April 24, 2024

Today’s Economist: Bruce Bartlett: What People Think About Taxes

DESCRIPTION

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform — Why We Need It and What It Will Take.”

For most people, the sum total of their opinion about taxes is very, very simple: they hate them — not just the tax payment, but the act of paying taxes: pulling together the information needed to do one’s tax return, filing it, worrying about being audited for some small error and so on.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

These attitudes are confirmed in a new compendium of public opinion on taxes published by the American Enterprise Institute. The editors, Karlyn Bowman and Andrew Rugg, tell us:

In 75 years of surveys, we can find no instance in which more than a tiny percentage of Americans said the amount they paid in taxes was too low. In most polls, pluralities or majorities say the amount is too high.

But the data do suggest that the percentage of people who think their taxes are too high has declined over time. Until the early 2000s, that figure was commonly in the three-fifths to two-thirds range, but it has since trended down to about 50 percent. Conversely, the percentage of people saying their taxes are about right has risen to where in some polls it sometimes exceeds the percentage saying that taxes are too high.

Conservatives like to argue that the greatest unfairnesses of the tax code are that the wealthy are taxed at higher rates and that close to half of those who file income tax returns have no tax liability. But polls indicate that most people believe that the greatest unfairness in the tax system is that the wealthy do not pay their fair share.

A poll in April 2003 sponsored by National Public Radio, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Kennedy School of Government found that 57 percent of people believed that high-income families paid less than their fair share. A December 2011 Pew poll found the same percentage saying so. By contrast, it found that only 11 percent of people found that the amount of federal taxes they themselves paid was what bothered them the most, with 28 percent naming the complexity of the tax system.

Possibly the greatest dissatisfaction with the tax system is not with taxes per se, but the widespread feeling that the money is simply wasted. The American Enterprise Institute compendium shows that the percentage of people who believe that the government wastes a lot of their money has risen over time. Recent polls put the percentage in the 70 percent to 80 percent range, almost twice what it was in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

When asked what percentage of all federal spending is wasted, a variety of polls routinely put the figure around half. People also believe that wasteful spending has risen over time and that they themselves get little if any value from the taxes they pay. Overwhelmingly, people say that how their taxes are spent bothers them more than the amount they pay.

Not surprisingly, people prefer the idea of paying less in taxes and getting less from government over the idea of paying more in taxes and getting more services from government. It’s hard to see how this could be otherwise given the distribution of federal spending. As the chart below from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows, the vast bulk of it goes to national military programs that no one actually sees, programs for the elderly and poor, or interest on the debt. Programs that average people might see in their own lives, such as education or transportation, are a tiny fraction of spending. Even over a lifetime, most people expect to get back less from government than they pay in taxes.

2012 Figures from the Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2014 Historical Tables, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

In terms of tax reform, people remain sympathetic to the idea of a flat tax despite their general sympathy for progressivity and the idea that government should actively narrow the distribution of income.

Almost everyone thinks the federal tax system is too complicated and in need of major overhaul. In principle, people are willing to give up deductions in return for lower rates, but when questioned about specific deductions they usually support the big ones. An April 2011 Gallup poll found 60 percent to 70 percent of people opposing elimination of the home mortgage deduction, the deduction for state and local taxes or the deduction for charitable contributions, either to reduce the deficit or in return for lower tax rates.

Politically, Republicans and those with high incomes tend to hate taxes and doing their taxes more than Democrats and those with low incomes. According to a new Pew poll, 60 percent of Republicans say they hate doing their taxes compared with 46 percent of Democrats; 63 percent of those with incomes over $75,000 hate doing their taxes compared with 50 percent of those with incomes below $30,000.

It’s undoubtedly the case that one’s decision to identify with the Republicans or Democrats in the first place has a lot to do with taxes.

Article source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/what-people-think-about-taxes/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Economix Blog: Is Overregulation Driving U.S. Companies Offshore?

CATHERINE RAMPELL

CATHERINE RAMPELL

Dollars to doughnuts.

As my colleague Richard A. Oppel Jr. reported on Thursday, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is arguing that companies are sending work abroad primarily because of overregulation in the United States, and not because labor is cheaper abroad.

“They did not leave to begin with just because they could find cheap labor somewhere,” said Mr. Perry, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination. “That may have been part of a formula, but it is not the reason they left. I would suggest to you they left because they were overregulated, and the cost of that regulation and the tax structure that we have in place in this country is what drove the masses away.”

Is that statement true? Are American regulations so burdensome that they are driving companies abroad?

Certainly the United States tax code is impenetrably complicated, and companies do have to deal with plenty of regulations. But even so, the United States is far friendlier to business than are emerging markets like India and mainland China, according to international analyses of regulatory climates.

For the last nine years, the World Bank has been grading countries on 10 measures of business regulation: getting electricity, enforcing contracts, protecting investors, dealing with construction permits, trading across borders, registering property, resolving insolvency, paying taxes, getting credit and starting a business.

