DOCSLIB.ORG

Tax Reform Lite the First 100 Days & the Narrow Road Ahead

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tax Reform Lite the First 100 Days & the Narrow Road Ahead Deutsche Bank Tax Reform Lite The First 100 Days & the Narrow Road Ahead May 2017 Tom Joyce Frank Kelly Hailey Orr Mariya Getsova CIB Capital Markets Strategist Head of US Government Affairs CIB Capital Markets Strategist CIB Capital Markets Strategist The Trump Trade Markets Since the US Election Deregulation Tax Reform Infrastructure ACA Repeal S&P 500 Financials Russell 2000 US Cyclical Index S&P 500 Healthcare 1450 1900 425 Transition First 100 Days 880 1350 375 1700 830 1250 +12.6% +4.3% +15.3% +2.2% +12.1% +4.5% +2.6% +7.4% 325 1150 1500 780 08-Nov 20-Jan 29-Apr 20-Jan 08-Nov 29-Apr 08-Nov 20-Jan 29-Apr 08-Nov 20-Jan 29-Apr Equity Bank Index S&P 500 DB Infrastructure Index S&P 500 Pharmaceuticals 320 2100 640 2400 260 2300 1800 590 2200 +5.8% +5.3% +20.8% +2.6% +12.8% +2.5% +1.6% +6.1% 200 2100 1500 540 08-Nov 20-Jan 29-Apr 08-Nov 20-Jan 29-Apr 08-Nov 20-Jan 29-Apr 08-Nov 20-Jan 29-Apr IG Fin Credit Spreads NASDAQ Heavy Building Materials Medical Devices 140 6200 400 21500 130 5800 350 20000 120 5400 300 18500 (-9 bps) (-13 bps) +6.7% +9.2% +14.5% (-3.9%) +1.4% +13.4% 110 5000 250 17000 08-Nov 20-Jan 29-Apr 08-Nov 20-Jan 29-Apr 08-Nov 20-Jan 29-Apr 08-Nov 20-Jan 29-Apr Deutsche Bank Source: Bloomberg. Data as of April 29, 2017. US Cyclical index refers to FTSE US Cyclicals. DB Infrastructure Index is custom basket of 27 infrastructure levered names. Medical Devices is Dow Jones US Medical Equipment Index. Heavy Building Materials is a custom DB index, 1 indexed to 2011. Past performance may not be indicative of future returns. Historical Perspective on US Tax Reform Late US Government raised all of its revenue from tariffs and Congress introduces alternative minimum tax (AMT), and raises 19th C. excise taxes 1969 capital gains 1895 Supreme Court rules income tax unconstitutional 1981 President Reagan passes Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 with sharp reduction in rates and CapEx incentives (subsequently th US income tax becomes law via passage of the 16 paired back due to rising deficits) 1913 Amendment and the Revenue Act of 1913 (mortgage interest, state and local taxes all made deductible) 1983 President Reagan hiked gas and payroll taxes 1916 Farmers given immediate 100% expensing of equipment 1984 As deficits continue to rise, President Reagan closes a number of investments; Federal estate tax introduced loopholes for businesses 1917 Charitable contributions made deductible 1986 President Reagan passes comprehensive Tax Reform Act, lowering top individual rate from 50% to 28%, and corporate tax Taxes increased via 3 revenue acts, with top rate reaching WWI from 50% to 35% (while closing many loopholes) 77% in 1918 (subsequently reduced in 5 phases during 1920s to low of 24% in 1929) 1993 President Clinton makes modest increases to tax rates Congress passes Revenue Act of 1921, which for first time Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 expands child tax credits, introduces 1921 1997 distinguishes tax treatment of capital gains from ordinary Roth IRAs and reduces long term cap gains from 28% to 20% income 2001 & In two Acts, President Bush reduces tax rates on individuals, AMT, 2003 dividends, capital gains, estate taxes, and retirement accounts 1926 Employers’ contribution to pension funds excluded from taxable income 2009 President Obama passes $831 billion crisis era stimulus package, which included over $275 billion of tax relief 1930s President Roosevelt introduces numerous tax increases to fund New Deal and WWII 2010 President Obama signs the Tax Relief Act, providing a temporary 2 WWII Top rate reaches 94% (on income over $200k); Congress year reprieve from numerous expiring sunset provisions in the introduces payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments Bush tax cuts 1950s IRS significantly reorganized to improve tax collection 2010 President Obama signs healthcare bill called the Affordable Care Act, which includes $1 trillion of new taxes over the subsequent President Kennedy signs tax bill to jumpstart economy with decade 1962 investment tax credits for business capex (repealed in 1969, then reinstated in 1971) 2014 House Ways & Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) releases draft tax reform proposal Tax rates remained high through period of large government 1960-70s deficits (introduction of Medicare), low growth and high 2016 House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Ways & Means Committee inflation Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) release “A Better Way” blueprint for tax reform and other change 1968 Corporate tax rates peak at 53% 2017 President Trump releases high-level blueprint for tax reform Deutsche Bank Source: Internal Revenue Service. US Treasury. Jeffrey Birnbaum and Alan Murray: “Showdown at Gucci Gulch” (As of May 2017). 