President Biden’s #AmericanJobsPlan will make the economy stronger & the tax code fairer by raising the corporate tax rate & limiting the ability of corporations to shift profits & investments overseas and using the revenue to finance a 21st century infrastructure.
Thread
Raising taxes on corporate profits by partially reversing the 2017 tax cuts won’t hurt the economy & the investments they finance will strengthen it and broaden opportunity. The costly 2017 law slashed the corporate tax rate to 21% w/little discernible effect on the economy.
Here’s the evidence: @JasonFurman told Ways & Means in Feb 2020: “GDP growth did not increase following the 2017 tax law”
More from @jasonfurman: “The major private domestic components of GDP slowed in the two years since the 2017 tax law, including slowing consumption growth, business fixed investment growth and residential investment growth.”
A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service dismantled the Trump claim of a $4,000 worker windfall & highlighted that despite the 2017 tax cut law – and a near full employment economy – wages grew at a slower rate than overall output: bit.ly/3czSF6T
The real windfall of the Trump corporate tax cut went to shareholders – who according to CBO, JCT, TPC, and AEI – receive at least 75% of the benefit of corporate tax cuts. Shareholders are predominantly high-income people & many are foreign investors.
Goldman Sachs: “The wealthiest 0.1% and 1% of households now own about 17% and 50% of total household equities, respectively, up significantly from 13% and 39% in the late 1980s.”
This paper from TPC’s Steve Rosenthal & Theo Burke highlights that foreign investors now own 40% of U.S. equities, compared to 11% in 1980. That means that a sizable share of the benefits of a corporate tax cut goes to foreign investors.
The 2017 Trump corporate tax package also left a playing field tilted in favor of overseas investments, creating new incentives to locate profits and investments in tax havens.
Treasury’s Kim Clausing recently told the Senate Finance Committee the 2017 law encouraged profit shifting “by exempting from U.S. taxation the first ten percent return on foreign assets, and by taxing foreign profits at half the rate of U.S. profits” bit.ly/3cDH86I
.@dashching added that the 2017 law “leads to the striking outcome that the U.S. can be the least attractive place for a multinational to invest or place its profits, from a tax perspective,” compared to both high & low tax countries.
The Biden plan takes important steps to discourage profit shifting. It ends the 2017 tax law’s 10% exemption for foreign profits, raises the min. tax rate on foreign profits to 21% & calculates the min. tax on a per-country basis (so companies can’t “blend” away the tax).
The plan also includes a provision that would encourage other countries to adopt strong minimum taxes. This would position the U.S. to play a leadership role in the OECD’s effort to reform global taxation by discouraging what Secretary Yellen has called a “race to the bottom.”
Asking corporations to pay a fairer share recognizes that corporations accrue enormous benefits from federal investments in everything from infrastructure to education to medical research.
Opponents of raising taxes on highly profitable corporations often ignore the benefits of the investments financed with the revenues. Rebuilding our infrastructure & addressing climate change are critical to our nation’s economy.
A prior CBO analysis showed that investments in infrastructure (and an expanded Child Tax Credit which will come separately) have a higher bang-for-the buck when the economy has slack than corporate tax changes:
Opponents will also say that raising corporate taxes will hurt workers:
But corporate taxes are largely borne to wealthy shareholders and the small portion borne by “workers” skews to high income workers (corporate executives), while benefits of infrastructure/care economy investments will be more broadly shared.
When opponents profess concern about workers, it is important to see if that concern extends to policies like a higher minimum wage, child care and paid leave, and an expansion of the Child Tax Credit and EITC – which directly help people in low-paid jobs.
End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Conservative groups are likely going to pump out pieces that argue that the corporate tax rate increase is going to hurt the recovery & corporate lobbyists are going to pounce on these.
A few respectful requests for tax reporters and other debate participants to probe on these.
1.Where’s the evidence?
We just ran an experiment. The corporate tax rate was cut deeply. Where is the evidence it had any discernible economic benefit to go along with the scope and cost of the change? How do they explain this chart?:
For that matter, where is the evidence that U.S. multinationals had any problem competing before the 2017 tax cut? See after-tax profits as a share of GDP or how U.S. multinationals stacked up against peers before the tax cut. Where was the competitiveness problem?
With the temporary provision moving, there is growing excitement to make the Child Tax Credit expansion permanent. Along with this push, a healthy debate has begun on design elements
Here I want to address one small part of this design discussion which relates to EITC take-up
One key question – of which much more deep digging is needed – is on what roles the IRS and SSA should play in administering a permanently expanded child tax credit/child allowance.
As part of this IRS/SSA discussion, I’ve seen the following thought train a few times: the EITC take-up rate is low, therefore, the SSA should administer the expanded Child Tax Credit. This strikes me as incomplete at best.
Previously, I did a thread on a double standard around work, the Child Tax Credit, & the tax treatment of the inheritances of wealthy heirs
With House passage (!) & shift to the Senate, I wanted to focus on a double standard stemming from the Child Tax Credit’s creation in 1997
In 1997, the original child tax credit was intentionally designed to encourage – some – parents to work less: “some cultural conservatives promote the credit as a way to entice more mothers to stay at home with their children.” wapo.st/3aZz0N1
More: "Because of the tax burden on families, the woman is often compelled to go out and bring in a second paycheck," said Paul Hetrick, vice president of Focus on the Family. "This is a regrettable situation that our country will pay the price for in generations to come."
I sense a few double standards present in the debate over Bidens’ historic Child Tax Credit proposal that would cut the child poverty rate by more than 40%.
My focus here is on a perhaps less obvious one but I think relevant: trust fund kids & the tax treatment of inheritances
Since the mid-1990s, as I’ll walk through, reducing the taxation of large inheritances has been a top, if not the top, tax policy priority of conservatives and Republicans.
In parallel, as I’ll also walk through, there has been a steady stream of research concluding that large inheritances reduce the work effort of wealthy heirs
Worried about the child tax credit debate & wishing men read more novels, I urged people to see it through the eyes of a single mom, with a toddler & a 7 yr-old, who works as a cashier
Here is this morning must-read from @crampell, including “if getting an extra $250 per month allows a single mom greater choice about whether to work the night shift or spend more time with her second-grader, that’s not obviously a bad thing” wapo.st/3p4Dd5R
And she adds: “the poor should not be responsible for bankrolling programs for the poor. Other groups are better able to absorb the costs — particularly the wealthy.”
This is a thread on the Romney Child Tax Credit plan. My hope is that somehow it will find its way to liberal commentators who feel an almost giddy impulse to tell their many followers that the Romney proposal is better or just as good or close enough to the Biden proposal
First, picture two people, one woman and one man, both of an age of possibly have young children. Now picture a recent visit to the grocery store, or a recent delivery, or an elderly relative being helped to shower or have lunch
Now suppose the woman your picturing makes about $15,000 a year at one of those jobs – e.g. a cashier or a home health aide -- and she’s a single mom with a toddler son and a daughter who is in second grade