Semiconductor Bill a Step in the Right Direction for Innovation and Economic Growth

The U.S. and China continue to battle it out over semiconductor manufacturing as part of the larger tech war between the two countries. While the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) estimates U.S. firms account for 45 to 50 percent of annual semiconductor sales worldwide, their share of global semiconductor manufacturing capacity has declined from 37 percent in 1990 to 12 percent in 2020. Asian countries meanwhile account for nearly 75 percent of global semiconductor manufacturing capacity today. Importantly, China is projected to lead the world in manufacturing capacity by 2030, more than doubling its capacity from 2010 and 2030.

Going forward, only 6 percent of new capacity is expected to be located in the U.S., under current market conditions. That’s not acceptable. As we’ve seen this year, during tough times like pandemics and wars, countries with factories producing crucial goods prioritize their own needs ahead of foreign customers. Moreover, it takes time and money to build up alternative sources of supply. That’s why N95 masks, a “middle-tech” product, are still in short supply. In the event of a global crisis that cut off semiconductor supplies from Asia, it could take years to make up the difference at home.

It should be noted that semiconductors, more than data, are the oil of the 21st Century. By allowing semiconductor production to drift overseas, the U.S. is putting itself in the uncomfortable position of allowing foreign countries to control an essential input to the economy and defense sector.

Investments in semiconductors have huge externalities for the rest of the economy. PPI has often talked about the need to apply tech and advanced communication capabilities like 5G to the physical industries, in order to boost productivity and create new cognitive-physical jobs. But these gains won’t be possible without a steady and reliable source of semiconductors. 

In terms of defense, relying on a potential rival as a major source of key semiconductors would present an important national security issue. It’s essential for the U.S. to retain a substantial semiconductor production base that can be expanded as needed in a crisis. 

The rise of Asian capacity can partly be attributed to cheap capital and government incentivization of the industry, including land, housing, telecommunications, utilities, logistics, regulatory relief, expedited permitting, and special economic zones and science parks. In other words, the workings of the market have been distorted by government policy. 

In order to match these foreign advantages, a bipartisan group of legislators have sponsored the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors for America Act, known as the CHIPS for America Act. Introduced in the Senate by Sens. Warner (D-VA), Sinema (D-AZ), Cornyn (R-TX), Risch (R-ID), and Rubio (R-FL) and in the House by Reps. Matsui (D-CA) and McCaul (R-TX), the proposal would provide a 40 percent refundable investment tax credit for semiconductor equipment and facilities, as well as billions more for research, development, and production incentives over the next decade.

The SIA estimates a $20 to $50 billion federal program of additional grants and tax incentives for new manufacturing facilities built over the next 10 years would be enough to reverse the declining trend of U.S. semiconductor manufacturing over the last three decades. The CHIPS for America Act would be a down payment on this amount, helping the U.S. re-secure its foothold in semiconductor manufacturing and unlocking the next wave of economic growth.

 

Trump’s Last Stand?

Last night’s showdown in Nashville between President Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden won’t go down in history as one of the great U.S. presidential debates. It was an anti-climactic affair that didn’t tell us anything new about the candidates or what’s at stake for our country in next month’s election. 

I’ll leave it to the drama critics of the political media to figure out who “won” the debate. But if it didn’t do anything to change the trajectory of the race, Team Biden certainly will be happy with the outcome.  

Trump showed a little self-discipline, especially compared to his feral performance in the first debate. But rather than use his time to tout his achievements and plans for a second term, Trump did what Trump always does — lied incessantly and hurled slurs and preposterous accusations at his opponent. 

Trump really doesn’t know how to debate. He doesn’t know the issues, doesn’t know how to build an evidence-based case for his actions, and is incapable of sustaining a coherent line of argument on any topic. He thinks the way to win is by intimidation rather than persuasion. So he bluffs and blusters and makes up “facts” as he goes along. 

Biden isn’t an especially agile debater, but he stood his ground and exhibited the traits of decency, empathy and honesty many voters find wholly lacking in Trump. Biden also did a good job of contrasting his “bring-us-together” approach to presidential leadership to Trump’s divide-and-conquer nihilism. 

It was clear last night that Trump had no good answer as to why he’s bungled the COVID-19 crisis from the beginning, or separated more than 500 young immigrant children from their parents, or keeps trying to kill Obamacare and deprive Americans of health insurance in the midst of a public health emergency. 

Trump’s campaign is sinking under the combined weight of this record of cruel and incompetent governance and mounting public revulsion toward his sociopathic character. The con is wearing thin, and voters Trump won in 2016 are abandoning him. It’s hard to see that changing after last night. 

 

Making America’s Trumps Pay Their Fair Share

The explosive revelations that self-proclaimed billionaire Donald Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes – a tiny fraction of what he paid the Chinese government through his secret bank account – in recent years have focused overdue public attention on U.S. tax laws that seem designed to protect wealthy Americans. With our national debt approaching the highest level in history, it is incumbent on federal policymakers to make sure that Trump and other wealthy Americans are paying their fair share of what it takes to run our country.

