Senate Republicans are voting to repeal the Labor Department’s recent rules that would have expressly allowed states and cities to sponsor a type of individual retirement account, called an automatic IRA. These votes will rescind those rules, because they already have been rejected by House Republicans and the administration supports rescinding them.
While Republicans objected to a patchwork of state-sponsored retirement plans, Congress should promptly pass a federal automatic IRA invested by the private sector. This vehicle, developed by conservatives, is the most feasible way of substantially increasing retirement savings in the U.S.
About a third of all Americans have no retirement savings, and most don’t have enough to retire comfortably. The main reason: More than 60 million American employees have no retirement plan offered to them by an employer.
Read the rest at pionline.com…
While the Congressional efforts to reform America’s health care system fell apart last month, the Trump Administration can learn important lessons for its next legislative battle: corporate tax reform. Here are five key guidelines.
First, don’t trust House Republicans to draft a bill.
House Republicans could not muster a majority of their own party for their healthcare bill, so the White House should draft its own corporate tax bill — without the border adjustment tax (BAT) that House Speaker Paul Ryan has advocated. Although the BAT would exempt from US corporate taxes all exports by US companies, it would be fiercely opposed by US retailers and local manufacturers, since it would end their ability to deduct the cost of imported goods or services from their corporate tax payments. What’s more, these opponents do not believe the economists who claim that the BAT would send the price of imports downward by 20% — because these economists predict the US dollar will appreciate by an equivalent amount.
Read the rest at fortune.com…
Although Donald Trump claims that his forthcoming tax plan will be “phenomenal,” he is in truth not likely to propose something really new.
Before the election, Trump put forth a broad tax plan and then a narrower plan. But even the narrower plan created a budget deficit of roughly $3 trillion to $4 trillion over 10 years, according to the dynamic scoring of the independent researcher Tax Foundation. That steep increase in the national debt would present major challenges, given rising interest rates and much larger budget pressures from entitlement programs.
Soon after the election, President Trump lambasted the border adjustment tax ( BAT ) plan of the House Republicans. Then he began to be more favorable to the BAT because he believed — wrongly — that it would impose a large tariff on Mexican imports to pay for the wall. In fact, the BAT would effectively impose a tax on all imports, which would probably be absorbed by importing companies and their customers.
So there are three main questions about what type of tax plan Trump could propose.
Read the rest at marketwatch.com…
Donald Trump’s campaign to become the next president of the U.S. has thrown up two far-reaching proposals to reform the taxation of corporate profits: reducing the tax rate on domestic profits to 15 per cent, and taxing foreign profits of U.S. corporations at 15 per cent each year.
The first proposal, a budget buster, is a poorly designed way to tax business; the second proposal, a revenue raiser, is a reasonable way to fix the current system for taxing foreign profits.
The current tax rate of 35 per cent is almost the highest in the world, so it should be lowered to make the U.S. a more competitive location for corporate facilities and jobs.
Read the rest at brookings.edu…
Senator Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is focusing on an important aspect of the agenda for corporate tax reform—allowing U.S. corporations to receive a deduction for dividends paid to their shareholders. That deduction would eliminate double taxation of corporate profits distributed as dividends; instead, these profits would be taxed only to shareholders, not at both the shareholder and corporate levels.
Although Senator Hatch has not disclosed the details of his proposal, a corporate deduction for dividends paid has several advantages. But such a proposal would raise financial and political challenges that would have to be addressed.
Read the rest at brookings.edu…
As voters in Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi and Hawaii head to the polls on Tuesday for the GOP primary, they should take a closer look at the frontrunner’s tax plan and what that could mean for their wallets.
Donald Trump’s plan would sharply reduce the top tax rate on individual income from 39.6% to 25% and broadly reduce rates for individuals with lower incomes. His plan would also lower the tax rate on corporate income from 35% to 15%, and apply this 15% to other “business income.”
While his plan limits certain tax preferences and deductions, it does not include any reductions in federal spending. As a result, the Trump plan increases the federal deficit over the next decade by $10 trillion or $12 trillion, according to several estimates that do not include macroeconomic changes in GDP, investment and employment. Of course, these so-called “static” estimates do not reflect the potential tax revenue from the economic growth resulting from lower tax rates. However, even under “dynamic” scoring, which takes into account a broad range of macroeconomic effects of tax proposals, his tax cuts would still expand the federal deficit over the next decade by $10 trillion — on top of the $10 trillion increase in the federal deficit already projected under current law.
Let’s consider two prominent analyses of the Trump tax plan — one by the Tax Foundation and the other by the Tax Policy Center. Despite their different methodologies, they both estimate that the Trump plan would cut tax revenues by over $10 trillion in the next decade.
Read the rest at fortune.com…
The corporate aspects of the tax plan recently announced by presidential candidate Jeb Bush are aimed at achieving the worthwhile goals of economic growth and job creation. However, these goals are likely be undermined by the plan’s treatment of foreign profits of U.S. multinationals and unrealistic projections of tax revenues from rate cuts.
Almost everyone would agree that the current U.S. system for taxing foreign profits of U.S. multinationals is seriously flawed. In theory, such profits are taxed by the U.S. at its standard corporate tax rate of 35 percent — one of the highest in the industrialized world. In fact, such profits are NOT subject to any U.S. corporate tax as long as they are held overseas. As a result, such profits of U.S. multinationals are effectively “trapped” overseas – they are generally not repatriated to build US plants, buy US start-ups or pay dividends to their American shareholders.
The Plan on taxing PAST foreign profits of U.S. multinational is sensible — a one-time tax of 8.75 percent paid over a period of years. That could raise close to $180 billion in revenues. Since U.S. multinationals reasonably relied on the existing U.S. tax rules for foreign profits by holding them abroad, these corporations should be taxed at a modest rate on such past profits.
In the future, however, Jeb’s plan calls for a pure territorial system — foreign profits will be taxed only in the country where they are “earned.” This plan, if adopted, would strongly encourage U.S. multinationals to transfer their intellectual property (patents, copyrights and trademarks) — which can be moved easily at minimal cost — to tax havens, like the Bahamas, where they pay little or no corporate taxes.
Read the rest at realclearmarkets.com…
The debate over Pfizer’s bid to buy U.K. drugmaker AstraZeneca is intensifying. Last week, AstraZeneca rejected Pfizer’s offer of $106 billion, even though it was about 7% higher than its previous bid.
As negotiations escalate, it’s worth taking a close look at Pfizer’s proposed merger into AstraZeneca – with its tremendous implications for U.S. tax collections and tax policies. Pfizer’s determination underscores how driven U.S. multinational corporations are to shift their domicile outside the U.S. Why? Unless they keep foreign profits abroad, the U.S. subjects them to a corporate tax of 35%.
As a result, more than $2 trillion in foreign profits held by multinationals are “locked out” of the U.S. These funds could otherwise be spent making critical investments in the U.S. economy, such as building manufacturing facilities, buying U.S. companies, or even paying dividends to shareholders. For instance, Apple recently borrowed $17 billion to pay dividends, despite holding more than $130 billion abroad.
Thus, the current tax rules reduce investments in the American economy and distort business decisions of American executives. Moreover, although the U.S. corporate tax rate is almost the highest in the world, the U.S. Treasury receives relatively little revenue from taxes on foreign profits from multinationals.
Read the rest at fortune.com…