Mostrando postagens com marcador impostos. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador impostos. Mostrar todas as postagens

quarta-feira, julho 24, 2013

Marcha contra o manicômio tributário

Rodrigo Constantino

Paulo Rabello de Castro, um dos "herdeiros" intelectuais do saudoso Roberto Campos, tem lutado a boa luta, contra este "manicômio tributário" que é nosso país. Em artigo hoje no Estadão, o economista faz uma análise interessante das manifestações recentes que tomaram as ruas do Brasil. Ele diz:

Ao marchar contra as sedes e os palácios de governos, em Brasília e em várias capitais, até mesmo contra prefeituras, deixando intactas as sedes de empresas, fábricas e templos, fica muito claro que a raiva do povo está concentrada em algo contido no trajeto entre o que o cidadão paga pelo funcionamento do País e o que recebe de volta em serviços do Estado, diretos ou concedidos.

O País vive na ditadura econômica do Estado e seu braço operacional é o sistema tributário e fiscal. Por ser complexa e abusiva, a tributação e o desperdício a ela associado se tornaram sucedâneos do autoritarismo político, ainda que camuflado pela legalidade formal das medidas provisórias (MPs), de regulamentos e circulares.

[...]

As desonerações pontuais não estabelecem um novo pacto social. É preciso dar o passo decisivo, alterar a Constituição no seu capítulo tributário, simplificando radicalmente o manicômio tributário em que se converteu o sistema atual. A reforma "fatiada" dos impostos fracassou sem ter, de fato, ao menos começado. E, por óbvio, a gestão fiscal das despesas públicas é uma tragédia completa. Aí está o nó da questão social.

[...]

Meditemos. O caráter de exploração desmedida do poder público no manicômio tributário desdobra-se em cada movimento diário do cidadão, no transporte, na casa, no trabalho, na escola, no entretenimento, até quando ele dorme! E atinge o futuro das pessoas, pela extração forçada das poupanças populares sem o lastro adequado para sua reposição no futuro. A má gestão fiscal dos recursos tributários, quando estes se transformam em despesa pública, é diretamente questionada pelo clamor das ruas. O povo quer saber por que tantos bilhões vertidos para educação, saúde e transporte viram pó antes de chegarem ao suposto beneficiário do serviço. Onde foi parar tanto dinheiro? A gestão fiscal do Estado brasileiro não tem respondido a uma pergunta central: por que o Congresso Nacional tem elevado tão agressivamente os impostos extraídos da população desde o Plano Real, se os serviços públicos vêm recuando em quantidade e qualidade? Qual o benefício prático de pagarmos cada vez mais? E quem cobra eficiência na gestão do dinheiro arrecadado?

São perguntas mais que pertinentes; são fundamentais! E Paulo Rabello de Castro não se limita a apontar o que está errado; ele tem liderado um esforço enorme, com a ajuda de empresários do renome de Jorge Gerdau, para alterar esse "manicômio tributário" e trazer mais racionalidade ao nosso sistema arrecadatório. 

O projeto do Movimento Brasil Eficiente é viável politicamente, pois tenta distribuir as perdas provenientes da redução tributária proposta ao longo do tempo e entre as diferentes esferas públicas. Paulo conclui:

A presente ditadura tributária está sendo contestada pela população. Temos a obrigação moral de fazer o clamor das ruas avançar e virar um debate transformador. É estimulante constatar que o País não é desmiolado nem invertebrado. Se o governo não quiser naufragar, deveria tentar os avanços definitivos, não os remendos. 

terça-feira, julho 23, 2013

Brasil: um país para ricos

Rodrigo Constantino

Uma matéria do NYT tem circulado bastante nas redes sociais hoje, mostrando como as coisas são caras no Brasil. Nada que não soubéssemos, mas é sempre bom ver os gringos expondo essa nossa triste realidade; aumenta a pressão por mudanças.

Quer comprar um Galaxy da Samsung? Terá que pagar o dobro do valor pago pelo americano, lembrando que a renda média lá é quatro vezes maior. Ajustando, portanto, para esse fato, podemos concluir que um brasileiro médio paga oito vezes mais para obter o device. Luxo? Na era da informação, estamos falando de produtividade!

As comparações seguem humilhando os brasileiros. Tok & Stok versus Ikea, por exemplo. Eu sou do tempo em que a Tok & Stok era loja barata. Hoje, quando preciso de algo para a casa, sou forçado a lembrar de como tudo é absurdamente caro por aqui.

A reportagem mostra que até uma simples pizza de queijo pode custar US$ 30. Com esse valor, é possível comer em um restaurante bem razoável nos States. Como somos ricos, não? A inflação alta tem piorado o que já era ruim. Com mais informação disponível na era da internet, e com mais gente tendo acesso a ela, essa discrepância ridícula produz mais revolta em mais gente.

O Brasil é um país bastante fechado ainda, com impostos escandinavos, e péssima infraestrutura. Isso tudo explica tanta diferença nos preços. Somos obrigados a pagar valores astronômicos por produtos que os estrangeiros compram por uma parcela do preço. Lembrando, sempre, que eles são bem mais ricos do que nós...

Até quando vamos aguentar isso? Até quando as autoridades e o governo vão explorar o povo brasileiro dessa forma abjeta? Precisamos de um choque de liberalismo no Brasil. Chega de bancar o otário dessa forma. 

segunda-feira, junho 10, 2013

Avaaz ser comuna assim em Cuba!

Rodrigo Constantino

A Avaaz, ONG petista que faz petições bem seletivas, atacou novamente. Dessa vez ela quer "justiça social" por mais impostos, de forma bem sensacionalista. Eis o que diz a propaganda da nova petição:

Neste final de semana, os governos do mundo vão discutir sobre a possibilidade de tapar um buraco gigantesco de 1 trilhão de dólares anuais em evasão de impostos por grandes empresas. É dinheiro suficiente para acabar com a pobreza, colocar todas as crianças do mundo em escolas e duplicar os investimentos em tecnologias verdes! A maioria dos governos quer que as multinacionais poderosas paguem estes impostos, mas os EUA e o Canadá estão em cima do muro. Para conseguirmos um acordo, precisamos garantir que eles sintam a nossa pressão.

1 trilhão de dólares é mais do que todos os países do mundo gastam com forças armadas. É um valor maior que o orçamento de 176 nações. São 1.000 dólares para cada família que habita neste planeta. E, acreditem ou não, é a quantidade de dinheiro que as maiores empresas e as pessoas mais ricas do mundo sonegam anualmente.

Não há o que discutir! Para aumentar nossas finanças públicas em uma era de cortes dolorosos e dívidas, tudo o que precisamos fazer é garantir que todos paguem seus devidos impostos. Mas grandes empresas dos EUA estão fazendo um forte lobby para proteger suas práticas suspeitas. Uma enorme campanha pública vai ajudar a identificar e responsabilizar Obama e Harper, primeiro ministro canadense, que consideram se aliar com a corrupção ao invés de dar esse gigante passo para o avanço do planeta. Vamos unir 1 milhão de vozes -- então a Avaaz entregará nosso apelo aos líderes de governo e à imprensa presente no local das negociações

Em seguida, o caso da Apple é trazido à tona para convencer o desavisado leitor: "A Apple, uma das empresas mais ricas do mundo, pagou basicamente 0 de imposto, dos 78 bilhões de dólares que eles ganharam nos últimos anos, por meio da criação de empresas de fachada em países com uma carga de imposto leve e enviando os lucros para o exterior. Esse tipo de sonegação de impostos em escala global dá às firmas multinacionais uma grande vantagem sobre as empresas nacionais. Isso é ruim para a saúde do mercado econômico, para a democracia e para a estabilidade financeira mundial."  Depois vem mais desinformação, nutrida pela ideologia de esquerda da turma:

Mas, em questão de dias, os governos vão considerar um plano que poderá tornar mais difícil para empresas e indivíduos sonegarem impostos usando paraísos fiscais ou "abrigos fiscais", onde a carga de impostos é mais baixa. O plano exigiria que países compartilhassem informações para expor onde o dinheiro está escondido e que as empresas "falsas" revelassem quem realmente está por trás delas. Se as negociações correrem bem nesta semana, o G8 pode chegar a um acordo sobre o tema até o final do mês.

