The Enterprise Blog

Archive for the ‘Fiscal Policy and Taxes’ Category

The Obama administration’s plan to cut the corporate rate to 28 percent goes some ways toward improving the competitiveness of the U.S. economy as a destination for investment flows, relative to the other OECD countries. However, the plan also calls for removing loopholes and deductions and doing away with tax credits, etc. While having a simpler, uniform code is certainly desirable from the point of view of economic efficiency, we need to be sure that the base broadening does not raise effective rates for corporations. In other words, the base broadening may more than offset the benefits arising from a reduction in the top rate. As a result, effective tax rates may be higher than what firms face today. In that case, the investment effects would still be negative and there is little chance that the proposal would be a revenue raiser. Even today, effective tax rates in the U.S. are much higher than for the average OECD country, and yet we raise some of the lowest revenues in the OECD from corporate taxes.

The second issue I have is with the imposition of a minimum foreign tax on multinationals. Our current system of international taxation allows firms to be competitive in the global economy by enabling them to defer taxation on foreign profits, until those profits are repatriated to the U.S. parent. As a result, firms can pay taxes at the same rate as other firms operating in that country. With the imposition of the minimum foreign tax, we will end up imposing higher tax rates on U.S. multinationals operating abroad relative to their foreign counterparts, and make them less competitive. This would negatively impact their profitability.

Here’s the new and improved Romney tax cut plan

By James Pethokoukis

February 22, 2012, 12:36 pm

Here are the details of Mitt Romney’s new tax cut plan. My analysis is coming up:

– Make Permanent, Across-The-Board 20 Percent Cut In Marginal Rates. This bold stroke reduces the tax on the next dollar of income earned for all taxpayers. The new top rate of 28 percent returns to the top rate signed by President Reagan in 1986.

– Promote Savings And Investment For The American People. Mitt Romney will maintain the current 15 percent rate on income from qualified dividends and capital gains. He will cut taxes further on lower- and middle-income Americans by ensuring that families with an annual income below $200,000 will pay no taxes on income from capital gains, interest, and qualified dividends. These low tax rates will create powerful incentives for Americans to save and invest, while spurring business investment and economic growth.

– Abolish The Death Tax. Eliminating the death tax will allow families to pass assets between generations without complicated tax avoidance schemes and without breaking up family businesses.

– Repeal The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was originally implemented in the 1970s with the purpose of ensuring that the wealthiest of Americans could not artificially reduce their tax burden. But if Congress fails to pass the annual AMT patch, many middle-income Americans will become ensnared in the AMT trap. It should be repealed immediately to eliminate harmful distortions in the tax code, and replaced with a simpler tax system that reduces tax avoidance schemes.

– Cut The Corporate Rate To 25 Percent. It is vital that the U.S. move to quickly reduce the corporate tax rate and put American companies on a level playing field. The high U.S. corporate tax rate handicaps the nation’s overall economy in competition with the rest of the world.

– Strengthen And Make Permanent The R&D Tax Credit. This credit promotes innovation in both manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries, and helps businesses plan their innovation spending. With a strong, permanent credit, companies will now be able to invest for the future with confidence.

– Switch To A Territorial Tax System. The United States taxes income on a worldwide basis, regardless of where it is earned. This worldwide system of taxation sets the U.S. apart from most other OECD countries, which have converted to territorial systems of taxation. Japan and the United Kingdom are two countries that recently traded their worldwide tax systems for territorial systems. This switch will promote U.S. interests in two key ways:

–  Repeal The Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). One major drawback of the Corporate AMT is its effect of penalizing companies that invest in capital equipment. A growing economy depends on robust capital investment. Unfortunately, corporations that are subject to the Corporate AMT are unfairly hit by strict depreciation rules. Due to this chilling effect on capital investment, the corporate AMT must be fully repealed. Investment will no longer be penalized, spurring labor productivity, an increase in American incomes, and greater economic prosperity.

Sorry, Kevin Drum, even the effective U.S. corporate tax rate is sky high

By James Pethokoukis

February 22, 2012, 12:15 pm

Over at Mother Jones, the always readable Kevin Drum takes issue with my criticism of President Obama’s new corporate tax plan, which lowers rates but raises corporate taxes by $250 billion:

In this entire thousand-word blast Pethokoukis apparently doesn’t have room to explain the distinction between statutory tax rates and effective rates. But it only takes a sentence or two, so here it is. The statutory rate is the top rate in the tax table. Right now it’s 35% for corporations. The effective rate is what corporations actually pay after their accountants are done combing the tax code for deductions and loopholes. The former is one of the highest in the world. That latter has been falling for years and is now one of the lowest. That’s right! The actual federal income tax paid by corporations is one of the lowest in the world. Even if you think statutory rates are more important, surely this is germane to the conversation?

Thanks, Kevin, for pointing that out! But guess what, the effective average tax rate American corporations pay is also really high, as this 2011 study notes:

We use publicly available financial statement information for 11,602 public corporations from 82 countries from 1988 to 2009 to estimate country-level effective tax rates (ETRs). We find that the location of a multinational and its subsidiaries substantially affects its worldwide ETR. Japanese firms always faced the highest ETRs. U.S. multinationals are among the highest taxed. Multinationals based in tax havens face the lowest taxes. … The findings in this study may hasten the development of U.S. tax reform by showing that U.S. multinational ETRs are among the highest in the world. Moreover, if territorial taxation further lowers the taxes on Japanese and British multinationals, then the U.S. may be forced to provide some tax relief for its multinationals to maintain some level of international tax competitiveness.

And here is a handy table from the study listing statutory and effective corporate tax rates from around the world. Note that the median U.S. effective tax rate is 25 percent for domestic firms and 30 percent for multinational firms vs. 21 percent (DOM) and 22 percent (MNC) for European corporations and 20 percent (DOM) and 19 percent (MNC) for Asian ones.

And a study from last February by AEI’s Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur found the following:

The United States is currently underperforming in global tax comparisons. The United States’ top statutory tax rates will soon be the highest in the OECD, and the US effective average and effective marginal tax rates are far above the OECD average. Any effort at corporate tax reform is therefore incomplete without a push toward addressing not only the high statutory rates, but also the relatively high effective average and marginal rates. These rates are the best indicators for capital investors of their true tax liability—much more so than the statutory rates.

By our calculation, the US statutory rate is nearly 10 percentage points higher than the effective average rate and nearly 17 percentage points higher than the effective marginal tax rate. Relative to other OECD countries, the United States is one of the worst performers on this score. The effective average tax rate for all OECD countries excluding the United States is 20.6 percent, while the effective marginal tax rate is 17.3 percent. The corresponding values for the United States are 29 percent and 23.6 percent.

