Beware corporate tax con job

Those who want us to believe in the magic of trickle-down economics are trying the oldest tactic in the books: misdirection.

EDITOR’S NOTE: A version of this piece appeared in the Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, Cedar Rapids Gazette. Online version here.

Those pushing the tax bill now before Congress have a tough job. They have to convince ordinary taxpayers that they should embrace a bill that gives massive tax cuts to corporations and rich people, raises the national debt, results in millions losing health care, and sets the stage for huge cuts in programs, from Medicare to food assistance to education.

Their principal argument — that trickle-down economics is going to bestow jobs and wages on the middle class — is a con job.

Why do U.S. corporations need a tax cut when they are already paying taxes at a lower overall effective rate than in other advanced economies? They don’t.

You have probably heard just the opposite: that our rates are the highest in the world, a skewed view that ignores only the nominal tax rate is higher than most other countries. In fact, a myriad of deductions and loopholes brings the actual rate corporations pay way down, to below average.[1]

The huge deficits created by this tax bill — $1.5 trillion over 10 years — would push interest rates up and would choke off investment, counteracting any tendency of the corporate tax cuts to increase investment. Furthermore, an examination of developed economies across the globe shows that corporate tax cuts over the past 15 years have not produced growth in capital investment. [2]

Nor is a cut in corporate tax rates going to lead to wage increases. U.S. corporate tax rates were slashed in the late 1980s, and in the years since we have seen the historic link between productivity and wages broken. In other words, the last corporate tax cut ushered in a period of stagnant wages, even though productivity continued to rise.

Think of it this way: Why would we expect tax cuts now would lead to corporations sharing productivity growth with workers through higher wages? It hasn’t been happening for the past 30 years.

It gets worse. The bill is supposed to be only $1.5 trillion because there are other tax increases that hold down the total. However one of those offsets won’t work as planned. A minimum tax on overseas profits, which sounds like a good idea, will actually provide an incentive for multinational companies to move American jobs overseas in order to escape the new tax.

Those who want us to believe in the magic of trickle-down economics are trying the oldest tactic in the books: misdirection. Focus on this shiny bauble — a small cut in your taxes in the short run — and this pie-in-the sky promise of jobs and higher wages; pay no attention to the billions of dollars going to corporations and the rich, and the inevitable cuts in programs, from health care to education to Medicare.

Peter Fisher is research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City. pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

 

[1] U.S. corporation income taxes amount to 2.2 percent of GDP, while other advanced economies (the remaining countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) collect 2.9 percent of GDP in corporate taxes. See “Common Tax ‘Reform’ Questions, Answered.” Josh Bivens and Hunter Blair, Economic Policy Institute, October 3, 2017.

[2] Josh Bivens, “International Evidence Shows that Low Corporate Tax Rates are not Strongly Associated with Stronger Investment.” Working Economics Blog, Economic Policy Institute, October 26, 2017.

Congressional tax bills: New loopholes

Needed fixes on the Alternative Minimum Tax would limit the ways the very rich avoid taxes — but the bill in Congress would just eliminate it, at a cost of $696 billion over 10 years.

To most people, tax reform means closing loopholes. To those in Congress pushing an overhaul of federal taxes it apparently means the opposite. The House and Senate tax bills would reopen a number of loopholes used by high-income taxpayers to shelter income from tax, and create a huge new one. Without shame, they are calling this “tax reform.”

First, the new loophole. This one is doubly ingenuous, touted as a “reform” that helps “small business.” It allows individuals who receive income from a business that they own (if that business is not a corporation) to pay no more than the 25 percent individual income tax rate on that income. Here’s the thing: Most truly small businesses are already in that tax bracket, or lower, because they have less than $250,000 in business income; these taxpayers get no benefit from the bill.

So who would benefit? Almost 70 percent of this “pass-through” income goes to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. They are hedge fund managers and real estate developers who own a non-corporate business, and who now pay tax at one of the top rates for individuals (up to 39.6 percent). This pass-through loophole is no help to small businesses; it is a gift to the rich, and a very costly one indeed: $597 billion over 10 years.

Now for the loopholes re-opened. If you are an ordinary, hard-working middle income taxpayer you probably have never had to worry about something called the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). That’s because you didn’t have income from incentive stock options, you didn’t take an oil depletion allowance, you didn’t claim net operating losses. In short, you didn’t have the kinds of income that escape taxation. You had mostly wages and salaries, which are fully taxed.