The simplest way to raise more revenue from wealthy Americans would be by increasing the top marginal income tax rate or enacting a “millionaire surtax.” But while doing so may be a critical step to ensuring tax fairness, it is insufficient if wealthy people report no income on which those higher rates would apply. And although the details are murky, it seems Trump did exactly that by running money-losing businesses for several years, many times squandering other peoples’ capital instead of his own. In years when he did report earnings from his few successful business ventures, Trump was allowed to deduct his previous losses to reduce his taxable income – and thus his tax liability – to zero, a provision known as “loss carry-forward.” The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was created with the intention of ensuring wealthy people always pay some income tax, but Trump was able to reduce or even eliminate this liability entirely by claiming business tax credits.

There is certainly a justification for allowing business owners to deduct some expenses from their taxable income, but Trump’s tax returns stretch the concept of “legitimate business expenses” beyond recognition. For example, Trump claimed large deductions for such “business expenses” as $70,000 to style his hair, $100,000 for his daughter Ivanka’s hair and makeup, and fuel for his private jet. New York Attorney General Tish James is investigating whether Trump fraudulently claimed millions of dollars in charitable gifts using a land-preservation easement that the Senate Finance Committee recently reported is a popular tax dodge among real-estate owners. And Trump also claimed to abandon a large money-losing business that he may still own part of, which resulted in a $70 million tax refund that is now being disputed.

Dubious claims like these should set off alarm bells at the Internal Revenue Service. But Republicans in Congress have cut the IRS’ budget by 20 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars over the last 10 years, compelling the agency to reduce their enforcement staff by 30 percent. As a result, the agency investigated a 46 percent smaller share of individual tax returns in 2018 than it did in 2010. Audit rates fell much more for rich filers with complicated tax returns, such as Trump, than for working-class people whose returns are easier to audit.

To crack down on tax evaders like Trump, the United States must rebuild its tax enforcement system. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that every dollar spent to hire additional enforcement agents would bring in three times more revenue by rooting out fraud and systemic tax evasion by the nation’s highest earners. The IRS also needs to update its outdated information technology – some of which dates back to the Kennedy Administration – that slows down their ability to identify and respond to illegal activity.

Tougher enforcement of existing laws, however, is only the first step. The real scandal here is that most of the ways Trump reduced his tax bill are perfectly legal, so policymakers also need to close the myriad loopholes in tax laws that allow people who can afford accountants and lobbyists to game the system. Each year, tax expenditures – credits and deductions that allow businesses and individuals to reduce their tax liability by engaging in certain preferred behaviors, such as owning a home or making charitable contributions – cost the federal government $1.5 trillion in lost revenues. Although some may still serve important public purposes, eliminating many of these inefficient tax preferences would increase federal revenue without raising rates on people who are already paying their fair share. Policymakers should also replace the AMT, which was already failing to capture President Trump’s income before it was gutted by the GOP’s 2017 tax cut bill, with a simpler but more-effective limit on the value of itemized deductions as a percentage of a person’s taxable income.

Another way policymakers can ensure wealth doesn’t go untaxed forever by properly treating it as taxable income for heirs. The Trump-GOP tax bill allows couples to pass up to $22 million to their heirs without either of them paying a penny in taxes. Even worse, the “step-up basis” provision in our tax code lets heirs off the hook for ever paying taxes on capital gains that accrued during the original owner’s lifetime. As a result of these policies, over 99.9 percent of all inheritances go completely untaxed, and the wealthiest heirs often pay lower tax rates on inherited income than they would on money they earned through their own hard work instead of by winning the birth lottery. A progressive inheritance tax, as proposed by PPI and others, would help ensure everyone pays their fair share while also rewarding work over wealth.

Finally, federal policymakers can make sure the wealthy pay their fair share is by supplementing taxes on income with taxes on consumption, such as by adopting a national value-added tax. Taxing consumption ensures that no matter what tricks and loopholes wealthy individuals can use to reduce their reported income, that income still gets taxed when it gets spent. Moreover, if a very wealthy person has no income and lives by spending down previously accumulated and under-taxed wealth (as Trump is implicitly claiming he is doing), they would be taxed as they spend their money. Although consumption taxes can be regressive (because lower-income people spend a higher percentage of their income than higher-income people, on average) these effects can be easily offset with other progressive reforms such as those proposed in PPI’s comprehensive budget blueprint last year.

It is unacceptable that the current president of the United States – supposedly one of the wealthiest in history – pays less in federal income taxes than millions of hardworking Americans. But Trump is far from alone in exploiting every weakness the tax code presents to him. His successor must work with Congress to ensure everyone pays their fair share to fund our society’s most pressing needs.

How Trump Lost to the Coronavirus

Behind in the polls and flailing, President Trump finally has met an opponent he can’t bully, belittle or bury in an avalanche of lies. Joe Biden? No, the coronavirus.

The pandemic is surging again, just as the 2020 presidential election enters the final stretch. A frustrated Trump this week groused that the public is “tired” of hearing about the pandemic. Maybe so, but according to Five Thirty Eight’s daily tracker of public opinion, two-thirds of Americans are very or somewhat concerned about COVID-19. Even more – 86 percent – are worried about the pandemic’s impact on the economy.