 

Why Obama’s corporate tax plan is a total bust

By James Pethokoukis

February 22, 2012, 8:33 am

The current U.S. economic recovery is arguably the worst in modern American history. Incomes are flat, housing is moribund, and the past three years have seen the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression. Yet President Barack Obama—with the backing of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner—has the temerity to propose a corporate tax reform plan that would actually raise the tax burden on American business by $250 billion over a decade (and de facto on workers, too) without lowering rates to an internationally competitive level. This is a terrible, terrible plan:

1. The Obama-Geithner plan would lower the statutory corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent, currently the second-highest among advanced economies. But that would still leave the combined U.S. corporate tax rate—state and federal—at 32.2 percent, far above the OECD combined average of 25 percent. The U.S. combined rate would be a bit below slow-growing Japan and France but above the U.K. and Germany. That’s not nearly good enough. Canada just lowered its corporate tax rate, for instance, to 15 percent. So instead of having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, the United States would probably be fourth behind Japan, France, and Belgium.

2. The Obama-Geithner plan would establish, according to the New York Times, a minimum tax on multinational corporations’ foreign earnings to discourage “accounting games to shift profits abroad” or actual relocation of production overseas.

So instead of a carrot, Corporate America gets the stick. Instead of lowering the U.S. rate to a competitive level, Obama would raise the penalty on keeping profits overseas. Indeed, the United States is a huge outlier in that it taxes the foreign profits of multinational companies. Here is Obama’s own Jobs Council:

While most other developed nations have adopted territorial systems that exempt most or all foreign income from taxes when they are repatriated, the U.S. subjects all worldwide earnings to the corporate income tax when they are brought home to the U.S. This approach actually encourages U.S. companies to keep their earnings abroad rather than investing them here at home. Adopting a territorial tax system would bring us in line with our trading partners and would eliminate the so-called “lock-out” effect in the current worldwide system of taxation that discourages repatriation and investment of the foreign earnings of American companies in the U.S.

Obama’s debt commission made a similar recommendation.

3. To pay for the lower tax rate, Obama would eliminate ”dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies,” according to Politico. But some of the money would be used to “lower the effective rate on manufacturing to no more than 25 percent, while encouraging greater research and development and the production of clean energy,” according to the Times.

First, the effective manufacturing tax rate would be higher than 25 percent once you add back state taxes. Second, the White House is sticking to its clean energy agenda even as other advanced economies like Germany and Spain are abandoning such wasteful subsidies. Again, this is ideology trumping economic reality.

4. Obama and Geithner apparently still don’t understand how harmful corporate taxes are. Here’s the OECD: “Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes.”

5. Obama and Geithner apparently still don’t understand who bears the burden of corporate taxes. It’s workers. AEI economists Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur have found that “corporate tax rates affect wage levels across countries. Higher corporate taxes lead to lower wages. A 1 percent increase in corporate tax rates is associated with nearly a 1 percent drop in wage rates.”

6. Obama and Geithner apparently don’t understand that “corporate income taxes have a highly significant and negative effect on long-term growth,” according to the Tax Foundation:

7. Obama and Geithner apparently don’t understand that U.S. corporate tax rates are so off the map that the best way to maximize revenue would be to flat out cut the top corporate rate 8.6 percentage points to 26.4 percent. You could then eliminate corporate welfare and take the rate even lower.

8. Obama and Geithner would take the top individual tax rate to 40 percent, leaving a 12 percentage-point gap with the corporate tax rate. This creates a huge incentive for tax sheltering.

Bottom line: Real pro-growth corporate tax policy would eliminate tax breaks, dramatically lower tax rates, and only tax profits earned at home. The Obama plan would actually make the corporate tax code and the U.S. economy less competitive and less productive. But the proposal does neatly fit into the president’s Occupy-inspired campaign theme that wealthy Americans and greedy corporations are to blame for the Great Recession and rising income inequality. Besides, how can Democrats ever raise taxes on the middle-class to pay for all their spending ideas without first socking it to the 1 percent and to business?

Obama had no experience in the private sector before becoming president. The free market is a sort of theoretical construct he learned about in college. But Geithner should know better. He’s had lots of contact with all sorts of executives, both at Treasury and when he ran the New York Federal Reserve Bank. If he has any doubts about this plan, he should resign. And if he doesn’t, he never should have gotten the job in the first place.

What might Romney’s new tax reform plan look like?

By James Pethokoukis

February 21, 2012, 2:07 pm

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow:

Team Romney tells me there will be a bolder tax-cut plan released either at the debate tomorrow night (if Mitt gets it in) or more formally at his Detroit Economic Club speech on Friday. I’m embargoed from releasing details until tomorrow. But I can say that the new plan will be across-the-board with supply-side incentives from rate reduction, and that it will help small-business owners as well as everyone else.

Phase two has finally arrived! What might it look like? Well, Romney’s 59-point jobs plan promises the following:

In the long run, Mitt Romney will pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system that includes lower and flatter rates on a broader tax base. The approach taken by the Bowles-Simpson Commission is a good starting point for the discussion. The goal should be a simpler, more efficient, user-friendly, and less onerous tax system. Every American would be readily able to ascertain what they owed and why they owed it, and many forms of unproductive tax gamesmanship would be brought to an end. Conversely, tax reform should not be used as an under-the-radar means of raising taxes. Where reforms that simplify the code or encourage growth have the effect of increasing the tax burden, they should be offset by reductions in marginal rates. Washington’s problem is not too little revenue, but rather too much spending.

In addition to those guidelines, I think we can add the following:

– Romney has said he doesn’t want to raise capital gains tax rates, which Simpson-Bowles does.

– Romney wants to lower the corporate rate to at least 25 percent, meaning the top marginal tax rate probably needs to be in that vicinity.

– Romney is unlikely to suggest a net tax increase.

– Romney is unlikely to propose anything that would result in his own taxes directly being cut.

– Romney is unlikely to suggest “paying for” upper-income tax hikes by raising taxes on the middle class.

– Romney economic adviser Glenn Hubbard recently suggested “a progressive consumption tax, equalising the tax treatment of debt and equity, and drastically lowering tax rates on dividends and capital gains.”

A few weeks ago, I suggested two tax plans for Romney, an Entrepreneur First plan and a Family First plan:

There’s the Bowles-Simpson plan, which would get rid of all tax breaks and lower the top rate to 23 percent. Jon Huntsman stole it and then modified it by getting rid of investment taxes. That would be a great option for Romney, too. Call it the Entrepreneur First option and stress how it would boost growth, income, and jobs.