Em tempos difíceis, quando governos de todas as partes do mundo estão cortando os gastos com prioridades sociais vitais, é bastante revoltante que os mais ricos tenham passe livre para não pagar os seus impostos. (Ainda mais quando os tempos difíceis foram causados por enormes repasses financeiros para resgatar os bancos, cujos donos são essas mesmas pessoas que sonegam impostos). Os governos finalmente estão levando a sério a opção de tapar esses buracos existentes em nossas finanças, mas os EUA e o Canadá estão caindo nas mãos dos poderosos lobistas do mundo dos negócios.

Uma petição pública com uma cobertura gigante da mídia vai ajudar a dar destaque aos países que estão bloqueando o acordo, e transformar isso em uma questão política para Obama e Harper. Um forte clamor de pessoas de todos os cantos do mundo em busca de melhores condições de vida em nosso planeta, ao invés da manutenção de brechas de corrupção, também vai ajudar estes líderes a consultar suas consciências e chegar ao bom senso. Não podemos deixar que os lobistas nos derrotem! Vamos chamar a atenção da opinião pública para essa decisão que pode mudar o rumo do nosso planeta.

Não! Não se trata de sonegação fiscal ou corrupção coisa alguma! O que a Apple fez chama-se "planejamento tributário" dentro da legalidade. Sim, é verdade que as grandes empresas se beneficiam mais dessas brechas, pois podem pagar pelos melhores tributaristas e possuem escala global. Mas isso é justamente um dos efeitos nefastos do "welfare state": ele pune as menores empresas e favorece a vida dos grandes grupos.

O problema está, como o senador Rand Paul disse, na magnitude desses impostos. Claro que as empresas vão fazer de tudo para pagar menos impostos. Isso é absolutamente legítimo! Os políticos fazem o mesmo, os artistas e intelectuais da esquerda caviar idem. Ninguém gosta de pagar mais impostos! Isso é balela de esquerdista, essa coisa de "comprar cidadania", de "contribuinte", como se pagar impostos fosse a coisa mais linda do mundo. 

O imposto é um mal necessário para manter a própria liberdade e garantir a proteção da propriedade privada, ou seja, para o governo executar suas funções precípuas. A carga tributária já está em patamares muito acima desse limite razoável há décadas, no mundo todo, especialmente nos países com pesado estado de bem-estar social. Aí os governos resolvem atacar o sintoma, quando as empresas buscam se proteger dessa sanha arrecadatória em paraísos fiscais. Errado!

É preciso atacar a raiz do problema, qual seja, a elevadíssima tributação, muitas vezes complexa, o que novamente prejudica ainda mais as menores empresas. Precisamos de menos impostos, e impostos mais simples, como o "flat tax". Dessa forma, ninguém precisaria partir em busca de paraísos fiscais. Mas não esperem esta bandeira sendo defendida em alguma petição da Avaaz. Fosse por essa ONG, o mundo todo seria uma enorme Cuba!

quinta-feira, maio 23, 2013

Concorrência entre governos faz bem

Rodrigo Constantino

“Nós não podemos aceitar que certo número de companhias se coloque em situações para evitar o pagamento de impostos de maneira legal. Nós devemos coordenar ações em nível europeu, harmonizar nossas regras e apresentar estratégias para acabar com essa prática”, disse o presidente socialista francês, François Hollande. O assunto veio à tona após a descoberta de que a Apple teria usado mecanismos legais para reduzir o pagamento de impostos.

O que queria o socialista? Que as empresas não tentassem minimizar pelas vias legais seus pesados impostos para sustentar o falido “welfare state” e as boquinhas de políticos? Ou talvez que usassem meios ilegais para tanto, como fazem justamente poderosos políticos, alguns apontados em escândalos recentes dentro do próprio governo Hollande?

Certo está o senador Republicano Rand Paul, que fez um duro ataque ao próprio Congresso americano, em defesa da Apple. Ele questionou se algum membro do Parlamento ali presente, por acaso, não fazia o que era possível pela lei para pagar menos impostos. Depois, lembrou que o grande responsável por isso são os próprios políticos, que criam inúmeros impostos e gastam US$ 4 trilhões dos “contribuintes”. “Querem um culpado pela situação? Que tragam um enorme espelho para o Congresso”, clamou corajosamente Rand Paul.

Quando empresas atuam num ambiente de livre concorrência, o maior beneficiado é sempre o consumidor. Afinal, a empresa precisa buscar sempre maior eficiência para sobreviver, e isso normalmente implica em menores preços finais, decorrentes dos ganhos de produtividade.

Curiosamente, esta lógica não se aplica à concorrência entre governos, segundo muitos economistas. Eles chamam de “guerra fiscal” a competição entre governos na busca por investimentos produtivos, deixando claro o tom negativo da disputa. Por trás disso, reside uma mentalidade de que menos imposto é algo ruim, ou seja, que recursos nas mãos do governo são mais bem utilizados que nas mãos privadas. Não há nem lógica econômica, nem evidência empírica para sustentar esta visão.

A globalização tem gerado incríveis avanços para a humanidade. Entre eles, uma das grandes mudanças positivas é justamente a maior competição entre governos. Com a maior mobilidade de capitais, as empresas podem transferir suas sedes para qualquer nação, mantendo a produção nos países mais competitivos. Isso força uma busca por maior eficiência por parte dos governos, levando a menores impostos e burocracia, caso contrário haverá grande perda de investimentos.

O federalismo dentro de um país é algo bom. Gera concorrência entre estados e o eleitor pode votar com o pé. A mesma lógica se aplica em nível global, entre países. Governos gastam muito mal, pois os incentivos não são adequados, e a corrupção é sempre maior. Portanto, qualquer coisa que contribua para reduzir a receita tributária é positiva, pois somente isso vai impor limites nos gastos públicos.

Nesse contexto, fica claro que o termo “guerra fiscal” só interessa mesmo aos consumidores de impostos, não aos seus pagadores. Faz mais sentido falar em “competição fiscal”, e todos os consumidores sabem que a competição é seu maior aliado. David Cameron, o primeiro-ministro conservador britânico, está certo quando diz: “Eu acredito em impostos baixos para os negócios, porque temos que encorajar investimentos. Eu quero que o Reino Unido seja vencedor na corrida global”.


Essa corrida é boa para todos, à exceção dos parasitas do estado. Hollande, como todo socialista, pensa o contrário: ele quer impedir a corrida, para que as lesmas paquidérmicas possam desfrutar do trabalho alheio sem o incômodo das ágeis lebres. Por isso detestam concorrência. A Apple merece nosso apoio; Hollande e demais socialistas, nosso repúdio. Viva a concorrência!

sexta-feira, junho 22, 2012

Teto elástico

Rodrigo Constantino, para o Instituto Liberal

O escárnio parece não ter fim. Esta semana, uma comissão especial da Câmara dos Deputados aprovou uma proposta de emenda constitucional (PEC) que, na prática, acaba com o teto salarial para o funcionalismo, que hoje está em R$ 26.700 mensais (em um país com renda per capita na casa dos R$ 2 mil mensais). A PEC ainda precisa ser aprovada no plenário da Câmara e no Senado.

Para Raul Velloso, essa proposta “tem um efeito semelhante ao de abrir uma tampa de uma chaleira, que está prestes a explodir”. Os marajás de Brasília nunca descansam quando o assunto é a expansão do butim da coisa pública. Isso sem falar que cerca de quatro mil servidores, políticos e magistrados dos três Poderes já ganham acima do teto, segundo o site Congresso em Foco. Subterfúgios como verbas extras fora do cálculo do teto explicam este absurdo.

O abuso da classe parasitária é tão escancarado no Brasil que seria compreensível a defesa da desobediência civil por parte dos hospedeiros explorados. Pagar todos os impostos nesse país é financiar esta pouca vergonha, e os políticos e seus apaniguados não demonstram um pingo de semancol. O teto salarial dos burocratas e governantes é tão elástico que mais parece uma lona de circo. O problema é que os palhaços somos nós, os pagadores de impostos obrigados a bancar a farra.