Apart from hardcore Republicans, Americans don’t share Trump’s view that he has done a “phenomenal job” in managing the pandemic. More than 57 percent of U.S. voters disapprove of his response to COVID-19, while just under 40 percent approve. Only 35 percent of independents think he’s done a good job.

Read the full piece.

Making America’s Trumps Pay Their Fair Share

The explosive revelations that self-proclaimed billionaire Donald Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes – a tiny fraction of what he paid the Chinese government through his secret bank account – in recent years have focused overdue public attention on U.S. tax laws that seem designed to protect wealthy Americans. With our national debt approaching the highest level in history, it is incumbent on federal policymakers to make sure that Trump and other wealthy Americans are paying their fair share of what it takes to run our country.

Read the full piece here.

Staggers Act Provides Insights into the Benefits of Light Touch Regulation

Regulation is much in the news these days. But even as we look towards the future, the 40th anniversary of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 on October 14 gives us an opportunity to consider how light touch regulation can benefit industry, customers, and the economy as a whole. That law, enacted under President Jimmy Carter, took a heavily regulated freight rail industry and moved it into the modern era. 

Prior to the passage of the Staggers Act, freight railroads were regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission, which exercised strict authority over minimum and maximum rates, firm entry, and firm exit. Carriers were required to maintain networks, even if they were redundant or unprofitable. The lack of flexibility of the nearly-century old regime had left the industry in poor shape. Nine carriers were bankrupt, including Pennsylvania Railroad which had been in business since 1846. Return on investment had fallen from a 4.1 percent average in the 1940s to just 2 percent by the 1970s. Railroad market share had also declined by 33 percent from 1950 to 1980 as trucks and airlines became common shipping options. As a result, freight railroads were unable to raise capital to invest in their networks and compete.

By contrast, the Staggers Act:

  • Permitted freight railroads to establish rates for service while allowing regulators to intervene if there was no competition;
  • Phased out industry-wide rate adjustments;
  • Permitted freight rail shippers and carriers to enter into contracts without regulatory review; and
  • Affirmed the prohibition of collective rate making.

This light touch regulation helped the freight railroad industry become far more financially healthy and competitive. Return on net investment has increased more than 170 percent since the 1980s. Freight carriers have invested more than $710 billion since Staggers on capital expenditures and maintenance including locomotives and tracks. Importantly, this capital investment was privately funded by the industry, unlike airports and highways which receive major financing from taxpayers. Due to capital investment and technological advancements, accident rates among major rail carriers plummeted 73 percent between 1981 and 2019, good news for workers. All the while, shipping rates have risen at roughly the rate of inflation since 1981.

Now, freight rail is not the same as tech or broadband, but there are important historical lessons to learn. In particular, finding the right balance with light touch regulation isn’t always the easiest thing, but it can generate new investment and growth and pay off big for the whole economy.

 

WEBINAR: Bringing Diversity to Economic Thought – The Mosaic Project

The Progressive Policy Institute is proud to launch The Mosaic Economic Project to create a network of diverse women who are experts in economics and technology – fields where their perspectives are grossly underrepresented. The mission of Mosaic is to train, connect, host and advocate for the participation of women, particularly minority women, in meaningful policy conversations. Listen in to this conversation with women leaders including:

Keynote:
Tammy Wincup, President, Protocol

Speakers:
Jewel Burks Solomon – Head of Google for Startups, US
Dr. Rhonda Vonshay Sharpe – Former President, National Economic Association and Women’s Institute for Science, Equity and Race (WISER) – – Dr. Beth Ann Bovino – Chief US Economist, S&P Global

Moderator:
Crystal Swann, Mosaic Project Senior Leadership

Panel Discussion with Tech Policy Experts on the Future of the Gig Economy and a New Vision for Workers

Listen in on this panel discussion on challenges facing workers in the gig economy during the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for a new policy vision that can guarantee flexibility while providing portable benefits. Featuring Experts from the Progressive Policy Institute and American Action Forum:

  • Alec Stapp: Director of Technology Policy, PPI
  • Mike Mandel: Chief Economic Strategist, PPI
  • Jennifer Huddleston: Director of Technology and Innovation Policy, AAF

Speakers discuss the latest research and policy landscape, explore potential solutions to best support workers in the gig economy during the COVID-19 pandemic, and answer listener questions.

The Low-Income Tax Trap and COVID: The Real Societal Cost of Having the IRS Do Too Much

The working poor are burdened with some of the most complex tax returns in the country as they annually claim Earned Income Tax and Child Tax refundable credits.  In the coming months, low- and middle-income Americans who received unemployment insurance payments during the Covid-19 pandemic may also face a “tax trap” that unexpectedly reduces their EITC benefits. At the same time, some have advocated that the IRS core mission be substantially expanded beyond their traditional role in society.  But the emerging environment tells us something important about the complexity of our tax system, and the societal costs of pushing the IRS to do too much. 

October 15th is the final tax deadline for the 2019 Tax Season, but it also the last normal Tax Day that Americans will have for a while.  Someone who filed for an extension to their 2019 taxes will have their return due on that day. But next year’s tax return, for Tax Year 2020 when it comes due in 2021, will reflect the utter chaos of our collective 2020 experience.

