Economy

When High Taxes Force Companies To Load Up The Moving Van

This commentary originally appeared on Investors.com on August 12th, 2014. 'Inversion" is a word increasingly heard these days in Washington, D.C. In this case, instead of referring to a meteorological condition, inversion applies to tax law. It occurs when U.S. corporations lower their taxes by buying an overseas company, then transferring their headquarters to the newly purchased foreign firm. Recent moves in the pharmaceutical industry to reduce tax rates through inversion include Pfizer's failed attempt to buy Britain's AstraZeneca as well as AbbVie and Medtronic, both of which purchased Irish companies. But the opposite can occur as well, with a foreign firm buying an American company, then improving profitability of the U.S. takeover target by reducing its tax burden through the simple device of moving its headquarters out of the U.S. This may happen with Canada's Valeant Pharmaceuticals International and its $53 billion hostile bid to acquire Irvine, Calif.'s Allergan. (When I served in the California State Assembly, Allergan was my district's largest private-sector employer.) It appears Valeant's leadership believes that Allergan's components would be far more valuable if they were taxed at Canadian rates rather than the combined tax rates of the U.S. and California (California's corporate taxes are among the highest in the U.S.). Valeant expects about $2.7 billion in cost savings from the deal, part of it in tax-rate reductions and some in axing R&D expenses. Valeant's prior large buyouts include Bausch & Lomb for $8.7 billion and Medicis for $2.6 billion. That corporate leadership, seeking to maximize profits for shareholders, would seek international deals to legally reduce taxes shouldn't surprise anyone, especially if they've been observing interstate business transactions of late. For instance, in the past eight years, California has seen the loss of several Fortune 500 business headquarters to Texas, including Fluor, Calpine, Occidental Petroleum (which is spinning off its California operations and moving to Texas) and Toyota. While federal corporate taxes comprise the bulk of most firms' tax liabilities, state and local taxes have an effect too. The Tax Foundation rates California's tax burden on mature businesses at 34th in the nation while Texas, lacking an individual income tax, comes in at 12th (a higher ranking meaning a smaller tax burden). Over time, taxes add up, forcing companies to send more money to the government while cutting back on research, growth, employee pay and benefits, and shareholders. It's simple math. As international businesses constantly seek higher efficiencies, tax inversions are growing in popularity — so much so that President Obama recently labeled the practice "unpatriotic" while calling on Congress to stop them. As with other policy matters, the Obama administration is looking at taking administrative actions to curb international business mergers for the purpose of reducing tax obligations. Such administrative action would likely carry with it unhelpful unintended consequences. Republican leaders in Congress also want to end inversions but propose a different solution: a reduction of the 35% top federal tax rate on corporations, one of the highest in the world. The question of which approach to take and how quickly it needs to be done has taken on greater urgency in recent weeks as international business deals to reduce tax burdens have accelerated. The Congressional Research Service lists some 50 U.S. firms in the past 10 years as having merged or acquired foreign companies to leverage tax savings. Absent congressional action to reduce America's high corporate taxes, we should expect to see a continued flight of corporate offices from America's shores. Moving headquarters overseas may be "unpatriotic" in the eyes of some politicians — but staying put to pay higher taxes while handing the financial advantage to your competitors? That's just foolish. DeVore is vice president for policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. From 2004 to 2010, he served in the California State Assembly, where he was the vice chairman of the committee on revenue and taxation.

August 12, 2014
K-12 Education

An interesting factoid from Texas’ public education history

In 1875, Texans gathered to rewrite their state constitution, largely borrowing from the Constitution of 1845. Part of their motivation in doing so was to roll back what the majority of Texans then viewed as the excesses of Reconstruction-era government. Now, here’s where things get complicated. Delegates expressed the view, common in the day, that the education of children was the primary responsibility of parents. Further, as might be expected in the times, many white property owners didn’t support the idea of their taxes going to finance the education of black children. Lastly, as was more common in the South than in the nation at large, Texans were suspicious of powerful central government.* In this context, the constitutional delegates approved language calling for “...the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.” “Public” at the time meant open to the general public, rather than run by the government as its come to mean today. Many of the constitutional delegates in 1875 wished to overturn the Radical Republicans’ Reconstruction-era provisions for the state financing of public schools. As a result, Texas schools and their finance became more decentralized than was the case during the height of Reconstruction-era policies from 1869 to 1876. Interestingly, this decentralization may have had an unintended effect: the ratio of per pupil expenditures for black students as compared to white students was actually higher in 1910 (0.63:1) than in 1935 (0.50:1) when the modern system of government-run public schools was more firmly established.**Put another way, centralized, government-run schools for a time—at least until the advent of the modern civil rights movement—appeared to result in greater public education funding inequities than did the more decentralized system of public education that preceded it.   * Texas History course materials, “Republicanism and Reunion,” Texas A&M University, Texarkana, see: http://www.tamut.edu/academics/mperri/TX/Texas%20History%206--Republicanism%20and%20Reunion.ppt .   **”Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950: An Economic History,” Robert A. Margo, University of Chicago Press, 1990, see: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8792.pdf .

June 25, 2014