The Super Committee (aka, the Select Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction) made a super hire with the selection of Mark Prater to serve as staff director, according to the Seattle Times.
Prater currently serves as the deputy staff director and chief tax counsel for the powerful Senate Finance Committee.
Prater's accomplishments during his two decades at the committee include pushing the 2001 estate tax repeal legislation through the committee. The Seattle Times reports that he "helped steer President George W. Bush's landmark tax-cut package through that committee in 2001 -- across-the-board rollbacks in income- and estate-tax rates."
Prater's selection by the Super Committee's bi-partisan co-chairs - Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX-5) - indicates that the committee understands that raising the death tax burden is the wrong way to solve the deficit crisis.
Tags: capitol hill, death tax, estate tax, legislation, revenue, super committee
You’ve heard the tired, false claim: America can’t afford death tax repeal.
This claim is often based on “static” scoring, an incomplete economic model that assumes that cutting taxes will have no effect on economic growth – that the economy will remain “static” in response to changes in the Death Tax.
This assumption flies in the face of common sense. Yet it is the “conventional wisdom” among some in Congress.
The American Family Business Foundation issued a factual challenge today. We published an Issue Brief by former Treasury Department economist Steve Entin. Entin developed a more realistic economic model to demonstrate the true effects of estate tax repeal. His model relies on “dynamic scoring” to consider the behavioral changes that occur when people are not forced to pay the estate tax.
According to Entin’s model, death tax repeal would increase tax revenues by $89 billion over the next ten years.
In short, Entin shows how estate tax repeal will increase investment, business expansion, and job creation. As more businesses spend less money on the estate tax and more money growing their operations, the American economy will grow faster.
As the economy grows and jobs are created, Uncle Sam has a larger tax base, resulting in higher income and capital gains tax revenues.
Entin’s model forces the opponents of repeal to demonstrate the superiority of a “static” model to the more realistic and rigorous “dynamic” model. It gives Congressional staffers, policy advisors, reporters, and voters a resource for understanding the economics of estate tax repeal.
You can read the press release with the brief’s key findings, here. The full brief can be accessed by the link at the bottom of the press release.
For more research about the economic effects of the estate tax, visit www.nodeathtax.org/resources/studies.
Tags: death tax, dyanmic score, estate tax, revenue, static score
Have you ever considered how much power Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) holds over the future of the estate tax? It’s more than you may realize.
A new American Family Business Foundation study tells the inside story about the JCT and it’s undue influence in tax policy debates. 
The JCT is a non-partisan, non-ideological Congressional body that Members of Congress (and the public) look to for honest and accurate estimates of the revenue impact from tax policy changes. Unfortunately, the JCT often relies on economic models that result in incorrect revenue estimates – especially when it comes to the estate tax.
The report offers an in-depth analysis of the JCT’s flawed tax revenue-estimating methodology and the resulting discrepancy between its estimates and the actual tax revenues. The author, a former Treasury Department official, finds that because the JCT assumes that reductions in the estate tax will have no impact on economic activity, the JCT never considers the possibility that a lower estate tax might enable higher economic growth, and consequently, higher total tax revenues.
As a result, the JCT is effectively an institutional cheerleader in Congress for the death tax. Click here to read the study and learn more.
Tags: death tax, dynamic scoring, estate tax, estimates, joint committee on taxation, revenue, static scoring
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report yesterday about the effects of the Obama tax hikes. The report broke down earned revenues in terms of individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes and “other revenues”.
The Federal Estate Tax, which is set to return in 2011 at a rate of 55 percent on assets over $1 million, was accounted for in the “other revenues” category. The report indicated that combined, “other revenues” will raise about $2.8 trillion over the next decade.
Bloggers immediately began spinning the data, suggesting that keeping full repeal of the Federal Estate Tax would double the deficit because another $2.6 trillion would be added to our current deficit without the Obama tax hikes.
But if you look at the fine print, what you see is that the CBO’s “other revenues” category also includes the Federal Reserve System and new excise taxes like the tanning tax, customs duties, and miscellaneous fees and fines. In fact, the largest revenue producer is the Federal Reserve System – not the estate tax -- which expects payment in full with interest for several trillion dollars of bailout packages: the auto bailout, the bank bailout, the new union bailout and a few other major bailout programs. Combined, these programs absolutely trump the impact of the Federal Estate Tax on revenue generation.
Considering the full economic effect of the death tax and its impact on the income, payroll and capital gains taxes, former U.S. Treasury Economist Steve Entin projects that repeal would increase net revenues by as much as $23.3 billion to $38 billion (or 1% of Federal Revenues each year over a ten year period).
Given the current public opinion on the debt and the deficit, it’s safe to suggest Congress make the obvious choice here: Kill the death tax!
In his weekly column, Congressman Pitts draws attention to the Swedish Death Tax miracle, and the lessons it offers for America. In both countries, the effect of the death tax is to discourage entrepreneurial activity, and so doing, to reduce economic growth.; This has strong implications for Congress’s assumption about death tax revenues:
“There’s a strong temptation for Congress to bring back the estate tax since at least on paper it appears to bring in lots of tax revenue. But projected revenue rarely matches actual money brought into the treasury because individuals take action to reduce their tax liability. However, a strong job market enhances government revenue.”
Cognressman Pitts understands that repeal is “the best way to ensure that businesses and farms go to families and not the government.” “Sweden,” Congressman Pitts observes, “had to learn the hard way by watching one of their most iconic brands move across the sea. We should learn from their example and avoid the consequences of lost jobs and slower economic growth.”
Read Congressman Pitts entire article.
Tags: death tax, estate tax., house of representatives, legislator, politician, rep. joe pitts, revenue, small business, sweden
As Steve Entin shows in his study Economic Impact of the Estate Tax: Effects of Various Possible Reform Options, large capital taxes hinder productivity and business expansion, resulting in less economic activity and a smaller tax base. In the case of the estate tax, Steve Entin shows that the government loses nearly $2 in revenue for nearly every $1 taken in.
Source: http://www.nodeathtax.org/uploads/view/829/deathtaxfpcafbf.pdf
Dr. Burt Folsom, under whom I studied at Hillsdale College, writing with his wife Anita, notes an important historical example of this phenomenon in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.
On Truman’s failed attempt to push forward FDR’s New Deal revival vision for America:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.”
“Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's ‘excess profits’ tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.”
"Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call ‘supply-side economics.’ If the tax bill "has the effect which it is hoped it will have,’ George said, ‘it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue.’”
“He was prophetic. By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Both the economic data, based on dynamic models of the economy, and historical evidence suggests that punitively high taxes on productivity must result in less revenue for the federal government. Congress would be wise to take a serious look at both the examples set by history and the latest economic research on the topic, much of which has been commissioned by the American Family Business Foundation.
Tags: burt folsom, death tax, entin, estate tax, fdr, new deal, revenue
The Death Tax fight will soon be decided in the halls of Congress by your representatives. AFBI is leading the fight for repeal in Washington, but we cannot do it alone.