***

Morreu ontem Anna Schwartz, a co-autora do clássico sobre a história monetária dos Estados Unidos com o Prêmio Nobel Milton Friedman. Apesar de Ben Bernanke, o presidente do Fed, enaltecer as lições sobre a Crise de 29 extraídas da obra, Anna Schwartz foi uma crítica das medidas do Fed nos últimos anos, pelo excesso de afrouxamento monetário. Ela morreu com 96 anos. Que descanse em paz.

sexta-feira, maio 25, 2012

Liberdade, Liberdade

Rodrigo Constantino, para o Instituto Liberal

Prezado leitor, estimada leitora, peço que você faça agora um exercício de memória voltando ao primeiro dia deste ano de 2012. Lembre de cada ida ao trabalho, que poderia ser um dia de folga, com a família, com um bom livro ou filme. Pense naquelas broncas todas que o chefe deu, na quantidade de sapo que você foi obrigado a engolir para manter seu emprego.

Lembre ainda aquela perda enorme de tempo nas filas do transporte coletivo, ou no engarrafamento dentro de seu carro, porque falta transporte coletivo decente. Pense ainda nos desafios que você teve de enfrentar no trabalho em janeiro, fevereiro, março, abril e maio, nos momentos em que você quase desanimou, mas teve que arregaçar as mangas e seguir em frente.

Pronto. Agora você já pode ficar sabendo que foi tudo isso em vão! Sei que pareço cruel, mas é que a verdade precisa ser dita. Todo esse esforço homérico, esse tempo dedicado ao trabalho em vez do lazer, ele foi a fundo perdido. Até agora, caro leitor, tudo isso serviu apenas para pagar as mamatas dos políticos, os esquemas corruptos dos governantes e seus apaniguados.

Sabe o escândalo do Cachoeira? Lembra do mensalão do PT? Pois é, de onde você acha que saiu a grana para tudo isso? Os invasores do MST, os anistiados terroristas comunistas, os funcionários públicos cheios de privilégios, os sindicalistas, os subsídios bilionários para as empresas amigas do rei, tudo isso demanda muita verba. Na verdade, quase 40% de tudo que é produzido no país, e que seu trabalho faz parte.

A partir de hoje você começa a trabalhar para você mesmo, e não mais para Brasília e para seu governo estadual. Agora você vai labutar para pagar tudo aquilo que supostamente o governo deveria oferecer para cobrar tanto imposto.

Mas não entre em desespero, nem comece a me xingar. Hoje é sexta-feira! É dia de cerveja com os amigos! Ops, preciso fechar com mais uma lembrança chata. Um certo “amigo” vai com você nessa "chopada" mesmo sem convite. É o fiscal da Receita, que leva mais da metade de cada gole que você der na bebida. Não vá com tanta sede ao pote, pois ele custa caro graças ao governo.

Amanhã, entretanto, será outro dia. Liberdade, liberdade!

quarta-feira, fevereiro 29, 2012

A carga tributária sobre o cidadão

Editorial de O Globo

Esta época do ano, em que as pessoas físicas acertam as contas com a Receita Federal, bem simbolizada na antiga propaganda oficial pela figura imponente e temida de um leão, costuma ser tempo de mau humor. Não é preciso entender de tributos para perceber - ou melhor, sentir no bolso - o aperto do torniquete tributário, sempre mais doloroso para assalariados que recolhem na fonte e com poucas ou nenhuma possibilidade de dedução do imposto já pago.

É conhecido o processo de aumento avassalador da carga de tributos ocorrida nos últimos 17 anos, período em que tucanos e petistas compartilharam o poder em Brasília. Em grande números, foram expropriados da sociedade, em impostos, dez pontos percentuais de PIB adicionais. E assim a carga está hoje na faixa de 36% do PIB, bastante acima da taxa de países desenvolvidos (Estados Unidos e Japão, por exemplo), bem como de economias emergentes equiparáveis ao Brasil.

Estudo da consultoria Ernst & Young Terco, feito sob encomenda do GLOBO, chegou aos números do desconforto sentido por parte da população brasileira, obrigada a trabalhar quatro meses apenas para alimentar o Leão. O levantamento considerou os dados oficiais sobre o imposto de renda retido na fonte e o IR da pessoa física, de 2002 a 2011. Incluem-se no levantamento rendimentos do trabalho e o produto da venda de imóveis e veículos.

Nestes dez anos, enquanto o volume de dinheiro arrecadado junto às pessoas físicas dobrou - de R$ 44,9 bilhões para R$ 90,7 bilhões -, o total coletado pela Receita nos demais contribuintes aumentou 72,2%. Ou seja, o peso dos impostos ficou maior sobre as pessoas físicas do que em geral. E, com isso, o que saiu da renda do cidadão para o Tesouro aumentou a participação relativa sobre o bolo total da arrecadação: passou de 11% para 13%.

O assalariado que recolhe imposto na fonte passou a ser um refém de fácil ordenha por uma Receita Federal cada vez mais automatizada, capaz, dizem, de bisbilhotar despesas registradas no mundo digital. Até a distribuição de alíquotas, no Brasil, tem graves distorções. A mais elevada, de 27,5%, por exemplo, incide sobre renda mais baixa do que ocorre nos Estados Unidos, Inglaterra, Chile, Argentina, China e Colômbia.

Uma das marcas do sistema tributário brasileiro, entre várias distorções, é a injustiça social, porque, via impostos indiretos, pessoas com renda baixa recolhem proporcionalmente mais que extratos de renda mais elevada. A constatação costuma levar a conclusões equivocadas, como a de que é preciso, então, aumentar o imposto sobre os rendimentos mais altos.

Como a carga tributária está elevada para todos, seriam criadas mais distorções. O caminho indicado é aproveitar a fase de crescimento do bolo da arrecadação para calibrar para baixo a carga tributária e tratar de ampliar a base de contribuintes - mais gente pagando, paga-se menos.

Porém, como a visão ideológica em vigor é que cabe ao Estado ser o grande repartidor das rendas da sociedade, o céu passa a ser o limite para a coleta de impostos. Claro que, deste ponto de vista, não estão em questão os serviços de má qualidade que o poder público dá em troca da extorsão tributária.

quinta-feira, janeiro 26, 2012

The Buffett Ruse


Editorial do WSJ

Obama's ploy means the highest capital gains tax rate since 1978

Remember the moment in 2008 when Charlie Gibson of ABC News asked Senator Barack Obama why he would support raising the capital gains tax even though "revenues from the tax increased" when the rate fell? Mr. Obama's famous reply: "I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." Well, we were warned.

Here we are four years later, and President Obama on Tuesday night linked the term "fair" to U.S. tax and economic policy seven times. The U.S. economy is still hobbling out of recession, real family incomes are falling and 14 million Americans are unemployed, but Mr. Obama declared that his top priority is not to reform the tax code to promote growth and job creation. His overriding goal is redistributing income.

Mr. Obama endorsed the political ruse he calls the Buffett rule, which asserts as a matter of moral principle that millionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than middle-class wage earners. Specifically, Mr. Obama is proposing that anyone earning more than $1 million pay at least 30% of that income to Uncle Barack.

The White House says that if a millionaire household's effective tax rate falls below 30%, it would have to pay a surcharge—in essence a new Super Alternative Minimum Tax—to bring the tax liability to 30%. For those facing this new Super AMT, all deductions and exemptions would be eliminated except for charity.

The Buffett rule is rooted in the fairy tale that taxes on the wealthy are lower than on the middle class. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office notes that the effective income tax rate of the richest 1% is about 29.5% when including all federal taxes such as the distribution of corporate taxes, or about twice the 15.1% paid by middle-class families. (See "How Much the Rich Pay," January 23, 2012.)

This is because wealthy tax filers make most of their income from investments. Such income is taxed once at the corporate rate of 35% and again when it is passed through to the individual as a capital gain or dividend at 15%, for a highest marginal tax rate of about 44.75%.

This double taxation is one reason the U.S. has long had a differential tax rate for capital gains. Another reason is because while taxpayers must pay taxes on their gains, they aren't allowed to deduct capital losses (beyond $3,000 a year) except against gains in the current year. Capital gains also aren't indexed for inflation, so a lower rate is intended to offset the effect of inflated gains.

One implication of the Buffett rule is that all millionaire investment income would be taxed at the shareholder level at a minimum rate of 30%, up from 15% today. The tax rate on investment income from corporations would rise to 54.5% from 44.75%, a punitive tax on start-up or expanding businesses.