Based on these criteria, these are the top 10 countries where it is easiest to operate a business:

  • Singapore
  • Hong Kong
  • New Zealand
  • United States
  • Denmark
  • Norway
  • United Kingdom
  • South Korea
  • Iceland
  • Ireland

That’s right: The United States comes in fourth.

Hong Kong beats the United States, but mainland China — that bugaboo of American employment protectionists — does not. Instead, China comes in 91st. Despite the higher regulatory burden, American-based multinational companies have increased their employment in China by 161,400 from 2007 to 2008, a gain of about 20 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. (The most recent data are for 2008.) In fact, American employment in China rose 77 percent in the prior decade, from 1998 to 2008.

India does even worse, with a ranking of 132nd. Edward L. Glaeser has written for Economix before about India’s struggles with having a stable and transparent regulatory system and public sector.

As they have done in China, American companies have ratcheted up their employment in India by 43,000, or about 13 percent, from 2007 to 2008. From 1998 to 2008, the number of people in India working for American companies rose by 54 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

In another measure of business climate and competitiveness put out by the World Economic Forum, the United States ranks fifth, again ahead of China (26), India (56) and a host of other countries where American companies are adding jobs.

Presumably, then, American companies are not attracted to these places because the business climate is more favorable.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=752e2d39d4005f9586bf20aeb3778aaa

Senate Bill Seeks to Raise Revenue by Closing Tax Havens

A bill introduced by Carl Levin of Michigan and Kent Conrad of North Dakota would tighten rules that allow hedge funds and corporations in the United States to skirt federal taxes by opening shell companies overseas.

The measure would also change the I.R.S. regulations that allow traders of credit-default swaps to avoid paying federal taxes on many transactions that begin in the United States. And to help tax collectors track down hidden assets overseas, the proposal would empower the Treasury Department to ban any foreign bank that refused to cooperate with the I.R.S.

By closing the loopholes, the plan could bring the Treasury as much as $100 billion a year, according to various estimates cited by Mr. Levin.

“The idea that we have all these companies that avoid paying taxes through all these gimmicks is disgraceful,” said Mr. Levin, the chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. “And that we tolerate it is disgraceful.”

Mr. Conrad, who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said that by cracking down on offshore abuses, Congress and the Obama administration could make a substantial reduction in the deficit without resorting to either tax increases or severe cuts to programs like Medicare or Social Security.

Mr. Conrad said the proposal might also break the logjam that has stalled the deficit negotiations. Mr. Obama has refused to approve a deal that does not include increased revenue, while Congressional Republicans have said they will oppose any measure that increases taxes.

The proposal got a cool reception from House Republicans, some of whom of consider ending any tax break a form of tax increase. Representative Eric Cantor, the Virginia Republican who is majority leader, has vowed to oppose any deficit reduction plan that includes tax increases and has said that loopholes can be addressed in some future debate on tax reform.

“As Eric has made clear, tax increases cannot pass the House,” said his spokeswoman, Laena Fallon. “While the president has been seemingly obsessed with certain special-interest loopholes in the debt-limit debate, Eric believes the broad discussion of tax policy belongs in the larger debate on fundamental tax reform.”

While Mr. Levin has sponsored an assortment of bills to limit offshore tax havens over the last decade, the plan introduced Tuesday included several sweeping new features.

One provision would change the way the tax code treats derivatives trades. Under current law, the I.R.S. defines the “source” of derivative income as the location where a trade is paid rather than where the money originates. That allows many traders to legally sidestep federal taxes by routing trades offshore.

Mr. Levin called that “absurd” and said his proposal would institute a common sense source rule for trades involving credit-default swap: sourcing — and taxing — it according to where the money originates.

Another proposal would try to discourage United States companies from using bookkeeping maneuvers to shift their profits to tax havens. In recent years many multinationals — including pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and technology companies like I.B.M. — have cut their United States taxes by booking increasing amounts of their profits abroad. Mr. Levin’s proposal would require all United States multinationals to provide more information in their regulatory filings, including a country-by-country breakdown of their sales, employment, financing and tax payments.

The bill would also prevent companies and hedge funds from escaping American taxes by filing incorporation documents abroad and declaring themselves foreign companies. During public hearings in 2008, Mr. Levin’s subcommittee heard testimony from three hedge funds — Highbridge Capital, Angelo Gordon and Maverick Capital — which were incorporated in the Cayman Islands, but had no offices or employees there. Mr. Levin’s proposal would allow the I.R.S. to define a domestic company as one that is managed and controlled within the United States.

Mr. Levin said he was “hopeful” that President Obama, who supported two similar bills when he was a senator, would make the issue of offshore tax havens a part of the deficit negotiations. When asked if the president intended to do so, an administration official declined to comment.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=995076bcaa96aa426db1a1de68306583