2 Tax Reform Lite I. Introduction II. Tax Reform Lite III. The First 100 Days (January 20 – April 29) Appendix: A. Comparison of US Tax Reform Proposals B. Detailed Executive Orders List This presentation has been prepared by the CIB Capital Markets Strategy team and does not necessarily represent the views of our Research department or Deutsche Bank's “House View." Deutsche Bank Assumptions, estimates and opinions in this document constitute our judgment as of the date of the document and are subject to change without notice. 3 The First 100 Days & the Narrow Road Ahead Tax Reform Lite The First 100 Days (Jan 20 – Apr 29) 1. Execution Decisions 16. Cabinet Confirmed 2. Paying for Lower Taxes 17. 9th Seat Filled 3. International Tax Complexity 18. The CEO President 4. The Battle for Deductions 19. 30 Executive Orders 5. Importance of Leadership 20. Legislative Roadblocks 6. Under-Resourced Tax Team 21. Tax Reform Behind Schedule 7. Congressional Bottlenecks 22. Trade Policy Actions 8. Debt & Deficits 23. Infrastructure Spend in Question 9. Tax Takes Time 24. Deregulation via Enforcement Changes 10. Difficult Sequencing 25. Economic Data Mixed 11. Failure to Repeal the ACA 26. Currencies 12. Revenue Neutrality 27. US Rates 13. Border-Adjusted Taxes 28. US Credit 14. Corporate Base Erosion 29. US Equities 15. Winners & Losers Effect 30. Historical Perspective: Markets Deutsche Bank 4 Deutsche Bank I. Introduction Tax Reform Lite Plan A Plan B Plan C Scope of Reform “Comprehensive” “Small Reform” “Extenders – Plus” Tax Cuts Significant Modest Limited (Corp rate 20-25%) (Corp rate 25-30%) (Corp rate 28-30%) Reform Features . Similar to Brady/Ryan . Small reform . Renew 2016 – 2017 tax (with or without BAT) . No BAT extenders . No 100% CapEx . Small Corp Tax cut (28 – expensing 30%) . Keep debt deductibility . Small ACA relief (i.e., . Modified territorial (with medical device tax) minimum overseas tax) . Other: Child care tax credit The Path . Budget reconciliation . Budget reconciliation . Normal course legislation (GOP only) (GOP only) (GOP and Dems) More Less Difficult Difficult Less More Likely Likely Deutsche Bank Source: Tax Foundation. Tax Policy Center. PMJ. CIB Capital Markets Strategy. As of May 2017. 6 Limited Disclosure on Trump 2017 Plan Estimated Cost of Individual Tax Reform Trump 2017 Tax Plan Expected 10 Yr Impact from Trump 2017 Tax Plan ($Trn) . Reduce to 3 tax brackets − 10%, 25%, 35% Repeal Most +$2.0 Trn . Double size of standard deduction (to $24k) Deductions . Eliminate deductions except mortgage, Repeal Net Investment (-$0.2 Trn) Income Surtax charitable gifts & retirement savings . Lower cap gains to 20% (eliminate 3.8% ACA (-$0.2 Trn) Repeal Estate Tax tax) (-$0.4 Trn) Repeal Individual AMT . Repeal estate tax . Repeal AMT (-$1.5 Trn) Reduce Individual Rates . Child care tax credit (-$1.5 Trn) Double Standard Deduction Corporate Tax Reform Cut Pass-Through (-$1.5 Trn) . Lower rate to 15% (for corporates and pass- Tax Rate to 15% throughs) Cut Corporate (-$2.2 Trn) Tax Rate to 15% . Move to territorial tax system . One-time deemed repatriation (rate not Estimated Cost: $5.5 Trillion specified) (over 10 Years) Deutsche Bank Source: White House Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. As of May 2017 Expected range for repealing deductions (except mortgage, charitable giving, retirement) is $0.5 trillion to $4.5 trillion. This information is a forecast and due to a variety of 7 uncertainties and assumptions made in our analysis, actual events or results or the actual performance of the markets covered may differ from those presented Tax Reform a Critical Variable for 2017 Markets 2017 US Tax Reform Scenarios # of Additional Peak 10Yr UST 2017 Fed Hikes #1: “Comprehensive” US Tax Reform 2 – 3 ~3% Area . Analogous to Brady / Ryan & Trump 2017 blueprint . Large tax cuts / significant reform #2: “Small” US Tax Reform . Smaller corporate and individual tax cuts . Less reform and change #3: “No” US Tax Reform . Minor tax cuts 1 – 2 ~2% Area . No substantive tax code reform Recently Revised DB 10 Yr UST Forecasts Apr 29 Q2 Q3 Q4 Spot 2017 2017 2017 2.28% 2.25% 2.50% 2.75% Deutsche Bank Source: DB Global Markets Research (Konstam, “US Fixed Income Weekly: What are we waiting for?” and “Bear Market On Hold.”). Data as of April 29, 2017. 