Many Americans will be dealing with a much different tax situation than they expected at the beginning of 2020.  If they worked remotely from a different state than their office, it’s entirely possible that many workers may end up paying taxes to two jurisdictions. If they lost their job, their earned income from work might be less, while their unemployment benefits might be higher. For too many unfortunate people the pain of a Covid diagnosis will be accompanied by much higher medical expenses.  All of these factors, and more, will lead to a 2021 Tax Day more painful and burdensome, and carrying greater risk, than usual for millions.

Facing particularly big problems in their Tax Year 2020 returns are the low- and moderate-income Americans who might qualify for the earned income tax credit (EITC). The EITC, along with the Child Tax Credit (CTC) is one of the nation’s most important anti-poverty programs. The EITC refundable credit alone provides as much as $6660, depending on income and number of children.  As of December 2019, the EITC paid out $63 billion to 25 million Americans.  Roughly 85% of that total went to taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) of less than $30,000.

The importance of the EITC and the CTC cannot be overstated. In 2018, the EITC alone lifted about 5.6 million people out of poverty, including about 3 million children. But the problem is that the EITC has an extremely complicated set of rules and requirements about who is eligible and how much money they can receive, based on a combination of earned income, adjusted gross income, number of children, familial relationships, who lived with whom for how long, the composition of the family unit, and more. Individuals who violate any of these rules can have the tax credit taken away and may be banned from getting the credit for years.

Beyond this tax complexity that is always faced by working poor and moderate-income taxpayers, the returns due in 2021 are looming on the horizon as a daunting challenge for this population. A September 2020 report from the Tax Policy Center argues that recipients of the EITC will face a potentially large and unexpected Covid-related tax trap when they do their Tax Year 2020 returns. It turns out that the hundreds of billions of special unemployment insurance benefits received during the pandemic––so needed by those affected by pandemic loss of jobs—count towards overall income for tax purposes, but do not count as “earned income” for EITC purposes.  Because of the complex EITC rules, observes the TPC report, “receiving UI benefits can decrease the EITC, but cannot increase it.”

This Covid tax trap may unexpectedly reduce the EITC credit for many low-income families when it comes time to file their next taxes—an unwelcome surprise for people that are already struggling with the financial and health impacts of this pandemic. That’s a special problem, says the TPC report “since research shows low- and moderate-income families plan for that annual tax refund.”

Advocates of a return-free tax system have long contended that the IRS already has all the information it needs to prepare the returns for low- and moderate-income taxpayers. So in this real-world scenario, could the IRS use the information that it already has to help low- and middle-income Americans figure their EITC refund in this very complicated pandemic year, without the taxpayer having to struggle through all the rules and calculations to prepare their own return, or get professional help to qualify for refundable credits and determine the refund due to them?

The short answer is no. The IRS does not have the necessary information in its databases to accurately determine a low-income taxpayer’s eligibility for EITC and/or correctly calculate the amount of credit due to the taxpayer—indeed, far from it. The EITC is based on a stew of residency, family relationship, and income limits, with complex tie breaker rules. And like a giant puzzle, it requires deep knowledge of the personal lives of people living in the same household or family unit, with who else, for how long, and what their relationships and incomes are, just for a start. If a child qualifies to be claimed for EITC purposes by more than one person, there are six tie breaking rules.  Single parent households, and the non-traditional makeup of today’s household relationships, have also evolved in modern society faster than government regulations can keep up.

And especially when there are dramatic shocks to the economy—such as the health crisis of 2020, or a severe natural disaster or climate change event, or a future large-scale economic dislocation—there’s no way to use the previous year’s information as an accurate guide.  Moreover, no information return is automatically generated that says whether a child is living with their grandparents while their parents do essential jobs around the clock. And unique household or family circumstances are equally challenging given the velocity of domestic changes in today’s society, or in coping with crisis as we have in 2020. For example, the IRS does not automatically receive reports of split custody divorces where the children spend more than half of 2020 at the one parent’s house which had better broadband connections for school purposes or had broadband at all.

Suppose the next administration wanted to help out low- and middle-income Americans by estimating their EITC for 2020 and 2021. It would be a massive and costly undertaking for the IRS to go out nationwide to even try to collect and process the necessary extensive personal data on individuals, households and families to even begin to have enough information to even attempt to accurately determine eligibility for EITC and calculate the credit payment. To put this in perspective, the ten-year cost of conducting the 2020 Census is in excess of $15 billion. However, calculating the EITC actually requires collecting annually much more personal information than even the decennial Census. Moreover, part of the reason that the Census is so expensive is to track down precisely the low-income population that is eligible for the EITC.

Why so expensive and mammoth an undertaking? The rules for which taxpayers get to claim a child for EITC purposes depends crucially on who the child lived with during the year, and for how long. In other words, the IRS would need to know for each potential claimant—including grandparents and aunts and uncles in a multigenerational household, and whether and how household or family makeup changed or evolved during the year—and how many months each child lived there and with whom. In addition, the rules require information on adjusted gross income (AGI) per potential claimant.

The IRS already has a Dependent Database which helps it determine if two or more taxpayers have claimed the same child after they have filed, as part of tax administration. But the database does not have the prospective information to determine which person is the right one to make a claim for EITC before filing, much less accurately determine the amount of refund credit that the taxpayer will be due.

