Fortune 500 Deferring $433 Billion in Taxes

According to a new report today from Citizens for Tax Justice, the 285 members of the Fortune 500 that have parked money overseas would owe an estimated $433 billion in taxes if and when it is repatriated. No wonder these companies are working so hard to get a "repatriation holiday" even though the one given in 2004 did not yield  any significant new investment, but lots of dividends and stock buybacks.

The new report list 10 companies with $209 billion parked overseas that report the taxes they would owe on these profits (only 47 do so). These companies all report that they would owe 32-35% on their money, which indicates they have not paid any taxes abroad on it; in other words, the money is in tax havens.



Note that some estimates place these figures even higher; in March, I reported that Apple's overseas stash was estimated at $64 billion.

Based on the entire 47 companies that report their estimated tax bill, CTJ came up with an average tax rate of just over 27%. Multiplied by the $1.584 trillion in overseas cash held by the 285 corporations (up from about $1 trillion estimated in March) yields the figure of $433 billion in taxes that would be due if the income were repatriated or the deferral provision for overseas income ended.

What does it all mean? As U.S. companies continue to enjoy record profits, they are declaring them to be foreign profits at a high rate, as we can see in the increase from the March to October estimates. Numerous tech and financial companies have stashed literally tens of billions of dollars, each, in offshore tax havens, which drain billions a year from tax coffers that must be made up with higher taxes on the middle class, larger budget deficits, or cuts in programs. And as we have seen from the two tax returns Mitt Romney has released, there is one tax system for the 1% and another one for the rest of us.

The Folly of Subsidizing Retail

Next to giving subsidies for a company to relocate, or to prevent it from locating, the lease defensible common use of investment incentives is for retail. Why should this be? Let me count the ways.

Most importantly, retail is a derivative economic activity, as David Cay Johnston says. A location's population and income determine how much retail it can support. For this reason, the apparent job creation of retail subsidies is completely phantom, as sales and jobs are simply transferred from older stores to newer locations. The best proof of this is contained in a groundbreaking study by the East-West Gateway Council of Governments, the regional planning agency of the St. Louis metropolitan area.

East-West Gateway's study found that from 1990 to 2007 (i.e., before the financial crisis), the over 100 local governments of the St. Louis metro area had collectively provided over $2 billion in subsidies for malls and other retail facilities. Most of this was in the form of tax increment financing, a popular local subsidy tool in both Missouri (to the tune of $339 million annual average from 2004 to 2006; see p. 7 in the source) and Illinois. Yet, by the end of this 17 year period, there were only 5400 more retail jobs in the metro area than at the beginning. This would total $370,370 per job if the jobs were created by the subsidies; however, it is more likely that they are simply due to income growth in the region. (Note to reporters: This would be a great study to replicate in your area.)

Second, retail jobs are not all that good. Here is a custom graph from FRED showing the nominal wage trend for all production and non-supervisory workers (blue) and for production and nonsupervisory workers in retail (red). As you can see, the wage gap has been increasing for 40 years. As of September, the exact figures were $13.86/hr. for retail vs. $19.81/hr. for all private industries. Moreover, given that the overall total as shown in the graph actually represents a decline in real wages, the decline in retail is much more pronounced.

In addition to the low pay, retail workers rarely get benefits. According to a new report, only 29% of retail workers get health care benefits, even though half of retail employees have college degrees and 70% are over age 24.

Third, retail does not generate much secondary employment, the way manufacturing does. It does require warehouse jobs, but those generally get subsidized, too, as in the case of Wal-Mart.

The bottom line, then, is simple. Retail is a derivative economic activity that generates almost no new spinoff activity, and local governments (except perhaps in poor areas with food deserts) should not subsidize it. As we have seen in St. Louis, local governments have proven perfectly capable of wasting billions of dollars for temporary gains in sales tax revenues. It's time to stop the madness.

New Model Legislation Would be Great First Step Toward Subsidy Reform

Yesterday, Good Jobs First released new model legislation to increase the transparency, accountability, and effectiveness of state and local subsidies, which I estimate to total $70 billion per year. If states were to adopt these laws, subsidy administration would improve dramatically, and if all states adopted them, it would put an end to job piracy as well.