The new 30% capital gains rate would be the developed world's third highest behind only Denmark and Chile, according to the American Council for Capital Formation. This is on top of the 35% corporate rate that is already the second highest rate in the world after Japan. That giant sucking sound you hear come January 2013 would be hundreds of billions of investment dollars fleeing to China, India, Korea and other U.S. competitors. Lower capital investment in the U.S. means less wage growth, and so the people hurt most by this tax hike would be workers, according to a study by the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation.

Mr. Obama conceded on Tuesday that the high U.S. corporate tax is an economic loser. Yet he misses the crucial point that business owners assess the combined corporate and capital gains tax on those business profits. Lowering the corporate tax rate makes the U.S. more competitive, but the tax change is self-defeating if it is combined with an even larger rise in investment income taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Mr. Obama isn't setting himself apart merely from conservatives with this Buffett ploy. He is rejecting 35 years of bipartisan tax policy that began with the passage of the Steiger Amendment by a Democratic Congress that cut the capital-gains rate to 28% from 35% in 1978.

As the nearby chart shows, the rate has never since risen above 28%, and the last time it moved that high was in 1986 as part of the Reagan-Rostenkowski tax reform that also cut the top marginal income tax rate to 28% from 50%. With income-tax rates so low, a differential was arguably less necessary—though it's worth noting that capital gains revenues fell dramatically after that rate increase.

A decade later Bill Clinton agreed to cut the rate back to 20% as part of the balanced-budget deal with Newt Gingrich. Capital gains revenues soared, helping to balance the federal budget. Nearly every study estimates that the revenue-maximizing tax rate from the capital gains tax is between 15% and 28%. Doug Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, says that a 30% tax rate "is almost surely above the rate that maximizes tax revenues." So it's likely the Buffett trick would lose revenue for the government.

Yet in a time of the highest deficits since World War II, Mr. Obama wants to double the capital gains tax rate even as he raises the top income-tax rate to 42% or so. Mr. Obama really is taking us back to the worst habits of the 1970s. And not because he thinks higher rates will raise revenue, but merely so he can score points against Mitt Romney and stick it to the successful.

This isn't tax fairness. It's tax folly.

quarta-feira, dezembro 21, 2011

Want Growth? Try Stable Tax Policy


By JOHN B. TAYLOR, WSJ

The two-month payroll tax cut being debated in Washington reduces to the absurd the recent revival of short-term Keynesian stimulus programs. That such a temporary cut would stimulate the recovery and get employment growing defies common sense.

There is no hard evidence that the temporary payroll tax cut of this year stimulated the economy, and another one for the first two months of next year will obviously do even less. In fact, economic growth declined after this year's temporary tax cut was implemented, so proponents need to appeal to dubious "things-would-have-been-worse" arguments.

Like the one-time rebate of 2001, the temporary tax cut of 2008, the cash-for-clunkers and stimulus payments of 2009, or similar policies tried back in the 1970s, these temporary policies consistently fail to stimulate sustainable recoveries. And as this history shows, extending the temporary reduction from two months to six months or even to 12 months would be at best a marginal improvement.

Even economists who claim that these policies stimulate—such as those at forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers—admit that they cost jobs as they are turned off, leaving the recovery no better off. Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney are right to call the payroll tax scheme, respectively, a "temporary gimmick" and "just a Band-Aid."

But the policies are worse than doing nothing at all. Rather than stimulate the economy, they hold the economy back by creating policy unpredictability and by distracting Washington from crucial long-term reforms that are key to restoring economic growth and creating jobs.

Indeed, this type of temporary tax change is making the entire tax system unpredictable. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the payroll tax cut is only one of 84 tax provisions expiring this year, about the same as in 2009 and in 2010. This is 10 times greater than the number of provisions that expired in 1999. As shown in a paper presented this October by economists Scott Baker and Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University and Steven Davis of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, this increase in policy uncertainty is one of the factors slowing economic growth.

Many of these temporary changes, such as the "three year depreciation for race horses two years old or younger," serve special interests, illustrating their unfairness and economic inefficiency as well as unpredictability. The "temporary and targeted" mantra in support of stimulus packages has wrought an on-again, off-again discretionary fiscal policy in which Congress puts virtually the whole tax system up for grabs each year.

Some claim that such policy unpredictability is not a problem, arguing that an obvious lack of demand rather than policy uncertainty is holding the economy back. But demand is low in part because firms are reluctant to hire workers or invest long term not knowing what tax rates and other provisions will be. Demand for investment will increase if policy unpredictability is reduced. And consumption demand will increase if workers' incomes increase on a more permanent basis, which requires a sustainable recovery with much lower unemployment, not the current short-termism of stimulus packages.

Others say that these temporary stimulus policies actually work by pointing to the Reagan tax cuts. But the 1980s tax cuts were not temporary—they lowered tax rates permanently, and that is why they were so effective.

Extending the payroll tax cut from two months to six or 12 months does not reduce policy uncertainty by much. People who now say that we need another temporary tax cut to avoid a devastating tax hike will certainly say the same thing at the end of those six or 12 months, creating the same partisan debates and unpredictability and also raising serious doubts about the future of Social Security, which is of course funded from the payroll tax.

A more promising and lasting approach would be to take on payroll tax reform as part of Social Security reform. Though not feasible in the last two weeks of the year, taking a small step in that direction would be a big positive step for the economy.

Currently there is significant debate over whether Social Security can be reformed without a future increase in the payroll tax. Many of the reform proposals put forth last year by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in its report on "Social Security Policy Options" call for such an increase. So it is not surprising that many firms and workers expect a permanent increase in the payroll tax down the road, regardless of temporary measures. A credible bipartisan agreement not to include a payroll tax increase as part of future Social Security reform would effectively be a permanent tax cut.

There are many reforms that do not require a tax increase. One, put forth by the CBO in its report, would simply keep real benefits adjusted for inflation from rising in the future as they are now expected to do. In this "golden rule" reform, each generation transfers to the next generation the same real benefit that it received from previous generations.

There are other reforms worth considering, including shifting future benefits toward those with lower lifetime earnings. But the point is to take some action now that creates more policy predictability and thereby brings about a robust sustainable recovery.

Mr. Taylor, a professor of economics at Stanford and a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, is the author of "First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America's Prosperity" out next month by W.W. Norton.

quarta-feira, setembro 28, 2011

País dos impostos complicados

Editorial do Estadão

O Brasil é campeão mundial de complicação no pagamento de impostos e contribuições. O peso dos encargos - dos mais altos do mundo - é só um dos problemas suportados pelas empresas, quando têm de cuidar da tributação. Além de pesados, os tributos são incompatíveis com a inserção global da economia, porque encarecem toda a atividade empresarial, desde o investimento em máquinas e instalações até a exportação ou a venda final no mercado interno. Tanto no exterior quanto no País, o produtor nacional fica em desvantagem diante do concorrente estrangeiro. Essas características bastariam para fazer do sistema brasileiro um dos piores do planeta. Mas há mais que isso.

As companhias gastam muitas horas de trabalho só para acompanhar e decifrar as mudanças de regras e para seguir todos os trâmites necessários ao cumprimento de suas obrigações. É muita mão de obra desperdiçada numa atividade custosa e sem retorno, tanto para a empresa como para a economia nacional.

As empresas brasileiras gastam em média 2.600 horas por ano com os procedimentos necessários para cumprir as normas tributárias. Isso equivale a 325 jornadas de 8 horas. Foi o pior desempenho nesse quesito identificado em pesquisa anual da consultoria PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) em colaboração com o Banco Mundial (Paying Taxes 2011). Segundo o levantamento, realizado em 183 países, o tempo médio gasto para o cumprimento das normas tributárias é de 282 horas, ou 35 dias de trabalho. O tempo despendido no Brasil é mais que o dobro do consumido no segundo país em pior situação, a Bolívia - 1.080 horas. No Chile, frequentemente classificado como o país mais competitivo da América Latina, gastam-se 316 horas. Na França, 132. Na Alemanha, 215. Nos Estados Unidos, 187. Na Índia, 258. Na China, segunda maior economia do mundo, 398.

