Archive for the ‘Tax Breaks’ Category

There Is No Tax Deduction For Off-Shoring Jobs

In Political Rhetoric, President Obama, Tax Breaks on October 13, 2012 at 10:24 pm

During the first presidential debate against Mitt Romney, President Obama repeated a charge I see in the netherworld of liberal blogs and progressive’s Facebook posts.   As the head of the Business Round Table, John Engler, wrote in an op-ed:

What the candidates didn’t agree on was whether there is a deduction in the U.S. tax code that encourages companies to move plants overseas. Mr. Obama contended that such a deduction exists. Mr. Romney said, “I’ve been in business for 25 years and I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

According to the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, there are no specific tax credits or deductions for moving plants and jobs overseas. …the tax code provides a deduction for all business expenses, including plant-closing costs, severance pay and worker retraining. [1]

I’ve never seen any “offshoring” deduction and am confident the Joint Committee on Taxation is correct that no offshoring jobs tax credit exists.

As President, Mr. Obama should know the law.  If he thought there’s a tax credit for exporting jobs, why didn’t he undo it during the past four years, especially the two when his party held complete control of Congress?  The answer is no such tax credit exists, Obama continued the spread of a false internet rumor.

Image of a globe centred on India, with India highlighted.


Pictures from Wikipedia Commons.

$10,000 Government Cash For The Rich: $175K Earners Get Volt Rebates

In Electric Cars, Obama Administration, Tax Breaks, Top 1% on February 28, 2012 at 10:44 am

I hope you enjoy subsidizing the rich because President Obama loves the rebate checks sent to the crème-de-la-crème who can afford ultra-expensive electric cars.  Mr. Obama is proposing expanding the free money to $10,000 per vehicle.  Is this a good idea?

Sure, if you are a rich buyer of an electric car.  The average annual income of a Chevy Volt buyer is $175,000. [1]  By comparison, Nissan Leaf buyers are relative paupers, earning a mere $125,000 a year. [2] No wonder they need the check from Uncle Sam!   It turns out the Leaf isn’t attracting buyers new to hybrids for all that money, either, most Leaf buyers already have owned a hybrid. [2]  But they will get your taxpayer money, anyway.

Electric cars still have problems like short battery lives and high costs, thus the Obama Administration is determined to sell thousands more of these expensive cars through highly expensive subsidies.  I would prefer to have people use their own money to buy their cars; this is doubly so for the rich consumers who buy Teslas and Volts. [4]




[4] Rebates were $7,500 from the US Treasury (an additional $5,000 available from the State of California), pending the President’s proposed expansion to $10,000 per car.

Pictures from Wikipedia Commons.

Road Trip to See Your Tax Dollars at Work: $140,000 Car for the 1%

In Electric Cars, Federal Deficit, Obama Administration, Tax Breaks, Top 1% on February 1, 2012 at 11:30 pm

In the interest of optimizing your blog reading experience, econscius went mobile today to see what all the taxpayer subsidies are doing for us in the world of electric cars. 

I took my blog on the road to see a Tesla Roadster at a Tesla Motors showroom.  More precisely, the Tesla vehicle at a Tesla Motors showroom.  These things aren’t exactly flying off the shelves and there is only one at the nearby dealership.  The car is very sharp, indeed, but it runs about $140,000.  The base price is supposed to be $109,000 so I am unclear why they were quoting me a much higher price.  Perhaps this yellow one has some upgraded options or maybe it is just supply and demand, they only have the one for sale here.  Perhaps I’d need to negotiate better.  Nevermind, though.  If you can afford $109,000 plus Illinois sales tax, you probably can afford $140,000.

The car is an example of fine design and engineering.  If I ever sell advertising on this blog and become filthy rich, sure, it would be nice to have one or two of these in an expanded garage!

“Filthy rich”?  Does that imply the 1% to you?  You know, the folks who earn over $343,927 a year? [1]  There are not many working class people who can afford to purchase a Tesla.

I hope you don’t mind a few Reverse Robin Hood manuevers subsidizing your 1% neighbors who’d like a Tesla!  Because you are doing exactly that.  According to the IRS, this Tesla Roadster qualifies for a $7,500 tax credit under Internal Revenue Code 30D, the “Qualified Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicles”. [2]

There was a tax break of up to 50% of the cost of a battery charger installed in your garage, but the new frugal Congress just ended that credit. [3]

Tesla also received a $465 million loan from the Federal Government to develop an electric sedan. [4]  Unlike some other bankrupt Obama Administration green initiatives (think Solyndra, Beacon Power or Ener1), Tesla has not yet defaulted on its loan.  Also, there actually is a car here that runs and is freeway legal in every state.  Perhaps even more surprising, the Tesla is mostly made here in America unlike the Fisker electic car which is backed by a $529 million US government loan, only to be made in Finland! [5]  Tesla liked its first loan from you, the taxpayer, so much it was requesting a new one, but that financing need seems to have died down in the wake of the Solyndra scandal. [6]   Oddly enough, Tesla has never been profitable and continues to rack up a half billion in losses, despite the taxpayer assistance and the high price of the Roadster. [5]

This roadster will only go 244 miles on a battery charge [7], so it is best for cruising around and showing off to the yard help in a 1% neighborhood; it is not for driving the kids to camp or seeing the relatives in Ohio.