Or Romney could go with the Family First option. Under a plan created by conservative economist Robert Stein, rejiggering tax rates and tax credits would create a system where middle-income families with kids under 18 would pay substantially less in taxes while high-income workers and upper-middle-income taxpayers who do not have children in the home would pay more. Stein would also eliminate the double taxation of corporate income and cut the effective tax rate on capital investment.

In a pair of articles— here and here—the folks over at National Review have, in effect, suggested that Romney combine my two ideas, cutting marginal tax rates plus a fatter child tax credit for parents that can be applied against either income or payroll taxes. Pro-growth. Pro-family.

I like that approach a lot, as long as it also gets rid of corporate welfare and begins to phase out the mortgage interest deduction. The only two individual deductions or credits that I have much use for are the child tax credit and the charitable deduction. Among other things, both the family and civil society are counterweights against the State.

Oh, so this is what the Romney campaign is about (or should be)

By James Pethokoukis

February 20, 2012, 4:04 pm

Why does Mitt Romney want to be president? What is the big problem that President Fix-It would try to fix? Glenn Hubbard, a Romney economic adviser (and AEI visiting scholar) comes quite close to hitting the nail on the head in a recent Financial Times op-ed:

President Barack Obama said in his State of the Union that the US needs an economy “built to last”. Unfortunately, in his populist rhetoric, Mr Obama missed an opportunity to tee up the conversation the US must have during this election season: How do we restart dynamism in our economy, delivering productivity growth and raising living standards?

Hubbard, shorter: Faster, please!

And he’s right. The problem with the U.S. economy over the past decade has been anemic growth. From 2000 through 2010, average GDP growth was just 1.6 percent. Even if you toss out the Great Recession and the collapse of the Internet Bubble, growth was still below 3 percent. By contrast, from 1950-1999 the U.S. economy grew at an average pace of 3.5 percent a year. To the extent that people care about income inequality, it’s because the pie is barely growing. Inequality surged during the late 1990s, but it wasn’t a big issue because of strong income growth across the board. The pie was growing, so no Occupy Silicon Valley.

Hubbard says there are three keys to faster growth: innovation (“the development of entirely new products and business models”), investment (ensuring “that both domestic and foreign capital go to productive use”), and inclusion (supporting “Americans caught in the change that is a byproduct of our dynamism”).

And here are some of his policy ideas:

– strong federal backing for basic research.

– financial sector regulation that considers incentives to lend as well as financial stability.

– low capital gains tax rates make it cheaper to sell assets, thereby helping capital flow more smoothly to its most productive use for the economy.

–  reduction of marginal tax rates on corporate and individual incomes, broadening the tax base.

– cutting back on double taxation of corporate equity returns, which are taxed once at the corporate level and again at the investor level via taxes on dividends and capital gains.

– a progressive consumption tax, equalising the tax treatment of debt and equity, and drastically lowering tax rates on dividends and capital gains.

– replacement of outmoded federal training assistance with personal re-employment accounts.

– tax subsidies and education reforms that increase the affordability of community college, technical training, and university.

– tax and insurance market reforms in healthcare to reduce cost growth and increase take-home pay.

Hubbard was speaking for himself in the op-ed and gets out in front of his candidate, particularly by calling for a progressive consumption tax and slashing investment taxes. But both are great ideas.

More importantly, Hubbard suggests a unifying theme for the Romney campaign: prosperity. The U.S. economy may be growing and adding jobs, but it’s not prosperous—and it hasn’t been for awhile. Consider: According to Gallup, 77 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with “the way things are going” in the United States today. That number hasn’t been consistently above 50 percent in a decade. What we are seeing now in the polls is what stock market strategists would call a “relief rally”—as in relief the economy isn’t headed back into recession.

But that is not the same thing as a bull market. That requires real, sustainable growth. And that’s what 2012 should, in large part, be about.

In the wake of CBO’s recent report finding that federal employees are overcompensated by an average of 16 percent, public employee unions and members of Congress who support them had two main reactions.

First, they say, the Bureau of Labor Statistics—not the CBO—are the real experts on pay. Second, they argue, pay studies should compare jobs, not the education or experience of the people who fill those jobs. Well, they’ve got what they want.

The Journal of Economic Perspectives yesterday published a new study by Brooks Pierce and Maury Gittleman of the Bureau of Labor Statistics which uses BLS estimates of the skills required in different occupations to compare public and private sector pay.

Brooks and Gittleman restrict their analysis to state and local government employees, but their findings are striking: state government workers receive salaries about even with private sector levels, while local government workers receive salaries around 9 percent above private sector levels. Once you include benefits, state employees are overpaid by around 9 percent and local government workers by around 18 percent. Moreover, there’s good reason to believe these estimates are conservative, since they exclude the value of retiree health coverage for public employees and understate the true value of defined benefit pensions.

You can’t say for sure what this implies for federal government employee pay, but they’re generally regarded as better paid than state and local government workers.

The Congressional Budget Office:

The rate of unemployment in the United States has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent. Compounding the problem of high unemployment, the share of unemployed people looking for work for more than six months—referred to as the long-term unemployed—topped 40 percent in December 2009 for the first time since 1948, when such data began to be collected; it has remained above that level ever since.

Hey, nothing $1.7 trillion in new tax increases can’t fix, right?

Testifying before the House Budget Committee today, U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told Chairman Paul Ryan the following: “We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”

Actually, President Obama sort of did have a definitive solution. He created a debt commission, which devised a long-term debt reduction plan. Which the president rejected. And instead, we get this new budget proposal, which makes no effort to deal with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—the long-term drivers of U.S. federal debt. The debt curve never gets bent, as the above White House (!) chart shows. (Yes, the chart comes from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.) It just goes up and up and up—until the heat death of the universe or the economy is struck by a Greek-style debt crisis.

Here’s what the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says about the president’s plan:

Over the long-term, the President’s budget would not constrain rising debt, as retirement and health care costs continue growing faster than the economy. According to the Administration’s own estimates, debt would grow as a share of the economy past 2022 exceeding 93 percent by 2035 and nearly 125 percent by 2050. These levels would be both economically constraining and ultimately unsustainable.

Well, the president’s budget at least cuts $4 trillion in debt over ten years, as the White House claims, right? Again, the CRFB:

Well, the answer depends on what savings are compared against, and what is counted as savings – but in no case does the President have comparable deficit reduction to the Fiscal Commission. To reach his $4.3 trillion in savings through 2021, the President’s budget counts $1.6 trillion (excluding interest) of already-enacted savings. In addition, it includes two elements which the Fiscal Commission assumed in its baseline – a drawdown of the wars ($740 billion through 2021) and the expiration of the upper-income tax cuts ($830 billion through 2021). If the Commission’s plan were scored the same way as the President’s $4.3 trillion, we estimate it would save roughly $6.5 trillion through 2021.