The only place this information can come from is the potential EITC recipients themselves. The data would have to be voluntarily submitted by the taxpayers themselves in advance of the government being able to attempt to accurately prepare the tax return for the taxpayer.  That means they would have to fill out new data collection forms in January, either online or on paper, which would compile the necessary information about where the child or children resided, with whom, for how long, the relationships to the children and among household or family members, and the varied incomes of those individuals in the household.  Indeed, expansion of the IRS into the function of annual collection of extensive personal nonfinancial data about individuals, households and families might very well receive bipartisan outcry, for any number of public interest reasons ranging from fiscal cost to the impact on personal privacy. The task each year would be huge.

Oddly enough, low- and moderate-income taxpayer returns that claim the EITC have been repeatedly described as “simple” returns by advocates of having the IRS take over tax preparation. But a study by the Tax Policy Center highlights the sheer complexity of low-income tax returns, noting that

…eligibility for child benefits has increasingly relied on the concept of a tax unit, which has not evolved with families…. The income tax law is based on annual filing and bases the definition of a filing unit primarily on legal relationships, child residency, and support. Consequently, families that change throughout the year may have difficulty correctly determining their filing status and who can properly claim a child for the purpose of receiving child-related benefits.

As the TPC study observed, “[b]ecause of these changes in family structure, tax filing has become more complex for many and will likely continue to grow more complex.”

The reality is that the IRS already collects 3.5 billion information returns each year, but most of them are generated automatically in the course of doing business by companies, such as employers and financial institutions.  Out of the 3.5 billion, for example, 2.3 billion are 1099-B forms for reporting securities transactions, which are tracked by brokerage firms as part of doing business. These forms are then delivered electronically to the IRS ready to be processed.

In contrast to the billions of electronic reported information forms, the IRS only processed 40 million paper information forms in FY 2019 and has been trying to drive down that number even more, as it continues its long-term modernization toward electronic tax operations originally begun back in 1998 as result of the work of President Bill Clinton’s National Commission on IRS Restructure and Reform, and its implementing Act. Shifting resources to a massive new data collection function to obtain the kind of personal data required to establish eligibility for the EITC, would require the IRS to go in the opposite direction and set up an entirely new set of workstream and systems for electronic and paper submission of “pre-return” personal information returns. In the best-case electronic scenario, that would include creating and maintaining a significant new online user interface for entering details of children, residency, relationships, and potential claimants.

Indeed, the United Kingdom offers a real-world case study of exactly this problem, based on their difficult experience with the UK version of the EITC, the Working Tax Credit, introduced in 2003. According to a study by the All-Party Parliamentary Taxation Group, a non-partisan committee of the UK parliament, the government figured out the hard way that it simply did not have enough information to accurately determine family tax credit eligibility, despite the fact that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) had long run a classic ‘return-free’ tax system for blue-collar taxpayers.

In response, the HMRC mandated the annual preparation and filing of a multi-page “pre-return” by taxpayers to establish their eligibility for the Working Tax Credit.  This pre-return, resembling an old-fashioned, multi-page American 1040 tax return, provides the government the extensive personal information it needs for the government to prepare the taxes for the taxpayer– so the taxpayer doesn’t have to file a return.  This tortured logic illustrates the problems that low- and middle-income taxpayers in the U.S. would face if the IRS followed the UK example, held up by return-free advocates as the state-of-the-art model to follow to reduce taxpayer burden.

How much would it cost to expand the IRS Dependent Database on short notice, in order to collect the significant additional information necessary, process it, to accurately establish whether EITC claimants are eligible or not, and then correctly calculate the tax benefit?  There’s no way of knowing the total overall cost for this data collection undertaking, but we can analyze the problem.

The IRS processed roughly 250 million personal,business, and related tax returns and 3.5 billion financial information returns in FY 2019, and handled 650 million online visits to IRS.gov. Against that backdrop, 25 million EITC recipients don’t seem like much of an extra burden.

But as noted above, the vast majority of those information returns are electronically generated and low-cost to handle. And the vast majority of the website visits are queries about the status of refunds and tax return transcripts, rather than the sort of interactive data entry that the EITC and CTC would require.

The Taxpayer First Act of 2019 did require the IRS to develop an internet portal by 2023 that allows taxpayers to electronically file 1099 forms for reporting income and other financial data, which are vastly simpler than the personal information collection that would be needed for the EITC. However, that process of development of a 1099 financial reporting portal is just starting, with Deloitte just recently receiving a 3-year contract to set up a project management office.

So we can reasonably expect that the EITC information return would have to be supplied via paper form submissions, at least for the foreseeable future, just as took place in the United Kingdom when the requirement was mandated there. One 2009 estimate by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration put the cost of processing a paper tax return at $2.87 per return.  But greatly complicating this type of undertaking is the fact that the IRS has gradually dismantled its paper return processing capacity over the last 20 years, with a residual capability that is a shadow of the legendary IRS paper processing operation in the first century of the IRS’s existence.