8 This information is a forecast and due to a variety of uncertainties and assumptions made in our analysis, actual events or results or the actual performance of the markets covered may differ from those presented. The First 100 Days, in Numbers Politics & Policy Markets S&P performance in the first 100 days 1 Supreme Court justice nominated and +5.3% confirmed Appreciation of S&P 500 financial stocks in the 30 Executive orders issued in the first 100 days +2.2% first 100 days 0 Number of major pieces of legislation passed Appreciation of S&P 500
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stuck! the Law and Economics of Residential Stagnation
    DAVID SCHLEICHER Stuck! The Law and Economics of Residential Stagnation ABSTRACT. America has become a nation of homebodies. Rates of interstate mobility, by most estimates, have been falling for decades. Interstate mobility rates are particularly low and stagnant among disadvantaged groups -despite a growing connection between mobility and economic opportunity. Perhaps most importantly, mobility is declining in regions where it is needed most. Americans are not leaving places hit by economic crises, resulting in unemploy- ment rates and low wages that linger in these areas for decades. And people are not moving to rich regions where the highest wages are available. This Article advances two central claims. First, declining interstate mobility rates create problems for federal macroeconomic policymaking. Low rates of interstate mobility make it harder for the Federal Reserve to meet both sides of its "dual mandate": ensuring both stable prices and maximum employment. Low interstate mobility rates also impair the efficacy and affordability of federal safety net programs that rely on state and local participation, and reduce wealth and growth by inhibiting agglomeration economies. While determining an optimal rate of interstate mobility is difficult, policies that unnaturally inhibit interstate moves worsen na- tional economic problems. Second, the Article argues that governments, mostly at the state and local levels, have creat- ed a huge number of legal barriers to interstate mobility. Land-use laws and occupational licens- ing regimes limit entry into local and state labor markets. Different eligibility standards for pub- lic benefits, public employee pension policies, homeownership subsidies, state and local tax regimes, and even basic property law rules inhibit exit from low-opportunity states and cities.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Property Like-Kind Exchanges Since 1921, the Internal Revenue
    Real Property Like-kind Exchanges Since 1921, the Internal Revenue Code has recognized that the exchange of one property held for investment or business use for another property of a like-kind results in no change in the economic position of the taxpayer and therefore should not result in the imposition of tax. This concept is codified today in section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to the exchange of real and personal property, and it is one of many nonrecognition provisions in the Code that provide for deferral of gains. The Obama Administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget targets section 1031 by substantially repealing the provision with respect to real property by limiting the amount of gain that may be deferred to $1 million annually. This proposal could have a significant negative impact on the real estate sector with real implications for the broader economy. Background The original like-kind exchange rule goes all the way back to the Revenue Act of 1921 when Congress created section 202(c), which allowed investors to exchange securities and property that did not have a “readily realized market value.” This rather broad rule was eliminated in 1924 and replaced with section 112(b) in the Revenue Act of 1928, which permitted the deferral of gain on the like-kind exchange of similar property. With limited exceptions, generally related to narrowing the provision, Congress has largely left the like-kind rule unchanged since 1928.1 Section 1031 permits taxpayers to exchange assets used for investment or business purposes for other like-kind assets without the recognition of gain.