Well, at least the president’s budget keeps the debt problem from getting any worse over the next decade, right? Not really. Despite $1.7 trillion in tax increases, debt as a share of GDP—already at a historically high level—actually ticks up a bit to 76.5 percent from 67.7 percent in 2011 and 74.2 percent in 2012.

And even to achieve this, the Obama White House has to assume rosy economic growth. As the CRFB says:

OMB’s economic assumptions are somewhat more optimistic than CBO’s, as well as the Blue Chip consensus ranges. The Administration projects real GDP growth to be 2.7 percent in 2012 and 3.0 percent in 2013, compared to 2.2 percent and 1 percent, respectively, from the CBO. Importantly, much of this difference is due to the fact that CBO assumes a temporary economic contraction in 2013 due to all the tax cuts expiring and the automatic spending sequester going off at the same time in the start of 2013. However, OMB continues to be more optimistic than CBO beyond this contractionary period, with estimated growth rates of 2.5 percent per year by the end of the decade as opposed to 2.4 percent by CBO. On the whole, these faster growth rates likely lead to a more favorable fiscal picture than what CBO would show using its economic projections. By our estimates, if OMB were to employ CBO assumptions debt would stabilize at about 80 percent of GDP as opposed to 76 percent.

My baseline case has been that Obama has no interest in being Clinton 2.0, the Debt Cutting President. He wants to be FDR 2.0, the Expanding Welfare State President. He wants that to be his legacy. Let Ryan or Chris Christie or Marco Rubio be the Austerity President in 2017. And what does Geithner care? He’s on his way out this year. At one point during the hearing, Ryan brought out this chart illustrating the impact of the Ryan debt plan, the one Geithner said “we don’t like”:

And here was the exchange between Geithner and Ryan, after Ryan pointed out the terrifying budget baseline (in red):

GEITHNER: You could have taken [the chart] out [to the year] 3000 or to 4000. [Laughs]

RYAN: Yeah, right. We cut it off at the end of the century because the economy, according to the CBO, shuts down in 2027 on this path.

And that’s no joke, Mr. Geithner.

James Pethokoukis is a columnist and blogger for the American Enterprise Institute. He is also an official contributor on CNBC television, a global business and financial channel. He can be reached at james.pethokoukis@aei.org or on Twitter: @JimPethokoukis

Previously, Pethokoukis was Washington columnist for Reuters Breakingviews, as well as business editor and economics columnist for U.S. News & World Report.

A load of economic nonsense from Geithner

By James Pethokoukis

February 15, 2012, 7:09 am

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee many amazing things yesterday.

1. Geithner said that higher taxes are a must. “I do not see how you get there if you are unable … to contemplate and to embrace modest increases in revenue through tax reform,” Geithner said. “I just don’t think it’s possible.”

Wrong! President Obama is not proposing “modest” tax increases. His $1.7 trillion tax hike would take federal tax revenue (as a share of output) to its second highest level since World War Two. Only once, outside of WWII, was revenue higher. And that was in 2000, when money was flooding into federal coffers due to capital gains from the final days of the Internet stock bubble.

What’s more, the double tax on corporate profits (including dividends) would increase to 64 percent based on the statutory corporate tax rate (58 percent using the effective tax rate), easily the highest among advanced economies. The double tax on corporate profits (including capital gains) would increase to 51 percent (44 percent using the effective tax rate), also among the highest among advanced economies.

Nor did Geithner seem aware that you can actually boost tax revenue by growing the economy through smart tax reform and other pro-growth policies.

2. Geithner said the Obama administration “does not believe there is a feasible way or a fair way to restore fiscal sustainability without asking a very small fraction of the most fortunate Americans to bear a modestly higher burden for the privilege of being Americans.”

Wrong! Actually, there’s no way to restore fiscal sustainability without cutting spending. Even with $1.7 trillion in tax increases, the Obama budget would still be unable to lower the U.S. debt burden over ten years. Indeed, it would actually rise a couple of percentage points to a sky-high 75 percent, not including money owed to the Social Security trust fund. Maybe that’s because Obama, if reelected, would be the first U.S. president to ever spend 22 percent or more of GDP every year in office vs. a historical annual average of 20 percent.

3. Asked about drastically cutting spending, Geithner said, “That would damage economic growth.”

Wrong! Spending cuts and pro-growth tax reform would shift resources from the unproductive public sector to the quite productive private sector. Washington should be doing everything it can to accelerate that shift. In the fourth quarter, for instance, the overall economy grew 2.8 percent, but the private sector grew 4.5 percent. More of that, please!

Not sure if Geithner has ever seen this, but he might want to take a look:

 

All the more so because it comes not from conservative critics of the president, but from Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press:

Taking a pass on reining in government growth, President Obama unveiled a record $3.8 trillion election-year budget plan Monday, calling for stimulus-style spending on roads and schools and tax hikes on the wealthy to help pay the costs. The ideas landed with a thud on Capitol Hill.

Though the Pentagon and a number of Cabinet agencies would get squeezed, Obama would leave the spiraling growth of health care programs for the elderly and the poor largely unchecked. The plan claims $4 trillion in deficit savings over the coming decade, but most of it would be through tax increases Republicans oppose, lower war costs already in motion and budget cuts enacted last year in a debt pact with GOP lawmakers….

Obama’s budget blueprint reprises a long roster of prior proposals: raising taxes on couples making more than $250,000 a year; eliminating numerous tax breaks for oil and gas companies and approving a series of smaller tax and fee proposals. Similar proposals failed even when the Democrats controlled Congress….

But there are spending increases, too: The Obama plan seeks $476 billion for transportation projects including roads, bridges and a much-criticized high-speed rail initiative. Grants for better performing schools would get a big increase under Obama’s “Race to the Top” initiative, and there would be an $8 billion fund to train community college students for high-growth industries….

The projections in Obama’s budget show that he is doing little to restrain the surge in [entitlement] programs that is expected with the retirement of baby boomers. Obama’s budget projects that Medicare spending will double over the coming decade from $478 billion this year to almost $1 trillion in 2022. Medicaid, the government health care program for the poor and disabled, would more than double from $255 billion this year to $589 billion by 2022.

Congressman Paul Ryan has posted the full story on his website. You can read it here. Save it as a handy reference guide for everything that is wrong with the president’s budget proposal.

Obama budget would make U.S. corporate tax code even less competitive

By James Pethokoukis

February 14, 2012, 10:55 am

 

The corporate income tax is a bad tax. As a new study by the Tax Foundation found, “Corporate income taxes have a highly significant and negative effect on long-term growth.” And an OECD study concluded thusly: “Corporate income taxes appear to have the most negative effect on GDP per capita.” Oh, and the United States has the second highest statutory corporate tax rate in the world.

