Reform of the corporate income tax is shaping up to be one of the big issues facing Congress in 2017. Republicans are pushing for big cuts in the corporate tax rate. Most observers seem to assume that conservatives and progressives will be at swords points over those cuts, but they should not be. There is a strong progressive case for sharply lowering the corporate income tax, or better still, abolishing it altogether.
As 2017 begins, the US economy is in the middle of a boom, or at least a boomlet. The official unemployment rate is at or below its target level, stock market indicators are hitting all-time highs, and the Fed is starting to get serious about raising interest rates.
Will policymakers at the Fed raise interest rates at their December meeting? Wall Street oddsmakers increasingly think they will. One simple chart shows why.
In a paper on tax policy, leverage and macroeconomic stability published on 10 November, the IMF staff address the issue of excessive leverage or the so-called “debt bias” that poses risks for financial and macroeconomic stability. The “debt bias” has been largely created by more favorable tax treatment of debt relatively to equity. In most jurisdictions, interest is a tax deductible expense for corporations while payments to equity holders are not. According to the paper, this results in a substantial increase in the debt to assets ratio.
Hillary Clinton is often said to be a policy wonk, deeply enmeshed in specifics and details, but that may be a mischaracterization. In some ways, her approach seems disturbingly superficial, skipping one perceived problem to another with little attention to their underlying causes. In some cases, Clinton seems to have paid little attention to the unintended consequences of her proposals, as a real policy expert would do. A look at the tax implications of some of her social policy proposals will illustrate these shortcomings.
A healthy economy requires a fluid labor market. Even when total employment and output are stable, the labor market is in constant motion. Jobs disappear when firms close or downsize. Other jobs appear when new firms open or old ones expand. People move freely from one job to another in search of career advancement or better fit between their work and their personal lives.
The unemployment rate published monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is one of the most widely watched of all economic indicators. But why? What does it really measure?
The economy of Russia contracted by almost 4% last year and is expected to decline further this year, according to the IMF (Economist 2016a). Russia being a resource driven economy and one of the top oil exporters globally, a large part of the downturn can certainly be explained by the collapse in oil price. Western sanctions following the illegal annexation of Crimea have apparently also contributed further to dampening economic activity.
One of the most common criticisms of social safety net programs is that they discourage work. As House Speaker Paul Ryan has put it, they risk becoming a “hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives.”
Like most economists, I am strongly inclined toward free trade. I cringe to see the way free trade is under attack, from both parties, during this primary season.