    [Show full text]
  • Economists Agree: We Need More COVID Relief Now
    GOP Economists Agree: We Need More COVID Relief Now “Absolutely [in favor of the $1.9 trillion proposed American Rescue Plan]...The idea that you shouldn’t act right now is not consistent with the real time data…I would 100% support additional checks to people.” — Kevin Hassett, Former Economic Advisor to President Trump and former advisor to Sen. Romney “The $900 billion package that was passed a few weeks ago...all runs out by sometime in mid-March...That means hard-pressed Americans that are unemployed, have back rent, student loan payments, need food assistance, they’re going to need more help.” — Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics who has advised lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including Sen. John McCain “One lesson from the financial crisis is that you want to be careful about doing too little.” — R. Glenn Hubbard, Former Economic Advisor to President George W. Bush and Sen. McCain “There are times to worry about the growing government debt. This is not one of them.” — Greg Mankiw, Former Economic Advisor to President George W. Bush and Sen. Mitt Romney “Additional fiscal support could be costly, but worth it if it helps avoid long-term economic damage and leaves us with a stronger recovery.” — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell The Bottom Line: Now is the time for bold public investment to rescue the economy from the COVID economic crisis. Failure to do so could spell disaster for our communities, families, businesses, and economy..
    [Show full text]
  • United States Monetary and Economic Policy
    UNITED STATES MONETARY AND ECONOMIC POLICY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION APRIL 30, 2003 Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 108–24 ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 87–237 PDF WASHINGTON : 2003 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Aug 18, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\DOCS\87237.TXT HBANK1 PsN: HBANK1 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana MAXINE WATERS, California SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois PETER T. KING, New York NYDIA M. VELA´ ZQUEZ, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chairman JULIA CARSON, Indiana RON PAUL, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JIM RYUN, Kansas BARBARA LEE, California STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio JAY INSLEE, Washington DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas DOUG OSE, California MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Status of Capital Gains
    LEGAL STATUS OF CAPITAL GAINS PREPARED BY THE STAFF OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION DECEMBER 4, 1959 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 48572 WASHINGTON : 1959 J0810-59 LEGAL STATUS OF CAPITAL GAINS HISTORICAL PERIOD PRIOR TO THE 16TH AMENDMENT The power of the CQngress to subject capital gains to an income tax is now fully established by decisions of the Suprenle Court. Even in our first inconle tax statute (act of 1861, 12 Stat. 292) Congress used language broad enough to warrant the taxation of "annual cap­ ital gains." This first act levied on income tax to be paid upon the "annual income" deriyecl fronl certain sources, including income "deriyed from an:r kind of property" and contained a catchall provi­ sion s,,~eeping in "income derived fronl any other source whatever" with certain exceptions having no relation to capital gains. This act was neYer put into effect and was superseded by- the act of 1862 (12 Stat. 432), ,,~hich was similar in this respect to the 1861 act except that the basis of the tax was changed fronl "annual income" to the longer nhrase "annual gains, profits, or income." It \vas not until the act of 1864 (13 Stat. 223) that income derived fronl sales of prop­ erty was specifically mentioned. This last act contained the same general definition of income referred to in the prior acts, with an additional proviso- that net profits realized by sales of real estate purchased within the year for which income is estimated, shall be chargeable as income; and losses on sales of real estate purchased within the year for which income is estimated, shall be deducted from the income of such year.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust and Inequality: the Problem of Super-Firms
    Florida State University College of Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Publications 2018 Antitrust and Inequality: The Problem of Super-Firms Shi-Ling Hsu Florida State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons Recommended Citation Shi-Ling Hsu, Antitrust and Inequality: The Problem of Super-Firms, 63 ANTITRUST BULL. 104 (2018), Available at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/482 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hsu 105 election, income and wealth inequality have clearly become centrally important political issues. Even among Harvard Business School alumni, 63% believe that reducing inequality should be a “high” or “very high” priority.3 Concurrently, though less fervently, antitrust law has entered public discourse as a social ordering problem, as large, consolidated “super-firms”4 have grabbed ominously large market shares, limited consumer choices, and threatened to render local provi- sion of goods and services anachronistic. As disquiet grows over their ubiquity and their dis- placement of local institutions—and sometimes their treatment of customers—some have looked to antitrust laws to slow this trend. It is thus unsurprising that inequality and antitrust law should be joined from time to time. Unrest in these areas has brewed for decades, received heightened attention after the global financial crisis of 2008, and exploded into politics recently as populist anger.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Outlook with Cea Chairman Kevin Hassett Hearing