The Broader Context

This analysis, driven by the crisis of 2020 and the tax year to follow, raises the obvious question of why the IRS would set up an expensive new process to collect substantial personal information from EITC recipients, separate from the citizen’s actual tax return, which would have otherwise been submitted by the taxpayer in the normal voluntary compliance process.  More generally, it does provide some insights into the costs of adopting return-free filing in an uncertain world and rapidly changing society.  Return-free filing has often been thought of as a free lunch, where the IRS makes use of information that it already has to make life easier for low- and middle-income taxpayers and to save money. But the reality is starkly different from the rhetoric, and the often-claimed benefits for the working poor could in fact turn into another burden.

The IRS estimated that 25.3 percent ($17.4 billion) of the total EITC payments made in FY 2019 were “improper.” However, the IRS also estimated that approximately 21% of eligible taxpayers did not claim the credit that they deserve.   That leads people to jump to the conclusion, as one journalist wrote, that “….Automatic filing would provide EITC payments to many of that 20 percent not getting them, and would spare taxpayers from doing complex calculations that sometimes lead to errors.”

But there are no secret troves of free data that are being hidden that would immediately translate into return-free filing, with fair and equitable treatment for the working poor and disadvantaged. One issue is that the United States has no official resident register that tracks where people are living. By comparison, many of the countries that have “return-free” filing are already tracking where people live through an official resident register. In Germany, often held up as a return-free filing example, the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community supervises an official resident register:

“Anyone who moves into a residence in Germany must register within two weeks of moving in. To register, you have to go to the registration authority of your municipality and present a valid ID card, passport or passport substitute document and a certificate issued by the person providing the residence.”

The U.S. does not maintain such official government requirements for registration of domicile. Drivers’ licenses, school records, healthcare records, and tax records could be used to assemble a partial picture, but not enough to fulfill the needs of the EITC.

Proponents of return-free filing argue that the IRS can use data already submitted by the taxpayer in the past. For example, Austan Goolsbee in 2006 proposed a Simple Return that “would use the taxpayer’s tax return information from the previous year.”

However, the 2020 example shows it’s just not possible to assess today’s residency from last year’s reports due to rapidly changing household units and relationships, and now especially with remote work and remote learning. The research by the TPC demonstrates that even in ‘normal’ times the increasing velocity of change in the makeup, location and relationships of American households, particularly among the working poor, is significant and government’s regulatory frameworks and definitions cannot keep up.

Moreover, these changes interact with the tricky rules for EITC eligibility.  The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities notes that:

families’ living arrangements can be complicated, with working grandparents or aunts and uncles living with working parents and their children. More than one working adult in such families may potentially qualify to claim a given child for the EITC. Neither they nor, in many cases, their tax preparers may fully understand the complex rules that determine who is entitled to claim the EITC in such circumstances.

In the same vein, a report from the Tax Foundation observes that “improper payments are largely a result of the same child being claimed multiple times due to shared custody agreements or other complex living situations.”

Of course, the deeply layered complexity of the tax system doesn’t help either. The analysts at the Tax Policy Center write “If an income tax system were simple enough, the government could withhold taxes owed and do its own accounting at the end of the year without much help from taxpayers.” But what they mean by simple enough is a massive and comprehensive overhaul of the tax code, including a myriad of such fundamental changes as making the unit of taxation the individual rather than the family, and simplifying eligibility requirements for refundable credits.

The EITC and similar tax benefits such as the Child Tax Credit are hard cases for return-free filing just as a practical matter, because they require so much information which the IRS does not currently have. And prior year tax returns are no cure for ensuring accurate payment of future refundable credits, or avoidance of improper payments (either too little, or too much, or correct determination of eligibility for payment at all).  The essence of accurately establishing annual eligibility is in its recognition of the greatly increased velocity of societal changes in the family unit, household makeup, human relationships, job changes, moving and other changed housing circumstances, and more, But they are also the cases that make a difference, because they directly affect the lives and economic well-being of so many low- and moderate-income Americans, because they are so complicated, and because there are so many mistakes, in both directions.  And getting it right directly affects the economic condition of the people for whom refundable credits are intended as an anti-poverty lifeline.

There are no shortcuts. Precisely the people who need the help are those who would not benefit from return free filing. What 2020 shows us is that rather than giving these Americans extensive new forms to complete and file as a pre-return, or alternatively, to establish an intrusive new government national program of annual personal information collection, it is better to take that money and use it to improve the whole rickety IT infrastructure of the IRS in the performance of its core mission, which has been underfunded and woefully behind the IT and performance curve for decades.

Indeed, in a recently released paper PPI estimated that the federal government has an accumulated software investment deficit in excess of $200 billion. That is the extra amount that the federal government would have needed to invest in software to keep up with the private sector. Under these circumstances it’s difficult to justify diverting the IT funds to set up a “return-free” system that is actually not return-free for the low- and middle-income taxpayers who carry the burden of its complexity.

At its heart, this analysis of the Covid tax trap raises the broader question of the true societal cost for low- and moderate-income Americans in mandating a fundamental change in the nation’s voluntary compliance tax system that is touted as “reform”, “burden reduction,” and “cost reduction.”  As we have shown here, the reality is quite different, and those adversely hit by the “return-free” proposal––making the government tax collector also the nation’s tax preparer––are the working poor and other low- and moderate-income Americans. These are the people with the least means, voice or resources to advocate for themselves, turning tax fairness and societal equity on its head.