The AMT originated in the late 1960s and was supposed to ensure that those with preferentially treated income or large deductions paid at least some minimum amount of income tax. Donald Trump, for example, was required to pay an additional $31 million in 2005 because of the AMT. (We know this because of the partial tax return for that year that was made public.) Without the AMT, tens of millions of his income would have escaped taxation.

The AMT does need fixing; it does not succeed in taxing all kinds of preferential income, and many of the very rich still find ways to avoid tax. But instead of fixing it or replacing it with something better, this bill would just eliminate it permanently, at a cost of $696 billion over 10 years, a big chunk of the total cost of the bill.

In the name of tax reform, congressional Republicans are opening the loophole floodgates for high-income taxpayers; these two measures will cost $1.3 trillion. That means another $1.3 trillion in federal deficits, or in cuts to programs like Medicare and food assistance, to keep wealthy donors happy.

Peter Fisher, research director of the Iowa Policy Project

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

Nonsense from the Far Right

Fortunately, the discerning Iowan can find the facts about the federal budget by looking for them, and not buying into Dick Morris’ spin.

Political consultant Dick Morris slipped into Iowa last week, and the Spin-O-Meter was in overdrive.

Now, rather than repeat Mr. Morris’ misinformation, here is a link to a Des Moines Register story about his appearance at a rally orchestrated by the national right-wing organization Americans for Prosperity.

What Iowans need to know is that (1) Morris is wrong about what is driving the federal budget deficits, and (2) the causes are clear: You can’t cut taxes and fight two wars at the same time without digging a big budget hole.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities graph
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

As shown in the graph at right from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain the vast majority of the deficit through 2019. One thing folks must recognize is that deficits caused by those factors cause more debt down the road, because we have to keep paying interest. Even after the Iraq war ended, we have to keep paying for it.

As we deal with these self-inflicted budget problems, we must maintain the fundamental and long-accepted responsibilities of our nation — to care for the most vulnerable and put them on their feet to get work and succeed in our economy.

Dick Morris has a big megaphone to try to instill something other than a factual presentation about what’s causing our deficits and debt. Fortunately, the discerning Iowan can find the facts by looking for them, and not buying into the conventional spin he delivers in his traveling medicine show.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director

Wellmark’s ‘uncertainty’ should not affect Iowa’s exchange

In a strong, consumer-oriented exchange, small businesses, individuals and families will want to participate. Why would Wellmark not want a share of that playing field?

Andrew Cannon photo
Andrew Cannon

Any business worth its salt can find a way to make a buck in a market with sufficient consumer demand.

Wellmark’s reported uncertainty in its ability to “break even” in the health reform-created insurance marketplace would seem puzzling for a company with 70 percent of the Iowa market.

According to an Aug. 31 Des Moines Register report (“Wellmark undecided on insurance exchange,” by Tony Leys), Iowa’s largest insurer is unsure it will participate in the health insurance marketplace created by the health reform law, citing concerns about its ability to “break even.”

This marketplace could be the place where as many as 156,000 Iowans* seek to purchase health insurance. Those with household income below 400 percent of the federal poverty line (about $89,000 for a family of four) will receive tax credits from the federal government to help cover the premium cost. And small businesses, which will also be eligible to purchase insurance in the exchange, will receive tax credits if they cover at least half of their employees’ premiums.

The stars are aligned to create consumer demand in the new insurance marketplace. Wellmark’s concern about breaking even probably should not be lawmakers’ first concern. The point of the exchange is to enhance the marketplace, not keep it restricted.

Rather, as we have repeatedly stressed, policy makers need to be focused on how to assure that lawmakers create an Iowa exchange that is fair and consumer-oriented.

Two groups heretofore are woefully underserved by the current health insurance market — individuals and families who don’t receive health insurance benefits at work, and Iowa’s small businesses. The exchange’s structure and governance should assure that Iowa individuals, families and small businesses can find affordable health insurance options.

In a strong, consumer-oriented exchange, small businesses, individuals and families will want to participate. Why would Wellmark not want a share of that playing field?

*Note: Data comes from the 2009 American Communities Survey (ACS), analyzed online using the University of Minnesota’s Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS-USA). The ACS is conducted on an ongoing basis by the Census Bureau. Those 156,000 Iowans have household income in excess of 133 percent of the federal poverty level – the cut off point for Medicaid eligibility under health reform.