    S. HRG. 115–142 THE ECONOMIC OUTLOOK WITH CEA CHAIRMAN KEVIN HASSETT HEARING BEFORE THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 25, 2017 Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 27–701 WASHINGTON : 2018 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:59 Jan 30, 2018 Jkt 027189 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\DOCS\27701.TXT SHAUN LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE [Created pursuant to Sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Congress] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SENATE PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio, Chairman MIKE LEE, Utah, Vice Chairman ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota TOM COTTON, Arkansas DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona BEN SASSE, Nebraska BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia ROB PORTMAN, Ohio DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois TED CRUZ, Texas FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico, Ranking JOHN DELANEY, Maryland AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota ALMA S. ADAMS, PH.D., North Carolina GARY C. PETERS, Michigan DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia MARGARET WOOD HASSAN, New Hampshire WHITNEY K. DAFFNER, Executive Director KIMBERLY S. CORBIN, Democratic Staff Director (II) VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:59 Jan 30, 2018 Jkt 027189 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\DOCS\27701.TXT SHAUN LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER C O N T E N T S OPENING STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Preface ..................................................................................................... ix Introductory Notes to Tables ................................................................. xi Chapter A: Selected Economic Statistics ............................................... 1 A1. Resident Population of the United States ............................................................................3 A2. Resident Population by State ..............................................................................................4 A3. Number of Households in the United States .......................................................................6 A4. Total Population by Age Group............................................................................................7 A5. Total Population by Age Group, Percentages .......................................................................8 A6. Civilian Labor Force by Employment Status .......................................................................9 A7. Gross Domestic Product, Net National Product, and National Income ...................................................................................................10 A8. Gross Domestic Product by Component ..........................................................................11 A9. State Gross Domestic Product...........................................................................................12 A10. Selected Economic Measures, Rates of Change...............................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Goldman Sachs – “Beyond 2020: Post-Election Policies”
    Note: The following is a redacted version of the original report published October 1, 2020 [27 pgs]. Global Macro ISSUE 93| October 1, 2020 | 7:20 PM EDT U Research $$$$ $$$$ TOPof BEYOND 2020: MIND POST-ELECTION POLICIES The US presidential election is shaping up to be one of the most contentious and consequential in modern history, making its potential policy, growth and market implications Top of Mind. We discuss the candidates’ economic policy priorities with Kevin Hassett, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Trump, and Jared Bernstein, economic advisor to former Vice President Biden. For perspectives on US foreign policy, we speak with Eurasia Group’s Ian Bremmer, who sees significant alignment between the candidates on many key foreign policy issues—including trade. We then assess the impacts of various election outcomes, concluding that a Democratic sweep could lead to higher inflation, an earlier Fed liftoff, and a positive change in the output gap, which we see as negative for the Dollar and credit markets, roughly neutral for US equities and oil, and positive for some EM assets. Finally, we turn to the actual race and ask Stanford law professor Nathaniel Persily a key question today: how and when would a contested election be resolved? WHAT’S INSIDE The president is very likely to pursue an infrastructure “package in a second term, and is probably prepared to INTERVIEWS WITH: recommend legislation amounting to up to $2tn of Kevin Hassett, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in infrastructure