Thank you for reading, but please get back to work; President Obama and your Tesla desiring wealthy neighbors would appreciate you working a bit harder to provide the taxes to fund these cool toys for the 1%!  The Obama campaign contributors who will reap the rewards if Tesla is successful [5] surely would appreciate you putting in a little ovetime so they can get richer.

I know, I know, you say “what ever happened to Venture Capital?”  Yes, it is true that way back, before 2009, private investors used to invest their own money in new business ventures.  It worked for Microsoft, Groupon, Facebook, eBay, Amazon and thousands of other companies.  But that is so pre-Obama.  Today, private investors still put forward new companies but instead of turning to Venture Capitalists for funding, you the taxpayer are to be on the hook for tens of billions in government “investments”.  Enjoy the view of the Tesla, you paid for it!

Roadster 2.5 windmills trimmed.jpg


[2],,id=214841,00.html and






Showroom picture by author.  Windmills and roadster picture from Wikipedia Commons.

$26 Billion Failed To Stop Housing Market Decline

In Economy, Housing Bubble, Obama Administration, Tax Breaks on November 13, 2011 at 12:23 am

I recommend a Marketwatch story, , which follows up on the home purchase tax credit “Stimulus” programs of the Obama Administration.

We are reminded about the $8,000 tax credits that were mailed out to home buyers in 2009 and 2010.  Using recent data, we see most of these home buyers are worse off, even with the credit, because of the continued slide in home values.  That is sobering: the government spent $26 billion on home buyer subsidies and the average qualifying buyer made a losing bet even with the government money.  The average home dropped by more than $14,500 since the time of the tax credit, which more than offsets the $8,000 tax credit.  Needless to say, the taxpayer is worse off, too.

The graph below demonstrates this.  The tax credits helped cause a temporary halt of the decline in 2009 as home prices briefly increased.  Then home values went back to their decline after the credit ended in June 2010.  The real estate market had not yet cleared.  All that government money only delayed the inevitable, actually extending the housing recession by pushing back the time when housing would hit its trough. 



Graph from Wikipedia Commons, retrieved 11/12/11,

Picture from Wikipedia Commons.

Prisoners’ Dilemma: CFOs Want Simple Tax Code But Get Complicated Mess

In Corporate Taxes, Flat Tax, Income Tax Rates, Lobbying, Prisoner's Dilemma, Tax Breaks on November 6, 2011 at 1:01 am

A new Duke University/CFO Magazine survey found the vast majority of CFOs would be willing to give up all tax breaks in exchange for a flatter, simpler tax code at a lower rate.  

“Showing their frustration with the complexity of the tax code and the time and money they spend to comply, 71% of CFOs say they’d be willing to give up all existing exemptions and credits in return for a reduction in the overall corporate rate — even though they might not come out ahead on their tax bill. Another 17% say they’d forgo exemptions for a lower rate because they believe their companies would end up paying less in taxes than they do today.”  Forty-eight percent agreed the corporate tax system in the U.S. is “seriously flawed and needs a complete overhaul.” [1]

If the majority of CFOs want a flat tax, why do we have the world’s most convoluted tax code?  Why does the tax code increase in complexity each year? 

(1) One reason is politicians offering up new tax breaks for every conceivable problem.  Many of today’s tax breaks reflect societal goals such as increasing energy efficiency, encouraging R&D spending, helping American farmers, assisting exporters, operating businesses in economically depressed areas and employing more Americans.  Some of the goals are noble, but each attempt at changing corporate behavior through the tax code adds to the complexity and means some clever companies (e.g. GE) will use so many of these tax loopholes they pay little, if any, tax.

(2) The Prisoners’ Dilemma (“PD”) may help us understand why companies lobby for tax code loopholes even when they know a flat system would be better. 

In the classic PD game [2], two accomplices are arrested, but the police do not possess enough information for a conviction. The police separate the two men and the police offer each prisoner a similar deal:  if one testifies against his partner while his partner remains silent, the betrayer goes free.  The betrayed prisoner then serves a one-year sentence.

If both prisoners remain silent, the police simply have insufficient evidence and each prisoner will only serve one month in jail on a minor charge.   But, if both prisoners independently betray the other, the police then have evidence to convict both, earning each a three-month term. 

