Suchergebnisse

This book shows how the globalization of trade, the digitization of the economy, tax competition between sovereign states, the erosion of the tax base, and the transfer of profits have all revealed the weaknesses of a traditional tax system that has reached its limits, and how numerous states and groups of states have joined efforts in creating a new international tax system designed to restore fairness and stability in the levying of taxes worldwide. Increased competition among governments for revenues and investment has led to a 'tax war', with some countries? rates and policies potentially conflicting with international projects such as base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). Over the past few decades, the concentration of wealth and property in the hands of a few has been facilitated by tax evasion, tax avoidance, and above all by tax competition. Fortunately, a determined move toward international cooperation among tax authorities is gathering its forces for the battle

The federal government devotes over a trillion dollars each year to tax provisions that pursue "nontax" goals, such as the deduction for mortgage interest and the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance. Scaling back these "tax expenditures" should be a high priority, as many have urged. Yet too often, the same limit is suggested for a broad range of tax expenditures. In the 2013 budget deal, for instance, Congress revived a single limit on all itemized deductions called the "Pease rule." In 2012, both presidential candidates proposed their own one-size-fits-all limit. In the same year, the United Kingdom imposed a single cap on all personal deductions. Likewise, the Bowles-Simpson Commission, Martin Feldstein, Edward Kleinbard, and other distinguished commentators have each recommended their own version of uniform treatment.

AbstractWhat does the work on tax expenditures over, the last decade imply about the better design of evaluations in this area? The tax expenditure evaluations are compared against a simple but sturdy general framework for conducting results evaluations that looks at target populations; the treatment, program, or policy; the response variable; how relative effects are estimated; and what happens when no effects are discovered.

SummaryThis paper examines the tax administrative burden and its effect on new firm formation. It is well recognized that entrepreneurship and new firm formation are critical factors in determining economic growth and development. New firm entry into the marketplace enhances welfare in two distinct ways: 1) by promoting innovation, productivity and economic growth and 2) by increasing competition, which lowers prices and expands output. It is also well documented that barriers to entry reduce the likelihood that new firms will enter various sectors. We argue that the burden imposed by tax codes and tax compliance constitutes a barrier to entry that has been neglected in the previous literature. We use data from the World Bank to measure the administrative burden that the complexity of tax policy imposes on new firms. Additionally, we use a measure of new firm formation – entry density. Our data cover 118 countries over a period of six years. We find that the entry rate is significantly reduced by the tax administrative burden and that this effect is unrelated to general taxes on corporate profits and is robust to the inclusion of several important control variables.

The federal government devotes over a trillion dollars each year to tax provisions that pursue "nontax" goals. Scaling back these tax expenditures should be a high priority. Yet one-size-fits-all limits are often proposed, and are not good policy. Each tax expenditure generates its own mix of positive externalities and private benefits (or "programmatic benefits"). To choose the right limit, we should consider what programmatic benefits we would lose. The goal should be to reap programmatic benefits at lower cost. Different strategies are appropriate for each tax expenditure, including: tightening the definition of favored conduct; focusing on claimants who are easiest to motivate; favoring claimants who use the subsidy more effectively; calibrating how much favored activity we subsidize; and changing the government agency that administers the subsidy. We also should account for excess burden and distribution. Does repeal or a limit influence labor or savings decisions? Does it affect planning and administrative costs? Does it bring is closer to the distribution we want? In addition to proposing this three-part framework for limiting tax expenditures, which focuses on programmatic benefits, excess burden, and distribution, this Article also analyzes seven different limits. They have very different effects. For example, a "cap" eliminates the subsidy for high levels of favored activity. In contrast, a "floor" disallows the subsidy for low levels. "Haircuts," "maximum fractions," and "phaseouts" preserve the subsidy for both high and low levels of favored activity, but in weakened form. Each limit offers a different mix of strengths and weaknesses, making it a better fit for some tax expenditures than others. Like limits, tax expenditures also vary in systematic ways. This Article identifies an important distinction among them. For some tax expenditures, marginal benefits vary only with the activity level of all claimants in the aggregate; for others, marginal benefits also vary with the activity level of each claimant. When we subsidize green energy, for instance, the aggregate is our main concern; the goal is to replace as much carbon-based energy as possible, and it matters less who is doing so (as long as they do it well enough). In contrast, when we subsidize health insurance, we care a lot about how much insurance each individual has. The difference between what this Article calls "aggregate" subsidies (like green energy) and "individually-based" subsidies (like health insurance) can influence the type of limit we want. For example, caps are likely to be a better fit for individually-based subsidies than aggregate ones, since we care more about how much each claimant claims. This Article also makes a number of other recommendations, including: first, the subsidy rate often should vary for different tax expenditures; second, instead of using "basket limits" that govern a group of tax expenditures, we should tailor a separate limit for each one; and third, the subsidy rate often should vary with income.

In his Keynote Address "Death Tax" Politics at the October 2, 2015 Boston College Law School and American College of Trust and Estate Counsel Symposium, The Centennial of the Estate and Gift Tax: Perspectives and Recommendations, Michael Graetz describes the fight over the repeal of the estate tax and its current diminished state. Graetz argues that the political battle over the repeal of the estate tax reflects a fundamental challenge to our nation's progressive tax system. This Address concludes that a revitalized estate tax is important for managing the national debt and reducing massive inequalities in wealth.

After brief individual presentations, panelists discuss among themselves and with the audience a broad spectrum of issues regarding various taxes and tax reform proposals. The discussion includes such issues as privatizing Social Security and Medicare, eliminating income tax withholding, and the merits and demerits of income taxes, consumption taxes, value added taxes, sales taxes, and taxes on resources that have an inelastic supply. One panelist relates his recent experiences using his tools as an economist to deal with tax and related issues as a current member of the Canadian Parliament. Another cites practical problems of implementing tax reform from his long experience advising governments, especially in Latin America. A major focus of the exchange of views is on public choice problems involved in passing and implementing a so‐called flat tax. However, the discussion also deals with economic efficiency and equity considerations and with nearly all other types of taxes. The discussion includes not only the impact on the country within which tax reform occurs, but international implications, as well.