View as PDF

A new analysis of Joe Biden’s tax plan by the nonpartisan Washington-based Tax Foundation has found that under the House Democrats’ plan, the U.S. would have an average corporate rate of 30.9 percent, which would be the third-highest corporate rate in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), behind only Colombia and Portugal!

On Monday, Democrats on the House Ways and Means committee introduced reconciliation legislation that would raise as much as $2.9 trillion to finance President Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda.

According to the foundation, “A centerpiece of the House Democrats’ plan is an increase in the corporate tax rate, from 21 percent to 26.5 percent. But most companies would face a rate north of 26.5 percent, given that most states also levy a corporate income tax.”

Companies in 21 states and D.C. would face a higher corporate tax rate than in any country in the OECD under the plan, where Portugal currently levies the highest tax rate of 31.5 percent. New Jersey would see the highest combined federal-state corporate tax rate of nearly 35 percent.

The foundation points out that “The corporate income tax is among the most economically harmful ways to raise government revenue. Higher corporate taxes reduce output, productivity, and wages in the long run, while making the United States less competitive.”

“The plan also proposes raising the long-term capital gains tax rate to 25 percent and applying a new 3 percentage point surcharge on all income above $5 million of modified adjusted gross income. When including the net investment income tax of 3.8 percent under current law, the top marginal capital gains tax rate would reach 31.8 percent at the federal level.”

According to the foundation’s analysis, seven states and D.C. would face combined top marginal capital gains tax rates of more than 40 percent, nearing the top rate among OECD countries, currently levied by Denmark at 42 percent.

The foundation concludes:

A high combined capital gains tax rate would influence when taxpayers decide to
sell assets and realize the gain. If the effect is large enough, federal revenue from
capital gains income would decline as taxpayers decide to avoid realizing gains
and the higher tax rate.

The type of tax used to finance government spending matters. Selecting less
damaging revenue sources and avoiding dramatic tax increases will contribute to
a successful U.S. economic recovery.

The corporate income tax is the most harmful tax for economic growth because
capital is the most mobile factor in the economy and, thus, most sensitive to
high tax rates. Academic research indicates that workers bear at least half of the
economic burden of the corporate tax through reduced wages, especially for
“the low-skilled, women, and young workers.”


Ransom Payment? Biden Administration Sending $64 Million In Taxpayer Dollars To Taliban Controlled Afghanistan

View as PDF

In a press report, the Biden Administration announced that it is sending $64 million dollars to Taliban Controlled Afghanistan. According to the report:

“Today, the United States announced nearly $64 million in additional humanitarian assistance for the people of Afghanistan. This funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Department of State will flow through independent organizations, such as UN agencies and NGOs, and provide life-saving support directly to Afghans facing the compounding effects of insecurity, conflict, recurring natural disasters, and the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“This payment is highly suspicious,” noted Matthew Schultz, executive director of Taxpayers United of America. “We know from recent testimony from Secretary of State Antony Blinken that roughly 100 American citizens who want to leave Afghanistan remain in the country as of the end of last week. We also know for a fact that the Taliban have hampered US civilian efforts to leave the country.”

 “If this is not outright a ransom payment, then what else is it? Assuming that any of this money actually reaches people, and is not just intercepted by the Taliban, than what does it achieve? Afghanistan is in chaos. There is a drought in the country, police have been replaced with Islamic radicals, and banks are limiting withdrawals due to a fear of a bank run. Infusions of ‘aid’ into the economy would help stabilize the country, and strengthen the Taliban’s control.”

“In essence, no matter who the money goes to in Afghanistan, it will help the Taliban.”

“The only way to know if this really is a ransom payment is to see what happens next. Either way, the situation is ridiculous. Taxpayers pay enormous amounts of money to the government to ensure our safety and security. Indeed, a large portion of our tax bill goes to fund the greatest military force in the world. To think that despite all the money that we pay for all these ships, planes, and tanks, that hundreds of Americans are left behind enemy lines is absurd. The notion that we have to pay even more as a ransom to those that helped terrorists ram planes into our buildings is disgusting.”


View as PDF

A report just issued by the nonpartisan Washington-based Tax Foundation states that although the president’s Council of Economic Advisers released a blog post arguing that the Biden administration’s spending agenda would help keep long-term inflation in check, their major financing options will reduce productivity growth.

The main point of the Biden administration’s argument is that the infrastructure bill is a supply-side policy that will increase economic productivity, writes the foundation’s Alex Muresianu. In theory, it may be true that a shift of the supply curve outwards means an increase in output and a decline in prices.

Other administration supporters have argued for infrastructure from a more demand-side perspective: by increasing government spending, consumers will have more income to spend. When they spend more, then businesses and individuals they purchase goods from will have more money to either consume or invest. This is known as the Keynesian multiplier effect.

“This debate has an important mirror in the economics of tax policy,” writes Muresianu. “As my former colleague Scott Greenberg described in 2017, there are two theories of tax reform, as described by politicians.”

The first theory is the “folk theory.” Under the folk theory, tax cuts can stimulate the economy by “putting more money in people’s pockets.” Cutting taxes raises disposable income, leading to more consumption and investment; raising taxes reduces disposable income, and therefore reduces consumption and investment.

“All that matters is the bottom-line net change in government revenue,” states the report “In this regard, temporary tax cuts are just as helpful as permanent tax cuts, as they end up raising incomes immediately.”

The second theory is the neoclassical theory, the supply-side view. Under this theory of tax reform, taxes impact the economy by changing marginal incentives, not by raising the amount of income available to spend. The benefit of a lower tax rate is not from raising spending: with a lower tax rate, the returns to work and investment are higher, and thus people and firms choose to work and invest more.

These theories are not mutually exclusive, states the report. The folk theory is useful in times when the economy is “below potential,” such as in a recession when demand is depressed. However, when designing “normal” policy over the long term, the neoclassical framework is a better model.

While the case the White House is making for the infrastructure package is more in line with the neoclassical framework, they should design the tax policies used to fund it under the same principles. If the goal is to stimulate long-term economic growth, raising the corporate income tax rate would be counterproductive, given how private capital investment is sensitive to tax changes.

According to the report, it would make sense to fund infrastructure with user fees, such as tolls, the gas tax, or a tax on vehicle miles traveled. Those funding sources would have a smaller impact on long-term private investment, and in some cases, encourage infrastructure investment to be targeted towards places it will be most productive in terms of usage.

The report concludes, “The Biden administration does have a point about how some components of the infrastructure bill could put downward pressure on inflation in the long term. However, the taxes chosen to pay for those investments would counteract those effects, by reducing investment and productivity growth.”