The Obama administration has been promising corporate tax reform. But in its new budget, all the White House did was raise the corporate tax burden by some $350 billion over ten years:

– Reform of the U.S. international tax system would raise $148 billion.

– New financial taxes would raise $19 billion.

– Ending fossil fuel tax breaks would raise $30 billion.

– Other “revenue changes and loophole closers” like changing how investment managers are taxed would raise $142 billion.

Keep in mind that the above totals don’t even include the tax hikes on small businesses which pay individual income tax rates. But wait, you say, isn’t it true that corporations don’t really pay that statutory rate due to a proliferation of tax breaks? True, but the effective average U.S. corporate tax rate is still sky high, as AEI’s Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur found in a study last year: “In 1996, the United States’ [effective average tax rate] was slightly below the OECD average, 29.2 versus 30.2. In later years, the OECD average improved by almost 10 percentage points to 20.6 while the United States’ EATR remained relatively unchanged. In 2010, the US EATR was 29 percent.” The following chart shows just how out of whack the effective average U.S. corporate tax rate is:

 

 

 

 

Team Obama explains how its tax hikes will help the economy

By James Pethokoukis

February 13, 2012, 6:34 pm

Just how would President Obama’s tax hikes create jobs and boost growth? Just what is the economic theory at play here? Well, the U.S. Treasury does its best to explain in its annual “green book.” Here is the rationale for hiking capital gains tax rates by two thirds:

Restoring the 20-percent capital gains tax rate for upper-income taxpayers and repealing the reduced tax rates on gains from assets held over five years for would reduce the deficit and make the tax system more progressive.

OK, and here’s the rationale for tripling dividend taxes:

Restoring the ordinary income tax treatment of qualified dividends for upper-income taxpayers would reduce the deficit and make the tax system more progressive. Taxing qualified dividends at the same rates as other ordinary income would also help simplify the tax code.

And for raising high-end income tax rates:

Limiting the tax benefit of upper-income taxpayers’ itemized deductions would reduce the deficit, make the income tax system more progressive, and distribute the cost of government more fairly among taxpayers of various income levels.

First of all, good luck getting that $800 billion. The Clinton tax hikes only raised a third of the projected revenue increase.

Second, in a time when the U.S. economy is burdened by zero (to falling) income growth and an ocean of unemployed, the president really views making the tax code “more progressive” as a priority? Really? That is ideology run wild. How about, instead, tax reform that makes the economy more competitive and reduces the penalty on savings and investment? Of course, that’s only applicable if you view the private sector as America’s growth engine. Obama, apparently, views the tax system as merely supplying the fuel for government to boost growth through spending.

Obama’s ‘rosy’ budget scenario doubles down on class warfare

By James Pethokoukis

February 13, 2012, 2:35 pm

Here’s pretty much all you need to know about Obamanomics: In 2011, the Obama White House suggested raising the top dividend tax rate to 20 percent from 15 percent. Keeping the dividend rate at a relatively low level, the White House said, “reduces the tax bias against equity investment and promotes a more efficient allocation of capital.” Makes sense, right? Basic economics.

Yet in his brand-new, 2013 budget, Obama calls for taxing dividends as ordinary income, essentially raising the top rate all the way to 39.6 percent. And then when you tack on the 3.8 percentage point Obamacare surtax—and an additional 1.2 percentage point itemized deduction phase-out for high-end taxpayers—the rate rises to 44.6 percent.

So apparently Obama is now in favor of a greater bias against equity investment (and in favor of debt) and promoting less efficient allocation of capital. And this helps create an economy “built to last” in some way?

Of course, it doesn’t. Not at all. More like “built to fail.” Then again, Obama’s new budget isn’t about economic growth or cutting debt or creating a “built to last” economy. The Obama campaign is built around the idea of reducing inequality. So in his budget, Obama takes the populist whip to the wealthy and to business:

1. The top income rate would be raised to 39.6 percent vs. 35 percent today.

2. Under the “Buffett rule,” no household making over $1 million annually would pay less than 30 percent of their income in taxes.

3. Between now and the end of a second Obama term, Obama proposes $707 billion in “net deficit reduction proposals.” Of that amount, only 16 percent is spending cuts.

4. The majority of small business profits would be taxed at 39.6 percent vs. 35 percent today.

5. The capital gains rate would rise to 25.0 percent (including the Obamacare surtax and deduction phase out) from 15 percent today.

6. The double tax on corporate profits (including dividends) would increase to 64 percent based on the statutory corporate tax rate (58 percent using the effective tax rate), easily the highest among advanced economies.

7. The double tax on corporate profits (including capital gains) would increase to 51 percent (44 percent using the effective tax rate), also among the highest among advanced economies.

All in all, Obama has proposed some $1.6 trillion in new taxes over ten years, taking tax revenue as a share of GDP to 20.1 percent in 2022 vs. a historical average of 18 percent. And despite all those new taxes, Obama’s plan would still add $6.7 trillion in new debt and make no progress in lowering the nation’s total debt levels as a share of output. The debt-to-GDP ratio is predicted to be 74.2 percent this year and 76.5 percent in 2022.

At the same time, federal spending would never fall below 22 percent of GDP. Indeed, Obama—if he serves two terms—would be the first U.S. president in history to spend 22.0 percent or more of GDP for eight straight years (and then beyond). And keep in mind that these debt and spending numbers claim about $850 billion in savings from unwinding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending about a quarter of those phony “savings” on highway funding.

And also don’t forget about the rosy growth assumptions of 3.4 percent growth in 2015, 4.1 percent in 2016, 4.1 percent in 2017, and 3.9 percent in 2018. The U.S. economy has only seen a run like that three times in the past four decades. And the Obama Boom is supposed to happen amid rising tax rates, interest rates, and debt? Good luck, Mr. President.

Higher taxes, more spending, more debt, and no long-term entitlement reform plan. Hmm, this isn’t a rosy scenario at all. It’s actually a pretty bleak one.

Orwellian doublespeak is alive and well and living in Europe. Today, seemingly oblivious to an Athens in flames, Ohli Rehn, the European Union’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner, sternly warns Greece that “disastrous consequences would follow if Greece did not avoid a disorderly default.” And he does so with the intent of bullying Greece into continuing to hew the misguided policy line of its IMF-EU taskmasters that has brought Greece to its present terrible socio-economic pass.