The model legislation revolves around four principles.  First, company-specific, web-based reporting of subsidies received and compliance with job quality and other performance requirements. This would be supplemented by reporting by property tax districts of all tax abatements, tax increment financing deals, and other tax reductions affecting school districts and other recipients of property tax revenues.

Second, there would be standards for job creation and job quality (wages, percent full time, benefits, etc.) set that would be specific to the locality. Noteworthy among the provisions is that the model legislation would require at least one new job to be created for every $35,000 in subsidies, and that a company could not count a job towards its job creation commitments if it relocated the job from elsewhere in the United States (not just the state giving the subsidy). This latter provision would prevent states from subsidizing relocations, as happens, for example, at the New York/New Jersey and Missouri/Kansas borders, and even within metropolitan areas like Cincinnati and Cleveland.

Third, states would be required to claw back subsidies if companies did not reach and maintain their job creation and job quality commitments. The legislation gives specific language on how much should be recaptured under various scenarios (a bigger percentage for three years of failure than one year, for example). Moreover, the model legislation provides for private parties to have standing in the courts to enforce the rules if state agencies do not.

Fourth, under the Good Jobs First proposals, states would create Unified Economic Development Budgets, which would track both tax expenditures and on-budget subsidies in every state agency that provided them. This would make it easier for citizens to hold legislators responsible for overall economic development policy, and it would certainly make life easier for researchers like me who currently have to create national estimates based on incomplete data and a relatively small number of states.

These provisions would dramatically improve the transparency and administration of state and local subsidies, but at the same time they show the limits of state-by-state reform. For example, no automobile assembly plant has been built with a subsidy as small as $35,000 per job since the 1980s. No state will commit to that level, because they simply would never receive another auto assembly plant when plenty of states that are good locations for such facilities will give $100-150,000 per job, and at least one (Tennessee) over $200,000 per job. Similarly, I would doubt that many states would commit to stop their job piracy, at least if they were victimized by it to any appreciable extent.

For this reason, I have long argued that federal controls are necessary to rein in these out-of-control subsidies. However, even though governors and economic development officials realize they're in a bad bargaining position, they are not willing to give up their "tools," as we saw when it looked like the courts might rule that state subsidies violate the Commerce Clause (p. 90). For the time being, then, state-level subsidy reform is the only game in town, and the Good Jobs First model legislation is the best cookbook out there.

Romney Tax Plan as Budget Busting as Ever

Seriously, I could just re-post my February 27th post word for word tonight and it would be just as true as it was then. The Romney tax plan blows a $5 trillion hole in the budget via tax reductions and he still hasn't told us anything about the tax breaks he would get rid of to pay for it, which he has to do because he calls it revenue neutral, as he did again in tonight's debate.

Amazingly, Romney kept denying that his tax reductions reduce revenue by $5 trillion over 10 years when considered by themselves, even accusing the President of lying about it! He kept insisting that his plan was revenue neutral and that he would not adopt a plan that would reduce the share of taxes paid by the rich. Trust him. We have his word on it.* (Apparently, that is how CNN does fact-checking.)

Given his insistence on his proposal's revenue neutrality, let me repeat my 5-step plan, "How to Read a Republican Tax Proposal."

Step 1: Assume revenue neutrality.
Step 2: Look at what income is no longer taxed.

In the Romney plan, according to conservative economist Josh Barro, there is a $1 trillion reduction in corporate income tax, $3 trillion from the 20% reduction in tax rates (again, not 20 percentage points: the top rate falls from 35% to 28%), and $1 trillion from miscellaneous tax reductions, notably abolishing the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Step 3: Determine how much of that income you have.
Step 4: Ask what taxes have to be raised to get to revenue neutrality.
Step 5: Look in the mirror to see who pays them.

That would be the end of the story, except that the Romney budget is also raising military spending by $2 trillion, as the President pointed out in the debate. So that has to be offset, too.

Again, the bottom line is that if we cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations, it will impact the budget elsewhere, in some combination of tax increases on the middle class, program cuts, and deficit increases. Regardless of the spin surrounding it, if a proposal reduces some taxes but doesn't reduce your taxes, you will lose out via these three methods of compensating for the lost revenue.