O tempo consumido no Brasil para o cumprimento das obrigações se mantém desde 2006. Nesse período, houve reformas tributárias em 60% dos países cobertos pela pesquisa, os sistemas foram aperfeiçoados, tornaram-se menos onerosos e, além disso, os procedimentos foram simplificados. Na média, o peso dos tributos caiu 5%, o tempo de trabalho ficou cinco dias menor. Também houve redução no número de pagamentos efetuados. Na média, cerca de quatro recolhimentos foram eliminados.

Na China, a unificação de procedimentos contábeis e o maior uso de meios eletrônicos permitiram às empresas poupar 368 horas de trabalho e 26 pagamentos por ano. Na América Latina os procedimentos continuam complexos, mas, apesar disso, as empresas dedicam em média 385 horas à administração dos impostos, apenas 14,8% do tempo consumido no Brasil. Houve descomplicação das tarefas em vários países da região, segundo a pesquisa. No Brasil, as mudanças foram insignificantes. Quanto às economias mais avançadas, operam, de modo geral, com sistemas bem mais simples. Também isso contribui para a competitividade de suas empresas.

Pelo menos num ponto a situação brasileira é semelhante à da maior parte dos demais países. O imposto sobre valor agregado (IVA) complica sensivelmente os procedimentos administrativos das empresas. De modo geral, o pagamento do Imposto de Renda é muito menos trabalhoso que o recolhimento das várias contribuições e do IVA (no Brasil, Imposto sobre Circulação de Mercadorias e Serviços, ICMS, cobrado pelos Estados). A empresa brasileira gasta em média 736 horas para cuidar do Imposto de Renda, 490 para administrar os encargos trabalhistas e 1.374 para cumprir as normas dos impostos sobre consumo (principalmente dos Estados).

O caso do ICMS é especialmente complicado, porque as empresas têm de observar 27 legislações estaduais, com diferentes alíquotas, condições de recolhimento e incentivos. Se não houvesse várias outras, esta já seria uma excelente razão para a reforma do sistema. Conseguir o apoio dos governos estaduais, no entanto, tem sido um dos principais obstáculos à racionalização do sistema. Enquanto isso, outros países simplificam, reduzem a carga e ganham capacidade de competir.

terça-feira, setembro 27, 2011

Mr. Buffett's Tax Secrets

Editorial do WSJ

The least he can do is show Americans why he pays so little

Warren Buffett has forcefully injected himself into the U.S. political debate, with President Obama using the billionaire's anecdote that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary as a bludgeon in favor of raising taxes on millions of other Americans.

The Omaha stock-picker has every right to do so, and his foray may even do some good. His tax claim has already had the educational benefit of prompting the press to report that, as a general matter, the Buffett-Obama premise is false. CEOs don't typically pay lower rates than middle-class secretaries.

As data from the Internal Revenue Service make clear, the vast majority of those earning more than $1 million per year typically pay tax rates two to three times higher than people making less than $100,000. In 2008, the average tax rate for millionaires and above was 23.3% and for those earning between $30,000 and $50,000 it was 7.2%.

But the opportunity to educate the public would be even greater if Mr. Buffett would let everyone else in on his secrets of tax avoidance by releasing his tax returns. Going only by Mr. Buffett's unverified claims, his federal taxes in 2010 amounted to 17.4% of his taxable income, probably because much of his income was from capital gains and dividends. It's also likely that he took significant deductions for charitable donations. No doubt the millions of Americans who could end up paying more because of this claim would love to see the details.

Mr. Buffett also wrote in the New York Times that none of the other people in his office paid less than a 33% rate, and at least one colleague paid 41%. This suggests that Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway staff are the kind of folks the President would consider "rich." Mr. Obama might even call them "millionaires and billionaires" if some of them have annual incomes of more than $200,000.

We wouldn't want to violate their individual privacy, but since Mr. Buffett is using them to make a political point, perhaps he'd be willing to disclose the most important lines on their returns without disclosing their names. This too would be instructive.

To our knowledge Mr. Buffett hasn't publicly disclosed his own return beyond offering a peek to talk-show host Charlie Rose. If Mr. Buffett's anecdote is going to be the main political basis for rewriting the U.S. tax code, Americans have every right to know the basis for the anecdote. We called Berkshire Hathaway last week to see if Mr. Buffett would release his 2010 return, but we haven't heard back.

quinta-feira, setembro 22, 2011

Hunting the rich

The Economist

THE horns have sounded and the hounds are baying. Across the developed world the hunt for more taxes from the wealthy is on. Recent austerity budgets in France and Italy slapped 3% surcharges on those with incomes above €500,000 ($680,000) and €300,000 respectively. Britain’s Tories are under attack for even considering getting rid of Labour’s “temporary” 50% top rate of income tax on earnings of over £150,000 ($235,000). Now Barack Obama has produced a new deficit-reduction plan that aims its tax increases squarely at the rich, including a “Buffett rule” to ensure that no household making more than $1m a year pays a lower average tax rate than “middle-class” families do (Warren Buffett has pointed out that, despite being a billionaire, he pays a lower average tax rate than his secretary). Tapping the rich to close the deficit is “not class warfare”, argues Mr Obama. “It’s math.”

Actually, it’s not simply math (or indeed maths). The question of whether to tax the wealthy more depends on political judgments about the right size of the state and the appropriate role for redistribution. The maths says deficits could technically be tamed by spending cuts alone—as Mr Obama’s Republican opponents advocate. Class warfare may be a loaded term, but it captures a fundamental debate in Western societies: who should suffer for righting public finances?

In general, this newspaper’s instincts lie with small government and against ever higher taxation to pay for an unsustainable welfare state. We reject the notion, implicit in much of today’s debate, that higher tax rates on the wealthy are justified because of the finance industry’s role in the crunch: retribution is a poor rationale for taxation. Nor is the current pattern of contribution to the public purse obviously “unfair”: the richest 1% of Americans pay more than a quarter of all federal taxes (and fully 40% of income taxes), while taking less than 20% of pre-tax income. And knee-jerk rich-bashing, like Labour’s tax hike, seldom makes for good policy. High marginal tax rates discourage entrepreneurship, and no matter how much Mr Obama mentions “millionaires and billionaires”, higher taxes on them alone cannot close America’s deficit.

So the debate is poisonously skewed. But there are three good reasons why the wealthy should pay more tax—though not, by and large, in the ways that the rich world’s governments currently propose.

First, the West’s deficits should not be closed by spending cuts alone. Public spending should certainly take the brunt: there is plenty of scope to slim inefficient Leviathan, and studies of past deficit-cutting programmes suggest they work best when cuts predominate. Britain’s four-to-one ratio is about right. But, as that ratio implies, experience also argues that higher taxes should be part of the mix. In America the tax take is historically low after years of rate reductions. There, and elsewhere, tax rises need to bear some of the burden.

Second, there is a political argument for raising this new revenue from the rich. Spending cuts fall disproportionately on the less well-off; and, even before the crunch, median incomes were stagnating. Meanwhile, globalisation has been rewarding winners ever more generously. Voters’ support for ongoing austerity depends on a disproportionate share of any new revenue coming from the wealthy.

But how? So far most governments have focused on raising marginal income-tax rates, something most rich people respond to quickly (see article). Capitalists shift their income into less-taxed forms, such as capital gains; they move; they work less; they take fewer entrepreneurial risks. Even if it is hard to be sure how big these effects are, the size of the very top level seems to matter, so Britain’s 50% rate is more dangerous than Mr Obama’s proposal to raise America’s top federal income-tax rate from 35% to 39.6%. Somebody earning $1m pays more tax in London than any other financial capital—madness for a place with so many mobile rich people. The excuse that it was worse in the 1970s hardly inspires confidence.

Simpler, bolder, better

Given the rich world’s need for faster growth, governments should be wary of sharp tax increases—especially since they are unnecessary. Indeed, the third argument for raising more money from the rich is that it can be done not by increasing marginal tax rates, but by making the tax code more efficient.

The scope for doing so is most obvious in America, which relies far more than other countries on income taxes and has a mass of deductions on everything from interest payments on mortgages to employer-provided health care, so taxes are levied on a very narrow base. Getting rid of the deductions would simplify the code and raise as much as $1 trillion a year. Since the main beneficiaries of the deductions are the wealthy, richer folk would pay most of that. And since marginal rates would be untouched (or reduced), such a reform would do less to discourage them from creating wealth.