Protections for pregnant workers is a small change with big rewards

The House of Representatives recently passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) which would require that most employers provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees – similar to what is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

This bill is a sliver of good news for women who have disproportionately born the brunt of this pandemic. Not only do women work in industries more likely to be affected by Covid-19 (health care, direct care, and a slew of service industries) they are also bearing the brunt of the economic implications of the pandemic.  

Just last week, the new jobs report, released by the Labor Department showed that without schools and child care, women are dropping out of the workforce in record numbers. Of the 1.1 million adults who reported leaving the workforce (not working or looking for work) between August and September, more than 800,000 were women. For comparison, 216,000 men left the job market over same time period.

Without safely opening schools and child care centers, or closing the gender wage gap, it’s hard to see what other options women have. 

But the good news is, that if this law passes the Senate, pregnant women may get better accommodation which could protect them and their babies. 

Current federal law protects pregnant employees from discrimination but there is no law that requires pregnant workers receive reasonable accommodation to continue working without jeopardizing their pregnancy. Reasonable accommodation could be reassigning tasks or maybe more flexible work schedules, allowing more work from home hours when appropriate. We’ve learned from Covid-19, that working from home does not necessarily mean less productivity.

While it’s premature to fully understand the effects of Covid-19 on pregnancy, a few trends have emerged: 

  • Covid-19 infection is associated with premature birth: While the data is premature and limited, some studies are linking preterm with Covid-19. If this trend continues, it will be even more important to provide working pregnant women with accommodations to reduce their likelihood of contracting the virus. 
  • Sheltering in place, reduced premature birth: There is some good news for pregnant women: Across countries with strict lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders from the pandemic, premature births fell. In Denmark, premature births fell by 90 percent and in Ireland, babies with very low birth weight fell by 73 percent. Doctors are still trying to understand why – less pollution, travel, infection or hustle and bustle could all help explain the decline.

These two points illustrate that reasonable accommodation to either avoid infections or reduce unnecessary stress could have a dramatic impact on working women and their babies. If it signed into law, the PWFA would:

  • Require public employers and private employers with 15+ employees make reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers and job applicants as long as it does not create undue hardship on the employer
  • Allow pregnant employees to request accommodation without retaliation 

The bill has the support of the business community, civil rights groups, and labor advocacy organizations.

At a time when women are disproportionately impacted from this virus, this bill is a small victory to families across the country and the Senate should pass it expediently. 

This blog was also published on Medium.com. 

The Third Way: A Guide to Implementing Innovation Schools

Across the country, urban school districts are moving beyond industrial-era systems by creating “innovation” or “partnership” schools that have the freedom to reinvent the way they educate students. The Progressive Policy Institute released a how-to guide for legislators, district leaders, and advocates who want to create more of these 21st  century schools: The Third Way: A Guide to Implementing Innovation Schools.  

From Texas to New Jersey, from Colorado to Indiana, about 20 urban public school districts—and a few rural ones—are giving schools real autonomy, so school leaders make the key decisions, such as hiring and firing and controlling the budget. They are promising to hold these schools accountable for their performance and replace them if they fail their students, encouraging them to diversify their learning models, and letting families choose the schools that best fit their children. 

The results so far have been impressive. In Indianapolis, “innovation network schools” are the fastest improving group of schools in the district. In Camden, N.J., reading proficiency in the district’s 11 “Renaissance schools” doubled and math proficiency quadrupled in their first four years. 

The guide draws lessons from the experience of these and other districts, discusses key “success factors,” lays out implementation steps, and includes model state legislation to allow and encourage districts to create such schools.

Reinventing America’s Schools Project Unveils Comprehensive Guide to Modernizing America’s Schools

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The education landscape has shifted dramatically since the COVID-19 shuttered schools and upended classroom routines. Eight months later, lack of nimbleness and innovation continues to hamper school districts in their efforts to deliver student-centric teaching and learning. The crisis exposed what we’ve long known but failed to remedy: America’s public schools are stuck in systems designed 100 years ago around an industrial economy that bears little resemblance to today’s world.

If we learned anything from 2020’s massive twin traumas − the pandemic and the rage and despair that boiled over after George Floyd’s (and too many others before him) murder − it is that Black and brown communities are disproportionally harmed by the failure of antiquated systems. This includes centralized, one-size-fits-all school systems that perpetuate inequities for low-income, minority children.

Across the country, however, some urban school districts are moving beyond industrial-era systems, by creating “innovation” or “partnership” schools that have the freedom to reinvent the way they educate students. The Progressive Policy Institute today released a how-to guide for legislators, district leaders, and advocates who want to make more of these 21st century schools a reality: The Third Way: A Guide to Implementing Innovation Schools.

From Texas to New Jersey, from Colorado to Indiana, about 20 urban public school districts around the country—and a few rural ones—are giving schools real autonomy, so school leaders make the key decisions, such as hiring and firing and controlling the budget. They are then holding these schools accountable for their performance and replacing them if they fail their students; encouraging them to diversify their learning models; and letting families choose the schools that best fit their children.