* If you aren't old enough to remember, this is a reference to a great series of Isuzu car and truck ads featuring "Joe Isuzu," whose signature line was "You have my word on it."

Conservative Refutation of Butler/Heritage Health Care Revisionism Continues

The pile-on continues. As I discussed in February, Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation wrote a breath-taking op-ed in USA Today (via Don Taylor) denying that he fathered the individual mandate. In fact, his revised 140-page research paper was published January 2, 1989, before President George HW Bush came into office, let alone President Clinton, whose proposals Butler says his research was directed against. Two conservatives, Avik Roy of Forbes and James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, played strong roles in locking down the point that Butler was the first to propose the mandate.

Today, J.D. Kleinke of the American Enterprise Institute goes straight to that 1989 report in a New York Times opinion piece to once again lay the mandate at the feet of Heritage. And why not? According to him, the Affordable Care Act is a conservative's dream.

The rationalization and extension of the current market is financed by the other linchpin of the law: the mandate that we all carry health insurance, an idea forged not by liberal social engineers at the Brookings Institution but by conservative economists at the Heritage Foundation. The individual mandate recognizes that millions of Americans who could buy health insurance choose not to, because it requires trading away today’s wants for tomorrow’s needs. The mandate is about personal responsibility — a hallmark of conservative thought.

 Kleinke argues that Romney's incoherence on health care stems precisely from rejecting his accomplishment in Massachusetts. Romney can't offer anything better than the ACA because it is the only conservative way to overcome the problems of the health care market while remaining based on the market and individual responsibility. With no single payer and no public option, it is not surprising that, as he puts it, "the health insurance industry has been quietly supporting the plan all along."

Aside from his odd notion that single payer represents a "government takeover of health care" (Canada's Medicare is not the United Kingdom's National Health Service), Kleinke's column is on the money: historically, the mandate was developed by Heritage economists, the ACA more broadly relies on conservative rather than liberal principles, and many liberals have been unenthusiastic for just that reason. Heck, I'm unenthusiastic (single payer!). But it's a big improvement over the status quo that is already providing benefits to millions of people, whether for young adults, the millions of consumers getting rebates due to the medical loss ratio rule, or for seniors getting rid of the donut hole and gaining free preventive care.

Mitt Romney's Unintentionally Hilarious Tax Return FAQ

Unless you've been in a coma, you have certainly heard about Mitt Romney's release of his 2011 tax returns last Friday. You no doubt know that he and his wife did not claim all the charitable tax deductions they were due, so their tax rate would not go below 13% of adjusted gross income. If you read Bloomberg or a newspaper that picked up the Bloomberg story, you know that Rafalca, the Romneys' dressage horse, has disappeared from their 2011 tax deductions. This, of course, raises the question of whether it was a legitimate deduction in 2010 (or earlier?). After all, being in the Olympics probably raised the mare's value, making the profit motive necessary for an allowable business deduction more plausible. So why would Rafalca not be eligible to deduct in 2011 if she were eligible in 2010 and probably gained value?

But have you read the Frequently Asked Questions page the Romney campaign put up about the 2011 returns and the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) summary of the Romneys' 1990-2009 taxes? You should, for the humor value, if nothing else.

In question 9, we learn how PwC calculated the average effective tax rate: they added the tax rate for each year, then divided by 20. This tells us almost nothing, as many observers (here's one, h/t Think Progress) have pointed out: $50 million taxed at 10% (though the campaign claims it was never less than 13.7%) and $5 million taxed at 30% would yield an average tax rate of 20%, using the PwC method, when the true tax rate would be 11.8% ($6.5/$55) in this example.

In the very next question, however, we learn that for the total of federal taxes, state taxes, and charitable contributions (38.49%), PwC used the proper averaging methodology! In other words, adding up all the payment dollars and dividing by the total adjusted gross income (though we don't know what tricks he used before adjusted gross income). Why didn't they do that for tax alone?

In 2011, the Romneys' charitable contributions came to just over twice their federal income tax ($4 million vs. $1.9 million). If that ratio applied for the entire 1990-2009 period, that would make the federal tax portion less than 13% (even lower because I have ignored state taxes). Of course, we have no way of knowing the real rate for federal or state taxes, or charitable deductions, without seeing the actual tax returns.