Apparently, nobody seems to have informed Rehn that Greece’s economy is already in a state of collapse. Over the past year, Greece’s manufacturing output has declined by 18 percent while its youth unemployment is now around 50 percent. Nor does it seem that anyone has explained to Rehn that this collapse has occurred as the direct result of IMF-imposed hair-shirt fiscal austerity within a euro straitjacket that precludes currency devaluation as a means to promote the Greek external sector. And it seems to have escaped Rehn’s notice that Greece is rapidly moving to a state of becoming politically ungovernable as a direct consequence of the economic hardship that it has been forced to endure.

As if to add insult to injury, the IMF and EU are now prescribing to Greece even more of the stiff medicine that has brought the Greek economy to this painful pass and that will guarantee Greece a lost economic decade. Little wonder then that the Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church has been warning Europe of a social explosion in his country.

And, again, nobody seems to have informed Rehn that Greece is already well into the process of a disorderly default on its debt. For Greece is using the legislative threat of retroactive collection clauses to get its private sector creditors to “voluntarily” accept a 70 percent write down in the present value of their Greek sovereign debt holdings. Someone might inform Rehn that this is very little different from Argentina’s take it or leave it offer to its private creditors in 2005, which involved a 72 percent write off of its debt and which was widely regarded as a disorderly default.

An even more pernicious form of European doublespeak is that Greece is but a special case and that what is occurring in Greece could not happen elsewhere in Europe. Maybe someone should inform Rehn that Portugal is going down the very same road as did Greece and that it will be no more successful than was Greece in restoring fiscal sustainability by engaging in draconian budget austerity within the constraint of euro membership.

Alan Viard

Obama changes course on dividend taxes

By Alan Viard

February 13, 2012, 12:34 pm

President Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget plan, released this morning, is similar in many ways to his previous annual budget proposals. One feature that wasn’t in his fiscal 2012 plan is the proposed Buffett tax, which would impose a 30 percent minimum tax on the income, including dividends and long-term capital gains, of millionaires. But there’s one other important change, which would also increase the tax burden on saving and investment, from last year’s plan.

The president now proposes that the 2003 dividend tax cut be allowed to fully expire at the end of this year for taxpayers with incomes greater than $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples), making dividends taxable at ordinary income rates for those taxpayers. As a result, the top dividend tax rate will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent next year. In his fiscal 2012 and earlier budget plans and in his 2008 campaign proposals, the president had called for most of the dividend tax cut to be preserved for these households, with the top dividend tax rate rising only to 20 percent.

The president’s earlier proposals had recognized that the 2003 dividend tax cut offers (imperfect) relief for the burden that the corporate income tax imposes on corporate equity-financed investments, an insight not reflected in his current proposal. In a prominent 2008 Wall Street Journal article, the Obama campaign’s top economists emphasized that he would increase the top dividend tax rate only to 20 percent, boasting that “this rate would be 39 percent lower than the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut and would be lower than all but five of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.” Unfortunately, the president’s current proposal sharply diverges from that path.

President Obama is hardly the first president to change his tax proposals after taking office. But, it is regrettable that he has changed course in a way that will place heavier tax burdens on saving and investment.

First thoughts on the new Obama budget

By James Pethokoukis

February 13, 2012, 12:16 pm

More later on the 2013 Obama budget, but I did have two  initial thoughts:

1. This budget has $1.9 trillion in tax increases/revenue raisers and it still a) adds $6.7 trillion in new debt from 2013 to 2022, and b) has debt as a share of GDP rising from 74.2 percent this year to 76.5 percent in 2022. Wow.

2. Let’s look at just what is skedded to happen between now and the end of a second Obama term. Obama proposes $707 billion in “net deficit reduction proposals.” Of that amount, only 16 percent is spending cuts.

 

 

More evidence Obama has tax policy exactly backward

By James Pethokoukis

February 13, 2012, 9:42 am

President Obama wants to do three big things on taxes right now:

– He wants to extend the temporary payroll tax cut for the rest of 2012.

– With his new 2013 budget, Obama wants to raise $1.5 trillion in taxes over ten years, with half that amount coming from the expiration of the high-end Bush tax cuts. He also wants a minimum 30 percent tax rate for millionaires.

– He wants to reform the corporate tax code, though it is unlikely companies overall would pay less in taxes.

Now, all of this fits well with Obama’s 2012 campaign theme of tackling income inequality and appealing to middle-income voters. But does it make good economic sense? Well, the Tax Foundation just did a massive, must-read study looking at which kinds of taxes internationally have the biggest impact on economic growth.

The Tax Foundation found “no relationship between payroll taxes and long-term economic growth“:

The Tax Foundation found corporate income taxes “have a highly significant and negative effect on long-term growth … 24.3 percent of the variation in long-term growth across OECD countries is determined by corporate income taxes. This very likely makes it the single largest determinant of economic growth … cutting the corporate rate by 10 percentage points is associated with an increase in cumulative real GDP growth of 11.1 percentage points”:

The Tax Foundation found that personal income taxes on high incomes “also have a highly significant and negative effect on long-term growth … 23.5 percent of the variation in long-term growth across OECD countries is determined by personal income taxes on high incomes. This very likely makes it the second-largest determinant of economic growth, after corporate taxes … cutting the personal income tax rate by 10 percentage points is associated with an increase in cumulative real GDP growth of 7.5 percentage points – a large effect but somewhat less than that of the corporate tax”:

Now, Obama’s approach to tax reform may well be smart politics, but it has nothing to do with boosting economic growth or accelerating job creation.

From the WSJ:

President Barack Obama’s budget proposal Monday will offer several measures to trim the federal deficit in the next 10 years. But it would leave largely unchanged the biggest drivers of future government spending: the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs that are expanding rapidly as the baby boom turns into a senior boom.

Senator Marco Rubio saw this coming. As he said yesterday in his CPAC speech:

So, where is the President’s plan to save Medicare? Let me show it to you. Here it is. [Holds up blank sheet of paper.] He doesn’t have one. It is a blank piece of paper. This is his plan when it comes to Medicare. His plan is wait for a Republican like Paul Ryan to offer a plan and then attack him. He hasn’t been in office three or four weeks. He’s been in office a little bit over three years. Two of those years, his party controlled both houses of Congress. And he’s dealt with none of these issues I’ve just outlined.

And it now looks like President Obama will end his term with a whole stack of blank sheets of paper. Rubio called it. And why hasn’t Obama outlined some long-term plan since a coming debt deluge will make a “built to last” economy impossible to achieve otherwise?

It’s pretty simple, really. Historically, federal spending is about 20 percent of GDP (with revenues about 18 percent). Currently, however, spending is around 24 percent of output. Obama and other liberals believe federal spending must stay at current levels and eventually rise to deal with the aging of America and the need to make new “investments” in education, clean energy, and what have you.

In short, they don’t believe Obamacare and its successors can bring spending back down to historical levels.