The results have been impressive. In Indianapolis, “innovation network schools” are the fastest improving group of schools in the district. In Camden, N.J., reading proficiency in the district’s 11 “Renaissance schools” doubled and math proficiency quadrupled in their first four years.

The guide draws lessons from the experience of these and other districts, discusses key “success factors,” lays out implementation steps, and includes model state legislation to allow and encourage districts to create such schools.

“America needs new, innovative ways to meet students where they are and offer learning environments in which different students will thrive,” said David Osborne, the director of the Reinventing America’s Schools Project at PPl and co-author of the guide. “This moment requires leaders who are ready to put words into action by building a more equitable educational system, where every student in America has the opportunity to succeed.”

“This is a tool for legislators and policymakers who want to help Black and brown kids get out from under the historical inequalities in our public schools, added PPI’s Tressa Pankovits, who co-authored the guide. “We are offering a real-world guide to achieving change in a profound way, at a moment when the dire need for progress in how we educate our children has the nation’s attention.”

“High-quality education opportunities are critical to student success,” said Indiana State Representative Bob Behning (R-Indianapolis), chair of the House Education Committee and chief author of Indiana’s Innovation Network Schools bill. “Innovation network schools are one more option for parents looking to take control of their child’s education and enroll them in a classroom that best fits their needs. These schools provide educators the freedom and flexibility to shape their own curriculum, and in Indiana, we have seen several successful innovation network schools really raise the bar and meet the unique needs of students.”

PPI Statement on Digital Markets Report from House Subcommittee on Antitrust

Washington, DC – The House Subcommittee on Antitrust released its long-awaited report today on competition in digital markets. The recommendations include a call to break up tech companies so they can no longer own platforms and offer products and services on them at the same time, something that almost all other retail leaders do and do well.  

“The radical proposals set forth in the report would hinder America’s most innovative and globally competitive companies, simply because they are big, and ultimately would harm consumers,” noted Alec Stapp, Director of Technology at the Progressive Policy Institute. “The real problem with antitrust enforcement is that our agencies are underfunded and haven’t addressed the real competition issues in the healthcare and other consumer-facing industries”

“The report just skips over the statistical evidence that these companies lead the sector which has performed better than the rest of the economy in terms of prices, productivity, wages, investment and job growth,” said Dr. Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute. “If you have a car that’s running smoothly, why disassemble it for parts?”

Experts Alec Stapp, Director of Technology Policy and Dr. Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute are available for commentary. For more information or to speak with Alec or Michael, please contact Ryan@RokkSolutions.com. 

###

Creating a Culture of Innovation in America’s Public Schools

PPI launched a significant new report: “The Third Way: A Guide to Implementing Innovation Schools.” In this webinar, leaders discuss the spread of “innovation” or “partnership” schools: district schools in a variety of models, with full autonomy and accountability for performance. Listen to hear how these 21st-century schools are producing meaningful results with low-income students, from Springfield, MA, and Camden, NJ, to Indianapolis, IN, and Denver, CO. As traditional school systems struggle to adapt to the “new normal,” this is a conversation you won’t want to miss:

  • Pedro Martinez, Superintendent, San Antonio ISD
  • Mariama Shaheed, Founder, Global Preparatory Academy (Indianapolis)
  • Chris Gabrieli, Co-founder and CEO, Empower Schools
  • David Osborne, Director of PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project
  • Tressa Pankovits, Associate Director of PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project.

Will the President End the Politicization of Science Now that He’s Tested Positive for COVID-19?

Science should not be politicized. The public needs to trust scientific information to adhere to guidance, get vaccinated, and ultimately end the pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. Yet the President and his politically appointed “yes men” have undermined science, public health, and the regulatory process for their own political purposes. These actions sew doubt and will leave deep-seated distrust of federal guidance for years to come, resulting in unnecessary deaths.

Before the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was heralded as the world’s premier public health agency. Other countries relied on research and assistance from the agency. But a slew of mistakes this year — including flawed testing kits, poor contact tracing, and mixed messages over mask-wearing, knocked the agency on its heels and contributed to the United States’ poor response to the outbreak of the novel virus.

Six months later, the CDC has tried to find its footing, but unfortunately, rather than building the agency back up, President Trump continues undermined it.

Read the rest here.

Trump and Republicans are putting a Supreme Court seat ahead of America’s recovery

The faltering economy continues to weaken, with real unemployment over 11%, with as many as 26 million Americans still jobless. A jobs report late last week found that the economy has at least 11 million fewer jobs now than at the end of last year, a far bigger jobs loss than even the Great Recession of 2008-2009.

Meanwhile, a second wave of coronavirus is killing nearly a thousand Americans each week. COVID cases have risen in 33 states in the last month and more than a dozen states have reported increased hospitalizations in every region of the country as part of a “ominous national trend.” Already, 7.5 million Americans have contracted COVID, and more than 210,000 have been killed.

Normally reserved Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has become uncharacteristically blunt, telling Congress recently that economic recovery “will depend on keeping the virus under control, and on policy actions taken at all levels of government.” Powell has specifically urged passage of a long-delayed congressional economic stimulus and COVID relief package.

But in more than three months since House Democrats passed comprehensive economic and COVID recovery legislation, Trump and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have failed to enact a robust economic relief and stimulus package.

Read the full piece here.