    [Show full text]
  • International Tax Policy for the 21St Century
    NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 147 The NFTC Foreign Income Project: International Tax Policy for the 21st Century Part Two Relief of International Double Taxation NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 148 NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 149 Origins of the Foreign Tax Credit Chapter 1 Origins of the Foreign Tax Credit I. Introduction The United States’ current system for taxing international income was creat- ed during the period from 1918 through 1928.1 From the introduction of 149 the income tax (in 1913 for individuals and in 1909 for corporations) until 1918, foreign taxes were deducted in the same way as any other business expense.2 In 1918, the United States enacted the foreign tax credit,3 a unilat- eral step taken fundamentally to redress the unfairness of “double taxation” of foreign-source income. By way of contrast, until the 1940s, the United Kingdom allowed a credit only for foreign taxes paid within the British 1 For further description and analysis of this formative period of U.S. international income tax policy, see Michael J. Graetz & Michael M. O’Hear, The ‘Original Intent’ of U.S. International Taxation, 46 DUKE L.J. 1021, 1026 (1997) [hereinafter “Graetz & O’Hear”]. The material in this chapter is largely taken from this source. 2 The reasoning behind the international tax aspects of the 1913 Act is difficult to discern from the historical sources. One scholar has concluded “it is quite likely that Congress gave little or no thought to the effect of the Revenue Act of 1913 on the foreign income of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Vice President Biden's Economic Agenda
    A HOOVER INSTITUTION STUDY An Analysis of Vice President Biden’s Economic Agenda: The Long Run Impacts of Its Regulation, Taxes, and Spending* Institution Hoover TIMOTHY FITZGERALD, KEVIN HASSETT, CODY KALLEN, AND CASEY B. MULLIGAN We estimate possible effects of Joe Biden’s tax and regulatory agenda. We find that transportation and electricity will require more inputs to produce the same outputs due to ambitious plans to further cut the nation’s carbon emissions, resulting in one or two percent less total factor productivity nationally. Second, we find that proposed changes to regulation as well as to the ACA increase labor wedges. Third, Biden’s agenda increases average marginal tax rates on capital income. Assuming that the supply of capital is elastic in the long run to its after-tax return and that the substitution effect of wages on labor supply is nontrivial, we conclude that, in the long run, Biden’s full agenda reduces full- time equivalent employment per person by about 3 percent, the capital stock per person by about 15 percent, real GDP per capita by more than 8 percent, and real consumption per household by about 7 percent. I. Introduction Advancing equality, environmental protection and other social goals involves tradeoffs. The purpose of this paper is to quantify possible economic effects of the Biden agenda. Vice President Biden proposes to • reverse some of the 2017 tax cuts as well as increase the taxation of corporations and high-income households and pass through entities; • reverse much of the regulatory reform of the past three years as well as setting new environmental standards; and • create or expand subsidies for, especially, health insurance and renewable energy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revenue Act of 1934
    March, 1935 THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 GEORGE GRAYSON TYLER t AND JOHN P. OHL X Congress, probably inspired by the disclosures of the investigations of the Banking and Currency Committee, passed House Resolution 183, on June 9, 1933, thereby authorizing the Ways and Means Committee to in- vestigate methods of preventing the evasion and avoidance of taxes, means of simplifying the revenue laws and possible new sources of revenue. Pur- suant to this Resolution, a Subcommittee of the Committee on \Ways and Means conducted an inquiry prior to the convening of the second session of the 73d Congress. The Subcommittee filed "A Preliminary Report" ' on December 4, 1933, upon the subjects, of tax avoidance, evasion and sim- plification. In response to the Subcommittee's recommendations, the then Acting Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., issued a state- ment 2 differing in many important particulars from the conclusions reached by the Subcommittee. As a result of the above investigations, H. R. 7835 was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. After extensive hearings 3 the bill was reported out with amendments by the Com- 4 mittee and a report was submitted thereon. On February 21, 1934, the House passed the bill with minor committee amendments. 5 Then, having been introduced in the Senate, the bill was referred to the Finance Com- mittee, which, after further hearings,0 reported it 7 with substantial amend- ments. Further material changes were made on the floor of the Senate s before passage. Thereafter, the Conference Committee on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses made its recommendations reconciling the differ- j- Formerly assistant to Professor Roswell Magill, former assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury; member of the New York Bar.
    [Show full text]