In Europe, where tax systems are more efficient, one option would be to shift more of the burden from income to property, which would collect more from the rich but have less impact on their willingness to take risks. The “mansion tax” proposed by Britain’s Liberal Democrats would thus do less damage than the 50% rate. And on both sides of the Atlantic there is room to narrow the gap between tax rates on salaries and bonuses and those on dividends and capital gains. That gap explains why Mr Buffett, most of whose income comes from capital gains and dividends, has a lower average tax rate than his secretary. It is also the one hedge funders and private-equity people have exploited to keep the billions they rake in.

There is a basic bargain to be had. Imagine a tax system which made the top rates on wages and capital more equal, and which eliminated virtually all deductions. To avoid taxing investments twice, such a system would get rid of corporate taxes. It would also allow for a much lower top rate of income tax. The result? A larger overall tax take from the rich, without hurting the dynamism of the economy. Now that would be worth blowing your horn about.

The Spend Now, Tax Later Jobs Bill

By ALAN REYNOLDS, WSJ

The president's "Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction" mainly hinges on persuading Congress to trade $447 billion in temporary payroll tax cuts and spending increases—the "jobs plan"—for permanent income-tax increases of $150 billion a year. Mr. Obama also calls on the 12-member congressional super committee to undertake "comprehensive tax reform," which he defines in peculiar fashion as trading lower deductions for higher rates.

According to the Sept. 19 White House fact sheet, "The President calls on [the super committee] to undertake comprehensive tax reform, and lays out five principles for it to follow: 1) lower tax rates; 2) cut wasteful loopholes and tax breaks; 3) reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion; 4) boost job creation and growth; and 5) comport with the "Buffett Rule" that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay."

But the administration's tax plan violates these principles. It raises rather than lowers tax rates, shrinks tax deductions to pay for more spending, makes no believable contribution to economic growth, has nothing specific to say about the Buffett Rule, and allocates a third of the proposed $1.5 trillion tax increase over the next decade to such miscellany as the temporary payroll tax break, more subsidies for state and local government jobs, and prolonged unemployment benefits.

Nearly all of Mr. Obama's new tax increases are identical to those in his failed budgets of 2011 and 2012. But the repackaging of stale ideas is partly concealed by intermingling the phasing-out of deductions and exemptions with allowing the Bush tax rates to expire, thus increasing the top two tax rates to 36% and 39.6% from 33% and 35%. This intermingling gives the false impression that $866 billion in projected additional revenue comes from raising the top tax rates alone.

The Treasury Department's more candid explanation of these same proposals in the 2011 budget estimated that raising the top two tax rates would bring in only an extra $36.4 billion a year from 2011 to 2020, which adds up to little more than $400 billion from 2012 to 2021. The administration's 2011 proposal to raise the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 20% from 15% on upper incomes was estimated to raise an even punier $10.5 billion a year. But the 3.8% surtax in ObamaCare already raised those tax rates to 18.8% to finance health-insurance subsidies, leaving no meaningful revenue from that source.

In other words, most of that large, $866 billion 10-year tax hike comes from phasing out personal exemptions and deductions. These are not "tax breaks that small businesses and middle-class families don't get," as the president claimed on Monday in his Rose Garden remarks. The phase-outs apply to the same exemptions and deductions enjoyed by those earning less than $250,000, including deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and state income taxes.

Mr. Obama's second biggest tax increase, supposedly worth $410 billion over 10 years according to the fact sheet, comes from further reducing "the value of itemized deductions and other tax preferences to 28% for those with high income." The phasing out itemized deductions for upper-income taxpayers would shrink those deductions by as much as 80%, so this additional cap would limit any remaining deductions to 28 cents on the dollar. The combination would be severe. Ask any charity.

As for corporate taxes, Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden that "We can lower the corporate rate if we get rid of all these special deals." But his plan does not include a lower corporate rate. Instead it earmarks the revenue from eliminating any loopholes and "special deals" to pay for the $447 billion jobs bill.

This brings us to the president's puzzling remarks about "the Buffett Plan," which has no clear connection to anything in his own plan. Mr. Obama has said that anyone who thinks "somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets [i.e., Warren Buffett] should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that" should "have to defend that unfairness. . . . They ought to have to answer for it."

Warren Buffett's large capital gains (mostly unrealized) and token $100,000 salary are by no means typical. IRS statistics show those earning more than $1 million paid 28.9% in federal income taxes in 2009, compared with 24.6% for those earning from $200,000 to $500,000 and 11.6% for those earning from $50,000 to $75,000.

However, if Mr. Obama is seriously suggesting that marginal tax rates should be the same for the working teacher's salary as for the retired teacher's capital gain, then he may be flirting with a rerun of George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign theme that, "Money made by money should be taxed at the same rate as money made by men."

Unlike Mr. McGovern, though, Mr. Obama has not yet proposed a capital gains or dividend tax higher than 20%. If the rhetorical Buffett Rule has any meaning at all, it appears to be nothing more than a presidential hint to the congressional super committee that he would like them to propose (as he has not) that incomes above $1 million face a 28% tax on capital gains and dividends.

The trouble is that such a Buffett Rule would quite certainly reduce rather than enlarge federal revenue. That's because we know from experience that a 28% tax on selling stock or property greatly reduces the amount offered for sale. Wealthy people then sit on more unrealized capital gains rather than subjecting themselves to a stiff tax penalty on selling those assets. The 28% tax on long-term capital gains brought in only $36.9 billion a year from 1987 to 1997, according to the Treasury Department, while the 15% tax brought in $96.8 billion a year from 2004 to 2007.

Putting aside the seemingly empty threat of a Buffett Plan tax on capital gains, the president's new-old plan to raise income taxes on families and small businesses earning more than $250,000—to pay for temporary tax gimmicks and extra spending—is just stale wine in a new bottle.

Any plan that would impose permanently higher tax rates on income to pay for temporarily lower tax rates on payrolls is no stimulus or jobs plan under any sort of economics. Neither is a tax-financed extension of unemployment benefits. It's a tax-and-spend plan, and a bad one.

Mr. Reynolds, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, is the author of "Income and Wealth" (Greenwood, Press 2006).

terça-feira, setembro 20, 2011

The Buffett Alternative Tax

Editorial do WSJ

Washington has repeated nearly every economic policy mistake of the 1930s in recent years, so why not repeat one of the bigger blunders of the 1960s too? We refer to President Obama's proposal yesterday for a new "Buffett Rule" to raise taxes on Americans earning more than $1 million a year. This may sound familiar to readers of a certain age, because it is how the current, and much-hated, Alternative Minimum Tax was born.

Mr. Obama, meet Joe Barr. As LBJ's last Treasury Secretary—he served only 30 days—Barr became famous for his January 1969 testimony before Congress that 21 millionaires had paid no income tax in 1967. No fewer than 115 tax returns reporting income above $200,000 had also paid no income tax, and Barr predicted a "taxpayer revolt" unless something was done about it.

Washington proceeded to bend tax policy to chase those 21 millionaires, and so we got the Minimum Tax of 1969 that later became the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT now hits some four million taxpayers, and 27% of households that paid it in 2008 had adjusted gross income of $200,000 or less.

Because it hits taxpayers with heavy deductions, the AMT wallops in particular the upper-middle-class suburbs in high-tax states like New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and California. Congress keeps passing an annual reprieve to prevent the AMT from hitting another 20 million or so taxpayers, most of whom are far from millionaires.

So here we are back at the same old political stand, though even Mr. Obama concedes that today those he routinely calls "millionaires and billionaires" pay at least some tax. The President's complaint, echoing billionaire Warren Buffett, is that too many billionaires pay a lower rate than regular salary earners. So even as he endorsed tax reform in general yesterday, Mr. Obama insisted that one of his reform "principles" is that people who make more than $1 million must pay a higher tax rate than middle-class earners.

There's one small problem: The entire Buffett Rule premise is false, as the nearby table shows. In 2008, the last year for which such data are available, the IRS reports that those who made more than $1 million in adjusted gross income paid an average income tax rate of 23.3%.

That's slightly lower than the 24.1% rate paid by those making between $500,000 and $1 million, probably because the richest are like Mr. Buffett and earn more from capital gains and dividends. The rate for a relative handful of the rich—400 people—fell to 18%, the modern equivalent of Barr's Gang of 21. But nearly all millionaires still paid a rate that is more than twice the 8.9% average rate paid by those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and more than three times the 7.2% average rate paid by those earning less than $50,000. The larger point is that the claim that CEOs are routinely paying lower tax rates than their secretaries is Omaha hokum.