For example: Three liberal think tanks recently devised budget plans out to the year 2035, something Obama has never done. Their 2035 federal spending projection averaged 25 percent of GDP. Average debt to GDP was 63 percent — even with revenue at an unheard of 24 percent of GDP!

To make the numbers balance and reduce total debt with all that spending, you would need to also raise taxes on the middle class — probably through a value-added tax — not just on rich people and banks.

That is the liberal truth Obama is trying to avoid revealing by not putting out a long-term budget or entitlement plan. Obama won’t tell you that he wants to raise taxes on all Americans. I just did.

More evidence the Buffett rule is a sham

By James Pethokoukis

February 9, 2012, 11:14 am

Again, here is the Buffett Rule, as explained by President Obama: ”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.”

Now, as the above chart from the Tax Policy Center shows, the total average effective tax rate—including payroll taxes—for the top 1 percent is already 30 percent vs. just 12.6 percent for the middle 20 percent. The chart also vividly shows just how progressive the current tax code effectively is.

But what about people who just pay 15 percent capital gains and dividend tax rates? Well, that income is actually double taxed, first at the corporate level and then at the individual level. Indeed, a new report from Ernst & Young found that the current top U.S. integrated dividend tax rate is 50.8 percent—which will rise to 68.6 percent in 2013—while the 50.8 percent integrated capital gains tax rate will rise to 56.7 percent in 2013.

So I guess if Obama really believes in the Buffett Rule, he should be calling for a tax cut! Oh, wait, that’s right—Obama believes in a 30 percent floor, not a ceiling. So, basically, Obama is saying high-end tax rates must never be lowered. No wonder he stiff armed his own debt commission, which was calling for  lowering top rates to as low at 23 percent while getting rid of numerous tax breaks.

The key assumption of Obama’s budget

By Daniel Hanson

February 9, 2012, 10:40 am

In preparation for the president’s budget proposal next week, it’s important to discuss one of the assumptions on which all figures will be based.

Over the past few years, interest rates on federal debt have fallen to historically low levels thanks to manipulation by the Fed and risk aversion by markets. An unintended consequence of these low interest rates is that the federal debt has been financed very cheaply. Still, interest payments on federal debt have rising sharply since the end of the Clinton era.

The average maturity of the national debt is just over 62 months. This means that once every five years, almost all of our national debt is refinanced into new contracts. The CBO does its budget projections with this in mind, and guesses at what the interest rates will be. For their most recent projections, they assume interest rates will stay low until they begin to slowly rise until 2014.

This is a big assumption. Any number of things could cause interest rates to rise, from a market shock to another debt ceiling debacle to a debt downgrade and so on. Assuming interest rates don’t stay low, the cost of financing the public debt could rise extremely quickly. The chart below shows the national debt picture 62 months from now under different interest rates.

If interest rates rise to where they were at the end of the Clinton presidency, when the economy was rosy, the federal debt will be $4 trillion higher in five years. It’s amazing what a difference a little assumption can make.


If you want an economy that is built to last, you a) don’t tax the heck out of capital and b) don’t give a massive edge to debt financing over equity financing, as the financial crisis showed.

But that is just what the United States does—and it is going to get worse. As a new study from Ernst and Young shows, taking into account both the corporate and investor level taxes on corporate profits and state level taxes, the United States has among the highest integrated tax rates among developed countries. And under President Obama’s current tax plan of letting the Bush tax cuts on capital expire—not even counting Obama’s Buffett rule—here is what happens next year:

•    The current top U.S. integrated dividend tax rate of 50.8 percent will rise to 68.6 percent in 2013, significantly higher than in all other OECD and BRIC countries.

•    The current top U.S. integrated capital gains tax rate of 50.8 percent will rise to 56.7 percent in 2013, the second highest among OECD and BRIC countries.

And why is this is a bad thing? Pay attention Obama White House and Occupy people as E&Y explains:

Most developed countries provide relief from the double tax on corporate profits because it distorts important economic decisions that waste economic resources and adversely affect economic performance. It discourages capital investment, particularly in the corporate sector, reducing capital formation and, ultimately, living standards. It favors debt over equity financing, which may result in greater reliance on debt financing and leave certain sectors and companies more at risk during periods of economic weakness. A tax policy that discourages the payment of dividends can impact corporate governance as investors’ decisions about how to allocate capital are disrupted by the absence of signals dividend payments would normally provide.

This next chart shows just how biased the U.S. tax code is in favor of debt, a tilt the Obama tax plan would make even more extreme:

What should we be doing instead? AEI’s Alex Bill recently put forward a plan that would, among other things, a) phase down the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, b) curtail the inducement for excessive financial leverage and reduce the tax code’s bias in favor of debt by disallowing 10 percent of corporations’ interest expense deduction, and c) improve the tax treatment of investment by making permanent the 50 percent bonus depreciation provision now in effect but scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.

And a group of AEI economists recently drafted a total tax code overhaul where, first, households would not pay tax on interest, dividends, capital gains, or other income from saving. Second, firms immediately could deduct business investments, rather than depreciating them over time. Such changes could boost long-run U.S. economic output by more than 6 percent.

More investment, less debt. That is how an economy is built to last.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said “If you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here.” A Republican presidential candidate has gone even further by promising to eliminate all corporate taxes for U.S. manufacturing companies if elected president. With their policy prescriptions, both politicians seem to be perpetuating the myth that American manufacturing is a feeble sector in such a perpetual state of decline that it requires some kind of taxpayer help to survive. But the facts show something much different—a U.S. manufacturing sector that has made a remarkable comeback over the last few years and is now the economy’s “shining star” in an otherwise sub-par recovery. For example:

1. U.S. manufacturing corporations are on track to earn record profits in 2011, of about $600 billion based on data available from the U.S. Census through the third quarter (see chart above). That’s an increase of 22 percent from 2010, and more than four times the 4.8 percent increase in profits for all U.S. corporations in 2011. It’s also double the $300 billion of manufacturing profits in 2009 and almost 15 percent higher than the previous record of $525 billion in 2006.

2. While the overall economy (real GDP) grew by only 1.7 percent in 2011, the manufacturing component of U.S. industrial production grew at more than twice that rate (4.0 percent). And manufacturing output in the Midwest “rust-belt” region of the country grew by an incredible 8.4 percent last year, suggesting that the traditional manufacturing heartland of America is leading the industrial comeback.

3. Over the most recent 12-month period from January 2011 to January 2012, manufacturing employment grew by more than 2 percent, compared to a less than 1.5 percent growth in total payroll employment over that same period.

