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?
2.What about where the money is going?
There are 2 sides to this equation. Corporate taxes are being raised and infrastructure, R & D, and things like the Child Tax Credit are proposed to be increased. One needs to wrestle with both. Where’s their case that this is a bad trade?
More on this trade: here’s one of the top economists in the country: “The impacts of the infrastructure programs are likely to be an order of magnitude larger than any disincentive effects from the taxes,” said Harvard University economist Raj Chetty. wapo.st/3rNjzg4
3.Where is the acknowledgment on how U.S. multinationals (& shareholders) rely on the government?
Yes, goods are moved across roads, bridges, airports, and ports, but where would drug companies be without the NIH? Where would the tech sector be without civilian research & DoD?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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”
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