and 20%. This should be combined with a tax holiday for companies to bring home the $2.1 trillion being held offshore by paying a nominal one-time tax. This was done in 2004 and 800 companies participated, repatriating over $300 billion in overseas profits.
       In any other time with any other president, a compromise would be easy. However, President Obama, is intransigent; he will only compromise to lower the tax rate and to repatriate the funds if new and highly punitive corporate tax measures are part of the deal. Consequently, nothing will happen while Obama remains president. Inversions will continue; trillions of dollars will remain offshore; and ordinary Americans will suffer the consequences. Obama is banking that these same ordinary Americans will succumb to his anti-business, class warfare narrative that corporations pay tax and that inversions are a manifestation of corporate greed. In short, he is demagoguing the issue to death.

Just Who is Debbie Bosanke – And Why Has She Become the Poster Lady for Obama?

George Noga

 


Just Who is Debbie Bosanke – And Why Has She Become the Poster Lady for Obama?


By: George Noga – February 21, 2012

Dear Readers:

 

For only the second time ever, I eschew the standard format to write more personally and directly. I have invested many hours researching this posting; if you stick with me to the end, you will be rewarded with an inimitable analysis and perspective.

 

Debbie Bosanke, for those of you not exposed to the White House and media spin machine, is Warren Buffet’s secretary, she who putatively pays a lower tax rate than her famous boss. President Obama is using her as an unwitting shill in his neutron bomb class warfare strategy to raise taxes to fund his hell-on-earth social welfare state. Never have I seen any issue so grotesquely demagogued, distorted, dishonest and deceptive. Consider the naked facts.

 

Buffet asserts he paid 17.4% in federal income tax. Although that isolated datum may be true, it is meant to dupe and hoodwink. Following is a fair and accurate calculation of Buffet’s real tax rate computed using the lingua franca of taxes by tracing a tranche of Buffet’s income through a complete tax cycle involving the following five stages.

  1. Before Buffet can invest, he must earn income. At the start of the cycle he earns $1 million on which he pays federal income tax of 39.6%, social security of 6.2%, Medicare of 2.9% and Nebraska tax of 6.84%. He pays $483,000 in total tax which is an effective rate of 48.3% after allowing for the deductibility of state tax.
  2. Buffet now takes $500,000 after tax which he uses to buy stock in a corporation. His investment is successful and the company earns 16% pretax profit for each of the next ten years. His share of the company’s income is $80,000 per year on which he (through the company) pays 35% federal tax and 7.81% Nebraska tax. The effective rate is 40.1% and Buffet pays $320,800 over the ten years.
  3. The company pays a 5% dividend annually; on Buffet’s share, this is $4,000. The dividend is taxed at 15% federal and 6.68% state. Over 10 years he pays $8,280.
  4. A decade has passed and Buffet decides to sell. Based on the aforementioned earnings and taxes paid, he nets a gain of $340,000. This is subject to a capital gains tax of 15% federal and 6.68% Nebraska. His total tax bill is $70,380.
  5. When Warren dies, he will be subject to federal estate tax of 35% and Nebraska inheritance tax which ranges from 1% to 18% – I have assumed 9% herein; this amounts to $379,600 based solely on the data for this tranche of income.

    Buffet’s True Tax Rate is 70% in 2012 – Increasing to 80% in 2013

    Buffet’s true tax rate is over 70% on this tranche of income over the entire cycle of earning, investing and leaving an estate. During the 10-year period Buffet had $1 million in individual earnings and $800,000 via his share of corporate income resulting in total income of $1.8 million; on that amount, he paid taxes of $1,262,100 – or 70.1% and not the 17.4% alleged. His reported 17.4% tax rate was based solely on step 4 of the above 5 steps, i.e. only on a single part of the cycle. His real tax rate is over four times (400%) higher than he claimed.

 

All this is based on current tax law for 2012. I also computed Buffet’s tax rate based on current law for 2013 and it is over 80% due to the statutory rise in estate taxes and the new 3.8% ObamaCare tax. I excluded federal and state unemployment tax, property tax, sales tax and over 20 other taxes Buffet would have paid. Moreover, if Buffet would have lost money on his stock, it would have be deductible only up to $3,000 per year.

 

And let’s not forget Debbie Bosanke. She shamelessly is being used as a surrogate for  secretaries everywhere – the kind that works in your office and earns say $20,000 and pays little or no taxes. Bosanke hardly fits that bill. Based on the limited tax data she released, her income is at least $200,000 and could be as high as $500,000,  anywhere from 10 to 25 times the earnings of a typical secretary. Bosanke’s income is inferred based on published IRS data on tax rates by adjusted gross income. Neither Buffet nor Bosanke has released their tax returns.

 

An Ignoble, Sordid and Squalid Spectacle

 

I can’t recall anything in my lifetime approaching the sheer chutzpah of the Obama-Buffet-Bosanke spectacle. It transcends political spin and crosses into a netherworld of intentional lie and deception; it froths with contempt for the American people.

  • They assert Buffet’s tax rate is 17.4% when they know it is over 70% and rising to over 80% next year. They know Bosanke’s income is 10-25 times that of  a typical secretary. They extract datum from only one part of the five-part tax cycle. All this is done with malice aforethought and intended to deceive and divide America.
  • The President of the United States and one of the richest men on the planet jointly propagated this massive fraud and deception knowing they could count on the state sycophant media not to expose them.
  • And just when you thought they couldn’t get any more scumlike, the bottom-feeding state sycophant media are flogging this deceit for all it’s worth. Even if they wished, they couldn’t get this story right because they graduate in the bottom deciles and their IQs are at least one standard deviation to the left of the norm.
  • Was this hoax the price of Buffet’s recently awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom? Buffet should be shamed into returning the medal and his otherwise good reputation has been forever sullied. Also, shame on him for dragging Debbie Bosanke into this squalid affair and for using her as an unwitting political pawn.
  • Perhaps the most sordid part of all this is that Obama is cynically banking on the ignorance and class envy of the American people due in part to the complexity of the tax code and his incendiary class warfare rhetoric. He is a divider, not a uniter.

The only antidote I know is to shine the spotlight of truth on this ignoble affair. In that regard, please be assured the tax data presented herein are accurate and fair as is the entire analysis. Please help me by forwarding this to as many as possible. Thank you.