  Prisoner B Stays Silent Prisoner B Confesses
Prisoner A Stays Silent Each serves 1 month A goes free, B serves 1 year
Prisoner A Confesses B goes free, A serves 1 year Each serves 3 months

Obviously, the prisoners should each remain silent and receive a one month sentence.  But they end up each serving three months instead.  The reason is the essence of the PD: because the two prisoners cannot communicate, they have to rely on trust.  Confessing is the superior strategy as it leads to either going free (if the other prisoner is quiet) or serving a three-month term.  A prisoner would like to remain silent but that exposes him to the maximum prison sentence.  Remaining silent is the riskiest strategy as it means either going free (if the other prisoner is also quiet) or serving one year.  Unless the prisoners have a high degree of trust in each other, they will both confess. [3]

There is a very similar dynamic in play in corporate taxation.  Let us look at corporate tax breaks in terms of a simple prisoner’s dilemma model.

For simplicity, assume there are just two corporations, Amalgamated & Big Corp.  Each may pursue their own tax break, if they like, which would reduce their tax by $1, with that $1 paid through higher taxes on the other company

But it is not all tax break gravy, there is a cost for tax breaks.  Either company has to pay 25 cents for lobbying if they choose to influence tax policy; I assume lobbying is always successful.  Both companies pay 25 cents each for tax compliance costs (to accountants and tax lawyers) if there are any tax breaks.

What are the possible outcomes?

  Big Corp. Forgoes Tax Break Big Corp. Lobbies For Tax Break
Amalgamated Corp. Forgoes Tax Break Both Win (A $0, B $0) B Wins Tax Break (A -$1.25, B +$0.50)
Amalgamated Corp. Lobbies For Tax Break A Wins Tax Break (A +$0.50, B -$1.25) Both Lose       (A -$0.50,         B -$0.50)

Clearly, the optimal solution for the economy is no tax breaks because it means neither company has to pay lobbyists or tax accountants.  Yet, the equilibrium is always that both companies lose: they will each lobby for their own tax break and end up being out the $0.50 cost of lobbying and tax compliance.  Why?

For each corporation, the optimal strategy is to always lobby.  Amalgamated has no reason to trust Big Corporation will not lobby for Big’s own tax break.  The payoffs are such that lobbying is always successful and the cost of the tax break you win is borne by the other side.  The rational decision in this framework is always to lobby for the tax break, even if you know you will end up with a zero sum game where you are down $0.50 (for lobbying and tax compliance). 

The driver is you will always bear the cost of the other company’s $1 tax break if the other corporation chooses to lobby for its tax break.  The only way to protect Amalgamated from being stuck with Big Corporation’s $1 tax break cost is to exactly offset it with Amalgamated’s own $1 tax break.   The two breaks net to zero (because -$1 +$1 = 0), but unfortunately, each corporation is out the lobbying/tax compliance costs.

This takes us back to the CFO survey at the start of this post: most CFOs would be happy to give up their tax breaks (the “both lose” corner of my PD diagram) in exchange for no tax breaks at all (the “both win” corner of my PD diagram).  As long as we have a complex tax code filled with loopholes (see, corporate and individual taxpayers keep ending up in the “both lose” corner.

How do we break the mechanics of the Prisoners’ Dilemma where we always end up in the “both lose” corner of high costs of lobbying and tax compliance? 

I think the only plausible answer is to break the game by disallowing tax breaks in the first place.  That replaces the need for “trust” between the players of the tax game.  The way to disallow tax breaks is to have a simple, flat tax at a slightly lower rate.  Ask everyone to give up their favorite tax break in exchange for everyone else giving up their favorite tax break.   The total tax collected in the economy could be kept exactly the same through a lower rate, but we would remove the inefficiencies and noise that go with lobbying and complying with our labyrinth tax code.  Surely, that is better than the current dilemma of myriad tax breaks that cost a lot in lobbying and tax compliance.


[2] Discussion of Prisoner’s Dilemma can be found at:

[3] The PD helps demonstrate a facet of organized crime groups, which enforce “trust” through lethal force.  If the prisoners are members of the mob, the mob may threaten their lives if they confess.  That changes the outcomes (confess means go free or 1 month, now followed by probable death) and helps explain why mobsters almost always remain silent unless they can be completely shielded from harm from their fellow mobsters by participating in a witness protection program.

Dragnet & Basic Instinct pictures from Wikipedia Commons.  Comments are welcome below:

Yes, There Are Lots of Tax Loopholes!

In Income Tax Rates, Oil, President Obama, Tax Breaks on October 18, 2011 at 1:11 am

Yes, there are lots of tax loopholes!  You can hardly step anywhere in the personal or corporate tax codes without falling into a loophole.  Most every tax break was created in the name of helping a good cause (e.g. electric cars) or encouraging people or corporations to buy of something (e.g. homes or ethanol).  Still, the loopholes reduce tax revenue and add great complexity to the tax code.