If Mr. Obama really wants all of these people to pay even more in taxes, there are only two ways to do so. One is to raise tax rates on capital gains, dividends and other investment income that is taxed at 15% and represents a great deal of income for the wealthy. This is probably Mr. Buffett's tax secret, though to our knowledge he hasn't released his returns to the public.

The problem is that this is a tax increase on capital investment, which the U.S. already taxes at prohibitive rates thanks to our high corporate tax rate of 35%. Capital gains and dividends are taxed twice, first as corporate profits and then as payouts to individuals. Their real capital gains tax rate is closer to 45% than 15%, which is why politicians of both parties have long supported a capital-gains rate differential.

The other way to raise taxes on the rare Buffett is with a new Minimum Tax, a la Joe Barr. But as we've seen with the AMT, while the politicians may start by chasing "millionaires and billionaires," over time they always end up taxing the middle class because that's where the real money is. Mr. Obama could tax every billionaire in America at a 100% rate and still wouldn't make a dent in the federal deficit. He would, however, succeed in making those taxpayers invest less and search for tax shelters, assuming they didn't move offshore.

We rehearse all of this because it shows that the real point of Mr. Obama's Buffett Rule and his latest deficit proposal isn't tax justice or good tax policy. It is all about re-election politics. Down in the polls and facing a sullen liberal base, Mr. Obama wants to rally the left behind him, and nothing fires them up like the pretense that government is sticking it to the rich. Mr. Obama is picking a tax fight that he apparently believes will carry him to re-election next year.

And what about the economy? Well, the plan Mr. Obama unveiled yesterday along with his Buffett Rule would sock the economy with $1.5 trillion in new taxes over 10 years, or about 1% of GDP. This includes the tax increases built into the 2013 expiration of the Bush-era tax rates but not those of ObamaCare. Anyone who believes this will help an economy that is creating few new jobs and growing by only 1% probably also believes that only the rich would pay the Buffett Alternative Tax.

domingo, setembro 18, 2011

Obama to Propose Tougher Tax Regime for Wealthy


By DAMIAN PALETTA and CAROL E. LEE, WSJ

WASHINGTON -- The White House on Monday plans to launch an effort to prevent millionaires from paying lower tax rates than middle-class Americans as part of its package of ideas to reduce the federal deficit, two people familiar with the plan said.

The White House will likely try to use the plan, which aides call the "Buffett Rule" after billionaire Warren Buffett, to create a populist frame for the debate over deficit reduction that is likely to again consume Washington for the next few months. Democrats have pushed the White House in recent weeks to assert itself in the debt-ceiling talks in an effort to steal momentum away from Republicans.

The idea, which has been raised before by Democrats, is likely to be a non-starter with Republicans who had consistently opposed raising tax revenue as a way to tackle America's debt. The move is also evidence of how the work of the Congressional supercommittee, which is charged with devising a plan to cut the deficit, has become inextricably linked with the 2012 election season.

Few details about how such a plan would work could be learned, including whether there would be a new tax bracket at this elevated level. The White House is likely to urge congressional negotiators to use the concept as part of their talks, but isn't expected to go into great detail about how the new tax rule might work, people familiar with the plan said.

The general goal would be to prevent people earning more than a million dollars to pay taxes at a lower effective rate than people who earn under $250,000. That's often the case because investment income, or capital gains, is taxed at a lower rate than regular wages.

The plan will come as part of the White House's recommendations to a joint congressional panel that is charged with reducing the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion.

President Barack Obama is expected to call for a steeper reduction in the deficit. To reach that goal, Mr. Obama is expected to call for $300 billion in savings from changes to Medicare and Medicaid, a person familiar with the proposal said. He won't, though, call for changes to Social Security as a way of reducing the deficit.

On taxes, he'll call for lower, flatter tax rates, while also pushing for some tax increases. The White House has already proposed limits on the amount of tax deductions wealthy Americans can claim, and administration officials want tax rates to increase for families making more than $250,000 a year.

Recent White House plans have outlined between $1 trillion and $1.2 trillion in new taxes over 10 years. It's not clear how much money the new millionaire proposal would raise.

Top Obama administration officials have said any deficit-reduction efforts should be "balanced," Washington code for including tax increases as well as spending cuts, and say Republican proposals wouldn't require the wealthy to make major sacrifices.

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R., Ohio) said last week that tax increases were "off the table." Republicans have successfully beat back multiple previous efforts by the administration to raise tax rates. Republicans instead have called for an overhaul of the tax code that lowers rates while limiting some deductions as a way to spur job growth.

News of the new approach was first reported Saturday evening by the New York Times.

On Aug. 14, Mr. Buffett penned an op-ed in the New York Times titled "Stop Coddling the Rich," in which he described what he viewed as a tax code that has come to favor the wealthy. He said he paid federal taxes on 17.4% of his taxable income last year, a lower rate than any of the 20 other people in his office. He often remarks that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Messrs. Obama and Buffett spoke in late August during the president's vacation in Martha's Vineyard.

The White House could try to use the "Buffett Rule" in the same way they used the "Volcker Rule" in 2010. The Volcker Rule, named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, called for limiting how large banks trade using their own money, rather than that of their clients. The White House proposed it late in the process of overhauling Wall Street rules.

Even though the Volcker Rule is a bit arcane, it successfully ignited a populist firestorm that helped push the financial regulation bill into law. It put large banks and many of their supporters on the defensive, and they spent weeks trying to water down the language instead of trying to kill the bill outright.

When the White House proposed the Volcker Rule in 2010, it initially didn't provide specifics on how the plan would work. The administration is expected to follow a similar model with the Buffett Rule.

Targeting millionaires is a tactical move by the White House and comes after hard lessons learned by Democrats in 2010. Last year, the White House pushed to allow tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration to expire for families earning more than $250,000 a year.

Even though Democrats controlled the House and the Senate last year, the White House's effort faltered because it couldn't win enough support. Some Democrats instead said the White House should have pushed for allowing people who earn more than $1 million a year to have their tax rates increased.

The political dynamics have changed markedly since last year, though, with Republicans in control of the House of Representatives and Democrats holding a narrow majority in the Senate.

Monday's proposal will be at least the fourth different plan by the White House in the last seven months to reduce the deficit. It comes after a February budget proposal, an April speech at George Washington University that called for roughly $4 trillion in reductions over 12 years, and the debt-ceiling negotiations with Republicans in July that broke down over taxes.

quinta-feira, setembro 15, 2011

Brazil’s business environment: Baby Steps

The Economist

AROUND 11am on September 13th, a “1” followed by 12 zeros lit up on a sign in downtown São Paulo. Brazil’s impostômetro (taxometer) hit one trillion reais ($582 billion) 35 days earlier this year than in 2010. Brazil’s tax take is going up, thanks to a booming economy, crackdowns on evasion and inflation pushing people into higher brackets. But public services remain poor: roads are potholed, airports are crowded and pupils learn less than in many places with lower taxes.

So it is no surprise that the public sector is Brazil’s weakest point in the World Economic Forum’s latest Global Competitiveness Report, released on September 7th. Its government is the seventh most wasteful spender. Its regulatory burden is the heaviest, and its taxes are the most complex. According to the World Bank’s “Doing Business” report, medium-sized Brazilian firms spend 2,600 hours a year paying taxes—over twice as long as the next-slowest country and nearly ten times the average.

Such rankings have encouraged many countries to cut red tape. In Brazil, however, a loose federal structure and a constitution packed with fine regulatory detail obstruct reforms. Harmonising interstate taxes would require all state governors to agree: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, president from 2003 to 2010, tried and failed. Many measures to cut labour overheads would require a constitutional amendment.