But wait, there's more! Don't forget all the offshore accounts! To do this question and answer justice, I'll have to quote it in full:

12. There are some investments that seem to be established in offshore accounts, like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Are these investments evading taxes?

Note the misdirection in the question, "evading" rather than "avoiding" taxes, which describe illegal and legal maneuvers respectively. Few people think Romney has broken the law, though Nicholas Shaxson considers it to be a possibility.

No, the investments by the blind trusts in funds established in the Cayman Islands or other jurisdictions are taxed in the very same way they would be if the shares were held in the US rather than through a Cayman fund.  No taxes are evaded or reduced.  These funds are all registered with the IRS and report all income to investors and the IRS, just like domestic funds.  Whether in Bermuda or Boston or elsewhere, there is no difference in how they are taxed.

If this were true, why would the funds need to be organized in the Cayman Islands? Boston would be a lot more convenient. No, as Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK told me, these funds are set up to allow round tripping by U.S. investors to avoid U.S. taxes, though some foreigners may also take advantage of them. Moreover, if foreigners are exempt from U.S. taxes like the Unrelated Business Income Tax, what need do they have to invest through the Caymans except to avoid taxes at home? Finally, we know from the Gawker revelations that at least two Cayman funds the Romneys invested in created five blocker corporations, which are set up precisely to allow round-tripping by Americans. How can these funds be established in the Cayman Islands, etc., for any reason other than tax avoidance?

In addition, it is important to note that there are no offshore accounts.  These are investments in funds that are organized outside the US.

A fund organized in a secrecy jurisdiction like the Caymans, Bermuda, or Luxembourg is offshore by definition.

Further, it is important to note that Governor Romney did not make these investments.  Governor and Mrs. Romney's assets are managed on a blind basis.  They do not control the investment of these assets. The assets are under the control and overall management of an independent trustee.

We've known since 1994 what Romney thinks of blind trusts, calling Senator Ted Kennedy's "a ruse."

Finally, the trustee did not choose where the investments were located any more than a stockholder in a Fortune 500 company chooses where that company is organized.  Only the sponsor of the fund decides where it is organized. That responsibility is totally outside the control of a passive investor like Gov. Romney or the trustee of his blind trust.

And a stockholder can sell his shares. Has trustee Brad Malt never heard of "divestment"? I was one of thousands of people active in the late 1970s to get our universities to sell stock in companies doing business in South Africa, the "divestment movement." While we weren't very successful at Princeton, students and faculty at many other universities were, and some major local government funds divested from such firms, too, leading companies like Citicorp to end their South African operations. Malt could sell if he wanted to.

The bottom line is the "same as it ever was," one tax system for the 1% and another one for the rest of us.

Every State's State/Local Tax System Taxes the Poor More than the Wealthy--And All Exceed Federal Taxes

A new report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) shows that in every state in the country, the bottom 20% of households pay more of their income in state and local taxes than does the top 1%. Washington state was the worst, where the bottom 20% pay a whopping 17.3% of their income in state and local taxes. This was followed by Florida at 13.5% and Illinois at 13.0%. Though the report hints at an exception, a reading of their appendix shows that the only one is the District of Columbia.

As the report points out, such high taxation increases the burden of poverty on the people who, by definition, can least afford it. Moreover, this runs counter to the federal tax system, which in its overall effect (see table below) is progressive. On average, the top 1% pay federal taxes equal to 30% of their income, compared to 1.1% for the lowest 20%.



Source: Tax Policy Center

Between these two reports, we can see that the bottom 20% of taxpayers pays a much higher portion of their income in state and local taxes than they do in federal taxes. ITEP therefore recommends four major policies to make state and local taxation less regressive.

1) Enact a refundable earned income tax credit for state income tax;
2) Enact property tax circuit-breaker caps for all low-income taxpayers, including renters;
3) Enact other refundable income tax credits for childless households below the poverty level;
4) Enact or increase child tax credits, and make them refundable.

Of course, it should go without needing to be said, but to make federal tax more progressive (think of Mitt Romney and his tax rate below the average 15.1% paid by those in the third income quintile), we should tax capital gains and carried interest the same as ordinary income.