 You can see for yourself how ridiculous the tax code is simply by looking at IRS Publication 946 at  Be forewarned: it is large .pdf file.  Do not blame the IRS, they are simply enacting what various Congresses and Presidents have put into law. Econscius thinks these 118 pages, which merely cover tax rules for depreciation, are a microcosm of what is wrong with the tax code.  These 118 pages are a like a few drops of water in the lake of tax complexity, too.  But I assume most readers will be perfectly fine with just one helping of accountant-speak. 

What is Depreciation?  When a company buys an asset like a railroad car, it is not allowed to expense the $100,000 cost right away.  The cost is expensed in little pieces over its theoretical ‘useful life’ of, according to the IRS table, 15 years.  Or seven years if the company is using an accelerated depreciation method. 

What is Accelerated Depreciation?  In order to encourage companies to purchase more assets, e.g. more airplanes, the Tax Code includes the ability to depreciate many assets more quickly than their ‘useful life’.  A 15 year asset may be deducted in seven years.

From a taxpayer’s standpoint, accelerating depreciation is valuable.  Increasing your expenses today means less income and less income means less tax paid.  In theory, the government gets all the tax money in the long run but the fact that the deductions are sped up is valuable because of what we call ‘the time value of money’: because of inflation, a dollar today is worth more than dollar five years from now.

I challenge anyone, Left or Right, to skim through the 118 pages and tell me the tax code is not unnecessarily complex.  There are loopholes aplenty, lying right before your eyes. 

On pages 25-28, we find the Gulf Opportunity Zone break, enacted after Hurricane Katrina.  There’s the Qualified Cellulosic Biofuel PLant Property benefit on page 28.  There are extremely generous accelerated depreciation rules on electric cars on page 66.  There are special depreciation rules for Indian Reservations on pages 38-39.  Fruit and nut trees and vines are covered on page 42.

Table B-1, which runs from page 103 to page 112 is a fine print example of tax loopholes.  You will notice there are different columns as there are different depreciation methods.  We can skip the mind-numbing complexity of GDS (MACRS) vs. ADS depreciation to make a few simple points:

(1.) Whenever the GDS and ADS depreciation recovery periods are different, we are really talking about a tax break.  The different method means a potential tax break because companies can depreciate more quickly than the true ‘useful life’ of the asset.  When you look through the IRS Publication 946, you see how most classes of assets do, in fact, have some sort of accelerated depreciation option.

(2.) Are so many classifications really necessary?  There are special depreciation rules for Cable TV-Microwave Systems, Railroad Track, Railroad Wharves and Docks, Manufacture of Foundry Equipment, manufacture of Leather and Leather Products, Sawing of dimensional Stock from Logs, Manufacture of Textile Yarns, and the ever-important Cotton Ginning Assets.


My personal favorite depreciation category is found on page 105: “Any Horse That Is More Than 12 Years Old At The Time It Is Placed In Service And That Is Neither A Race Horse Nor A Horse Described In Class 0.1222.” Got that?

There are special tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.  Surely you have heard of them before.   One of the breaks was enacted in 2004 to encourage companies to manufacture in the U.S.  That break lets most companies deduct 9% of profits from domestic manufacturing.   Oil and gas companies were classified as manufacturers, but their deduction was capped at 6%.  [1]  President Obama’s 2009 Stimulus package included an accelerated depreciation tax break for corporate jets on the theory it would encourage corporations to buy more jets, employing more Americans . [2]  President Obama often talks as if the accelerated depreciation for aviation and oil & gas drilling were the only tax breaks in the tax code. 

The oil and gas industry breaks are surely there, but ethanol, solar and wind actually enjoy far more favorable tax treatment.  Anyone looking at this IRS Publication 946 will see how disingenuous it is for politicians to focus on oil when almost every industry seems to have its hand in the till, even highly profitable areas like computers. 

Without question, an awful lot of time goes into interpreting and complying with the tax code.  Corporations and interest groups lobby for their narrow interests within the tax code. 

How do we fix this?  A flatter, simpler tax code with universal rules and few, if any, special deductions would be a place to start.  Ask everyone to give up their favorite tax breaks and we will all be better off; call it mutual tax break disarmament.  The US corporate tax rate in the highest amongst developed nations; why would we not want to lower the rates, drop the loopholes and end up with the same amount of revenue but with a lot less work? While there are some issues with Herman Cain’s proposed “9-9-9 plan”, it is a bold attempt to throw out the old tax code and start afresh.  Ideas like that would help get rid of monstrosities like IRS Publication 946.



Pictures from Wikipedia Commons.  IRS html from IRS link above.

As always comments are welcome.  Love the Tax Code?  Hate it?  Feel free to share below.