Some state officials are making it easier to open a business. The federal government is pushing laggards to follow suit. Dilma Rousseff, Lula’s successor, is trying to rationalise interstate taxes, and has so far refused state governors’ request to reintroduce a financial-transactions tax. The government is planning to move business-tax payments online, which should end the problem of multiple filings to different authorities. And for small businesses life is already simpler: since 2007 they have used a unified tax regime known as “Super Simples”. An extension to mid-sized companies is in the works. However, the model firm put through its paces by the “Doing Business” team—a ceramic-pot producer with turnover equal to 1,050 times GDP per head—is too big to qualify.

quarta-feira, setembro 14, 2011

The 2013 Tax Cliff

Editorial do WSJ

President Obama unveiled part two of his American Jobs Act on Monday, and it turns out to be another permanent increase in taxes to pay for more spending and another temporary tax cut. No surprise there. What might surprise Americans, however, is how the President is setting up the U.S. economy for one of the biggest tax increases in history in 2013.

Mr. Obama said last week that he wants $240 billion in new tax incentives for workers and small business, but the catch is that all of these tax breaks would expire at the end of next year. To pay for all this, White House budget director Jack Lew also proposed $467 billion in new taxes that would begin a mere 16 months from now. The tax list includes limiting deductions for those earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for couples), limiting tax breaks for oil and gas companies, and a tax increase on carried interest earned by private equity firms. These tax increases would not be temporary.

What this means is that millions of small-business owners had better enjoy the next 16 months, because come January 2013 they are going to get hit with a giant tax bill. Let's call the expensive roll:

• First comes the new tax hikes that Mr. Obama proposed on Monday. Capping itemized deductions and exemptions for the rich would take $405 billion from the private economy for 10 years starting in 2013. Taxing carried interest would raise $18 billion, and repealing tax incentives for oil and gas production would get $41 billion.

• These increases would coincide with the expiration of the tax credits, 100% expensing provisions and payroll tax breaks in Mr. Obama's new jobs program. This would mean a tax hit of $240 billion on small business and workers. That's the downside of temporary tax breaks and other job-creation gimmicks: The incentives quickly vanish, and perhaps so do the jobs.

So even if the White House is right that its latest stimulus plan will create "millions of jobs" through 2012, by this logic a $240 billion tax hike on small businesses in 2013 would cost the economy jobs. This tax wallop would arrive when even the White House says the unemployment rate will still be 7.4%.

• January 2013 is also the same month that Mr. Obama wants the

Bush-era tax rates to expire on Americans earning more than $200,000. That would raise the highest individual income tax rate to about 42%, including deduction phaseouts, from 35% today. Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found in 2009 that $437 billion of business income would be taxed at higher tax rates under the Obama plan. And since some 4.5 million small-business owners file their annual tax returns as subchapter S firms under the individual tax code, this tax increase would often apply to the same people who Mr. Obama is targeting with his new tax credits.

The capital gains and dividend taxes would also rise to an expected 20% rate from 15% today. The 10-year hit to the private economy for all of these expiring Bush rates: about $750 billion.

• Also starting in 2013 are two of ObamaCare's biggest tax increases: an additional 0.9-percentage point levy on top of the 2.9% Medicare tax for those earning more than $200,000, and a new 2.9% surcharge on investment income, including interest income. This will further increase the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 23.8%, for a roughly 60% increase in investment taxes in one year.

The White House's economic logic seems to be that its new spending and temporary tax cuts will so fire up investment and hiring in the next 16 months that the economy will be growing much faster in 2013 and could thus absorb a leap off the tax cliff. But this requires its own leap of faith.

The White House also predicted a similar economic takeoff from the 2009 stimulus that was supposed to make a tax hike possible in 2011. Then last December Mr. Obama proposed new tax incentives only for 2011 because the economy was supposed to be cooking by 2012. Now it wants to extend those tax breaks so the economy will be cruising in 2013.

All of this assumes that American business owners aren't smart enough to look beyond the next few months. They can surely see the new burdens they'll face in 2013, and they aren't about to load up on new employees or take new large risks if they aren't sure what their costs will be in 16 months. They can also reasonably wonder whether Mr. Obama's tax hike will hurt the overall economy in 2013—another reason to be cautious now.

For the White House, the policy calendar is dictated above all by the political necessities of the 2012 election. Mr. Obama will take his chances on 2013 if he can cajole the private economy to create enough new jobs over the next year to win re-election, even if those jobs and growth are temporary. Business owners and workers who would prefer to prosper beyond Election Day aren't likely to share Mr. Obama's enthusiasm once they see the great tax cliff approaching. Look out below.

quinta-feira, setembro 08, 2011

Ameaça de mais impostos

Editorial do Estadão

Quinze governadores apoiam a criação de um tributo para financiar a saúde - mais precisamente, a recriação do velho imposto do cheque, também conhecido como Contribuição Provisória sobre Movimentação Financeira (CPMF), extinta em 2007. A presidente Dilma Rousseff procura ficar a distância, para evitar o custo político dessa iniciativa. Mas dificilmente recusará o presente, se governadores e parlamentares cuidarem de exumar aquele monstrengo tributário, com alíquota menor e com o nome de Contribuição Social para a Saúde (CSS) ou algo parecido. Tem-se conversado também sobre outras possibilidades. Algumas são politicamente complicadas e pelo menos uma é claramente fantasiosa neste momento.

Uma alternativa com certeza atraente para pessoas politicamente corretas seria o aumento de impostos sobre cigarros e bebidas alcoólicas. Mas para isso seria preciso enfrentar o lobby poderoso de grandes indústrias. Também se fala sobre uma possível taxação do jogo, mas o primeiro passo, não muito fácil, teria de ser no mínimo a liberação dos bingos. Finalmente, há quem proponha o uso de royalties obtidos com a exploração do pré-sal para o financiamento da saúde. Ninguém pode dizer com segurança quando estará disponível esse dinheiro nem quanto será arrecadado.

A aventura do pré-sal apenas começou e ainda falta muito tempo para se iniciar a exploração desse petróleo em escala significativa. Se o financiamento da saúde for mesmo um problema urgente, como dizem tantos políticos, não se poderá resolvê-lo com royalties do pré-sal, um recurso por enquanto só existente na imaginação. O governo e seus aliados precisam decidir: ou falam de urgência na saúde ou falam do pré-sal como solução. Não há como sustentar os dois discursos ao mesmo tempo.

Dinheiro do pré-sal, se vier, será para reforçar orçamentos da União, dos Estados e dos municípios dentro de vários anos. Se o governo e seus aliados procuram uma solução de curto prazo, terão de pensar em algo diferente. Por isso é mantido o interesse na recriação da CPMF, embora a presidente Dilma Rousseff prefira não se envolver diretamente no assunto. Do ponto de vista do contribuinte, a questão importante é outra: o governo precisa mesmo de mais dinheiro para a saúde? E vale a pena acrescentar uma segunda pergunta: se a tributação aumentar, a administração federal será melhorada?

Não pode haver dúvida quanto a esses pontos. Em primeiro lugar, o governo federal deveria abster-se de lançar novos encargos sobre o contribuinte antes de um esforço honesto e persistente para aumentar a própria competência. A administração federal arrecada muito, gasta mal, exige pouco de seus quadros e deixa muito dinheiro ir pelo ralo. Nem sequer consegue cuidar do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC), essa colcha de retalhos agitada como grande símbolo da política nacional de desenvolvimento. Desde o lançamento desse programa até o ano passado, o Tesouro só pagou 60,9% dos valores previstos no orçamento. Neste ano, o PAC 2 mal começou a ser realizado, porque a maior parte dos desembolsos correspondeu à liquidação de restos a pagar. Na gestão da saúde a inépcia é igualmente espantosa. Dos R$ 5,09 bilhões previstos para investimento neste ano, o governo só pagou R$ 1,44 bilhão até o fim de agosto, segundo tabela divulgada pela organização Contas Abertas.

Seria fácil multiplicar os exemplos de gestão ineficiente. Facílimo, também, seria apontar as muitas bandalheiras praticadas com dinheiro público, a pulverização de verbas por meio de emendas parlamentares de má qualidade e o enorme desperdício perpetrado por meio de convênios. Antes de pedir mais dinheiro ao contribuinte, a presidente Dilma Rousseff deveria passar a limpo o funcionamento do próprio governo. Que tal começar com a leitura do site do Tribunal de Contas e com o exame de algum material da Controladoria-Geral da União? Lá está o repertório do que o governo não pode e não deve fazer, mas faz. A presidente prometeu mais de uma vez, logo depois de eleita e também por ocasião da posse, dar atenção especial à qualidade do gasto e aos padrões de gestão. O primeiro ano de governo é um bom momento para isso.