Posted by Andrew Cannon, Research Associate
Tweet

Health reform turns 1

Despite heated rhetoric, health reform will help thousands in Iowa receive better and more affordable coverage, and better protect their rights as patients.

Andrew Cannon photo
Andrew Cannon

A year after it was signed into law, confusion about the health reform law remains high. With the heated rhetoric and widespread misinformation about the law, citizens can hardly be blamed for not yet understanding the Affordable Care Act.

Over the course of this week, the Iowa Fiscal Partnership — a joint project of the Iowa Policy Project and the Child and Family Policy Center — has tried to combat some of that confusion and outright misinformation. In a series of five “issue snapshots,” we have succinctly explained how certain groups of Iowans will be impacted by the health law.

On Monday, our brief snapshot described some features of the law designed to help small businesses, which provide insurance to employees in far lower numbers than larger firms. Small businesses may qualify for tax credits if the provide coverage to employees now, and will have access to a new health insurance marketplace beginning in 2014.

Our Tuesday release focused on how senior citizens will be impacted by the new law. Gaps in Medicare prescription drug coverage will gradually be phased out and Medicare enrollees need no longer worry about co-pays for approved preventive treatments.

On the actual anniversary of health reform becoming the law of the land, our Wednesday snapshot explored some of the consumer protections featured in the law. Patients’ need no longer worry about bumping against a benefits ceiling; lifetime benefit limits are eliminated and annual benefits limits will be phased out. The law enshrines the right of patients to choose their own provider; that choice may not be dictated by insurance carriers or the government.

Our Thursday snapshot focused on the law’s impact on Iowa women. Many women are only one family tragedy away from losing their coverage. Just 28 percent of Iowa women have their health coverage through their own job.  In 2014, Iowa women, along with all Iowans, will have a host of new health coverage options. Medicaid eligibility will be raised and lower- and middle-income families will be eligible for premium assistance from the government to purchase insurance coverage in the new state-based marketplaces.

Today, our snapshot details some of the law’s benefits for Iowa’s youth — from infants up to 25-year old young adults. The 51,300 Iowa children with a pre-existing condition will never be denied coverage for that reason; insurers are prohibited from denying children health coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Young adults through age 25 may also remain on their parents’ insurance plans, regardless of whether they are in school or just starting a career.

In spite of some of the heated rhetoric that continues against health reform, it will help thousands of Iowans receive better and more affordable health coverage, as well as protecting their rights as patients.

Posted by Andrew Cannon, Research Associate

But what have you done for me lately?

An astounding number of people have no idea what their government does for them — even as they benefit from government programs.

Source: Suzanne Mettler, "Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era," via Sara Robinson, Campaign for America's Future

This NYTimes blog post is interesting enough, but what really caught my attention was a table from a recent academic political science paper that has made its way from liberal bloggers to a former Reagan economic advisor.

An astounding number of people have no idea what their government does for them, even as they benefit from government programs.

 

Posted by Andrew Cannon, Research Associate

Implementing Health Reform: Early Successeses

A number of health-reform provisions already have taken effect, and are showing results.

Andrew Cannon, research associate
Andrew Cannon

The new health reform law is already helping thousands of Iowans and small businesses.

Though the major provisions of the health reform law won’t be implemented until 2014, a number of provisions have already gone into effect.

The new law provides tax credits to small businesses that offer health insurance to their employees. The rapid growth of premiums over the past decade have made insurance provision extremely difficult for small businesses. According to the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research’s Medical Expenditure Survey, In Iowa, just 28 percent of firms with 10 or fewer offered insurance to employees, compared to 92 percent of firms with 100 or more employees.

The Wall Street Journal‘s Janet Adamy reported Tuesday that the percentage of small businesses with three to nine employees offering health insurance to employees has increased significantly over the past year — from 46 percent to 59 percent. Researchers at Bernstein Research attribute that growth to the health reform law’s small business tax credits.

In addition to small businesses, health reform is helping Iowa prepare for full implementation of the law and helping Iowa’s seniors. The state received a $1 million grant to plan for a Health Insurance Exchange, one of the key components of the overhaul.

Though Medicare recipients gained prescription drug coverage through Medicare Part D in 2003, the law had a $2,000 gap in coverage — often called the “donut hole.” Early implementation of health reform lessens that gap, by providing a $250 tax-free rebate to Medicare recipients. In Iowa, 17,774 Medicare beneficiaries have received the rebate.

Posted by Andrew Cannon, Research Associate