4. For the last eight consecutive months starting in June 2011, the jobless rate for the manufacturing sector has been below the national average, and is currently at 8.4 percent, or almost a full half-point below the U.S. average of 8.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted). There has never before been a comparable period when the jobless rate for manufacturing was below the national average for that many consecutive months since the BLS starting tracking industry unemployment rates in 2000.

Bottom Line: By all relevant measures of economic performance: profits, output, employment growth, and unemployment, American manufacturing is at the forefront of the economic recovery, and doing amazing well without any help from taxpayers. In most cases when industries like major oil and gas are earning record-high profits, politicians are quick to accuse them of reaping “windfall profits,” and proposing windfall profits taxes and even recently the establishment of a “Reasonable Profits Board.” Maybe it’s better that Obama and Santorum didn’t do any fact-checking about America’s booming manufacturing sector that is now experiencing record, and possibly even “windfall,” profits, and doing better than at any time in recent history.

Eastwood and Obama in ‘A Fistful of Bailouts’

By James Pethokoukis

February 6, 2012, 7:17 pm

Dirty Harry says if you didn’t support the taxpayer bailout of General Motors and Chrysler back in 2008 and 2009, you quit on America … punk!

That’s basically the message of the Clint Eastwood-narrated Super Bowl ad which told U.S. football fans that Detroit ”almost lost everything. But we all pulled together, now Motor City is fighting again. … Detroit’s showing us it can be done. And, what’s true about them is true about all of us.”

What’s it like to live in a country where state capitalism—rather than free-market, entrepreneurial capitalism—is ascendant? Well, it’s one where car commercials morph into reelection ads for the incumbent president. It’s clear Team Obama wants to make the bailout of the U.S. auto industry a big selling point to voters. (In Obamaland, American workers at U.S.-based factories of foreign automakers—like the 400,000 folks who work at plants, design centers, and dealership for Toyota, Honda, and Nissan—don’t really count as being part of the U.S. auto industry.)

Here’s what the president said recently at the Washington Auto Show: “When you look at all these cars, it is testimony to the outstanding work that’s been done by workers—American workers, American designers. The U.S. auto industry is back … And it’s good to remember the fact that there were some folks who were willing to let this industry die. Because of folks coming together, we are now back in a place where we can compete with any car company in the world.”

Obama: “Because of folks coming together …”

Eastwood: “But we all pulled together …”

You get the picture.

But not the entire picture, of course. The most effective propaganda doesn’t present outright falsehoods but merely half truths that form a distorted image. View, if you will, a stock chart comparing General Motors (red), Ford (green), and the S&P 500 index.

Looks like GM still has some work to do to earn investor confidence.

Then there’s the issue of the cost to taxpayers. We received some new info on this late last month:

The U.S. Treasury Department boosted its estimate of government losses in the $85 billion auto bailout by $170 million. In the government’s latest report to Congress this month, the Treasury upped its estimate to $23.77 billion, up from $23.6 billion. Last fall, the government dramatically boosted its forecast of losses on the rescues of General Motors Co., Chrysler Group LLC and their finance units from $14 billion to $23.6 billion. … The Treasury, which initially held a 61 percent majority stake in GM, now holds a 26.5 percent share, or 500 million shares in GM. To break even, the government would need to average $53 per share for its remaining stake. At current prices, the government would lose more than $14 billion on its GM bailout. … The government booked a $1.3 billion loss on its $12.5 billion bailout of Chrysler. As part of its $17.2 billion bailout, the Treasury still holds a 74 percent majority stake in Ally Financial Inc., the Detroit-based auto lender and bank holding company. Ally, formerly known as GMAC, put its IPO on hold indefinitely last year because of market weakness.

Oh, and on top of that $24 million you can add another $13 billion, according to bankruptcy expert David Skeel. He says Treasury estimates “omit the cost of the previously accumulated tax losses GM can apply against future profits, thanks to a special post-bailout government gift. The ordinary rule is that these losses can only be preserved after bankruptcy if the company is restructured—not if it’s sold. By waiving this rule, the government saved GM at least $12 to $13 billion in future taxes, a large chunk of which (not all, because taxpayers also own GM stock) came straight out of taxpayers’ pockets.”

And what if Washington hadn’t forced taxpayers to ride to the rescue? Well, the Center for Automotive Research, an automaker and union-funded think tank, said back in 2008 that “a drawn-out, disorderly bankruptcy proceeding leading to liquidation of the automakers” would cause a loss of nearly two million jobs over the next two years.

But Skeel disagrees:

If the government wanted to “sell” the companies in bankruptcy, it should have held real auctions and invited anyone to bid. But the government decided that there was no need to let pesky rule-of-law considerations interfere with its plan to help out the unions and other favored creditors. … Nor would both companies simply have collapsed if the government hadn’t orchestrated the two transactions. General Motors was a perfectly viable company that could have been restructured under the ordinary reorganization process. … Although Chrysler wasn’t nearly so healthy, its best divisions—Jeep in particular—would have survived in a normal bankruptcy, either through restructuring or through a sale to a more viable company. This is very similar to what the government bailout did, given that Chrysler is essentially being turned over to Fiat.

Things like moral hazard and unintended consequences are of slight concern when you want to be the Motor City Messiah. But who knows, maybe GM will continue to prosper even though its Japanese competitors are now recovering from Japan’s megaquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster. And maybe GM and Chrysler will eventually boost quality enough to get into the first division of automakers.

But given the history of bailed-out companies — such as Chrysler, for instance — there may be opportunity for Eastwood to star in a sequel.

Un-biasing the tax code

By Daniel Hanson

February 6, 2012, 3:43 pm

One of the biggest arguments regarding current tax rates is that they are an prohibitively high impediment to small business growth and creation, which, in turn, creates an impediment to job creation and innovation.

Yet singling out small businesses for tax breaks isn’t any more fair than singling out any other group. Or, as AEI economist Alan Viard points out:

The current tax policy debate has been misdirected because of the unwillingness of supporters of marginal rate reduction to articulate the real economic case for that reduction. Many supporters argue that rate reduction is justified because it will promote the growth of specific sectors, such as small business. Yet, the real case for marginal tax rate reduction is precisely that it does not single out particular sectors for special benefits, but instead reduces tax impediments to mutually beneficial transactions involving work, saving, and investment throughout the economy.

As Viard points out, a fairer tax code is one that removes biases. It’s disingenuous to go into histrionics over tax breaks for pet liberal projects like, say, green energy, while simultaneously arguing for pet conservative projects like, say, small business creation.

If we want to actually improve the tax code and make it fairer, we need to reduce its biases, not increase them.


The American Enterprise Institute takes no institutional positions on policy advocacy or political campaigns. The views expressed on The Enterprise Blog represent those of the individual writers.

AEI