Taxing Intangibles: The Law of Unintended Consequences

Can efforts to put new and stricter tax rules on tech and other knowledge companies actually backfire and hurt global growth?

There’s a sense of outrage and worry in Europe that American tech giants such as Google and Apple seem to be beating European rivals soundly. At the same time, governments claim that many global companies—including but not exclusively American tech companies—have been able to game the international tax system to great advantage. Given the need for revenue to support social benefits, that puts global companies in the cross-hairs of policymakers.

In an effort to stop global companies from escaping the grasp of domestic tax collectors, experts at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Paris-based group of developed countries, are developing a new set of principles for international tax cooperation. This effort, known as the Base Ero-sion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, has resulted in a series of documents out-lining some of these new principles, with more to come over the next year

These new principles—called ‘Actions’—are intended to transform the global tax system. As one OECD document says: “The BEPS project marks a turning point in the history of international co-operation on taxation.” (OECD 2013). Moreover, even though international tax policy is generally a matter for bilateral treaties be-tween individual governments—the BEPS project is developing the first multilat-eral “instrument” that would supersede and modify existing bilateral treaties.

Download “2015.04-Mandel_Taxing-Intangibles_The-Law-of-Unintended-Consequences.pdf”

The Hill: How the Obama trade agenda can advance progressive goals

In the last month, protesters have camped out in the Washington office of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and have even flown a 30-foot blimp over his town halls in Oregon. The senator’s offense? As the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Wyden is negotiating with the Obama administration and pro-trade Republicans and Democrats on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)—legislation that would set requirements for new trade agreements and rules for how they’re considered by Congress.

Wyden believes that—if done right—new trade deals with Asia (TPP) and Europe (TTIP) coupled with strong enforcement can promote stronger growth and good jobs in his trade-dependent state, while also advancing important values like environmental protection, labor rights and an open Internet.

For the protesters, however, opposition to free trade agreements is an article of faith in their version of the progressive cannon.  Since the great NAFTA debate of the 1990s, trade has often been a polarizing issue among progressives. But key developments since then—the rise of China, the dramatic growth in digital trade via the Internet, and concerns about a long-term slowdown in U.S. growth—give progressives good reasons to think again.

Trade-skeptical Democrats should use the debate on Trade Promotion Authority to take a fresh look at President Obama’s far-reaching trade initiatives. As we’ve detailed in a recent Progressive Policy Institute report, open-minded progressives can find many examples of how the Administration is combining smart trade policy and progressive ideals to advance vital goals while strengthening both the United States and the global economy:

Tapping into Global Growth. Assuring that Americans have a fairer slice of the economic pie is easier when the pie is growing.

In the past, America’s middle class fueled growth in the rest of the world. Now, an exploding global middle class—especially in Asia—can return the favor. By 2030, Asia will add 1.2 billion new middle class consumers to the global economy. These global consumers will want to buy what America has to sell—from wholesome food and cutting-edge consumer products to modern financial services and health care.

Trade initiatives like the TPP can help America’s businesses and workers tap into growing global demand by eliminating high duties, discriminatory standards, and other significant barriers to U.S. exports.  And­—if combined with progressive initiatives in areas like education and training—growing trade can help support broad-based American prosperity.

Democratizing Trade. Trade agreements can also “democratize” trade by empowering small business and global consumers.

The Internet and services like eBay and FedEx make it increasingly possible for America’s small exporters to sell globally as easily as their bigger rivals. Small firms that export do well—with 20 percent greater productivity and 20 percent higher job growth than those that don’t. But an array of trade barriers—including high duties and fees and complex standards—still make it difficult for smaller exporters to compete.

U.S. trade negotiators are focusing intensively on eliminating small business trade barriers in the TPP and T-TIP. And they’re working to foster a robust trade ecosystem for small traders by promoting transparent rules, open electronic commerce, and strong protection for innovation. Opening up modern Internet-enabled trade can provide global consumers with greater choice, freedom, and economic power, as well.

Leading on Fairer Trade. Trade agreements like TPP and T-TIP help America lead coalitions of like-minded countries that seek a fairer global trading system in which abuses like exploiting workers, despoiling the environment, or blocking the Internet are not longer accepted means of competition.

Based on a 2007 deal initiated by House Democrats, U.S. trade agreements now include strong and enforceable rules that require trading partners to abide by and enforce fundamental labor rights and key environmental laws and agreements. TPP and T-TIP negotiations afford the opportunity to extend these—and other important progressive principles—to two-thirds of global trade. If America doesn’t lead, however, countries like China may succeed with a competing trade model—one that ignores values like worker rights, environmental protection, and an open Internet.

Updating Trade Rules.  New trade deals also provide the opportunity to update old trade rules and write important new ones.

Critics of NAFTA, for example, have long complained that its “side agreements” on labor and the environment contain weaker requirements that are neither part of NAFTA nor enforceable under that agreement. Negotiating with Canada and Mexico in the TPP can help assure that trade with America’s first and third largest trading partners is governed by strong, modern, and enforceable labor and environmental rules.

Additionally, new trade agreements can address an array of emerging challenges to U.S. trade, including State-Owned Enterprises that use government subsidies and special privileges to gain unfair advantages, and a growing list of barriers to innovation and electronic commerce.

Supporting a Progressive Growth Agenda. Finally, progressives can use a thoughtful trade debate to remind colleagues that trade is only one piece of America’s larger economic puzzle.

A new study by Progressive Economy concludes that trade is likely not a major cause—nor a major solution—for the serious problem of income inequality. The study notes that trade policy can make key contributions by, for example, driving stronger growth and reducing high duties that particularly impact lower-income Americans.  But, ultimately, solving America’s major economic problems will also require many domestic initiatives long championed by progressives, including better access to education and training, and investment in innovation and infrastructure.

When it comes to trade, not all progressive-leaning Americans are flying protest blimps. Indeed, according to recent polling, some 60 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of millennials believe that trade deals like TPP and T-TIP are “good” for America. It’s time for progressives to avoid reflexive opposition and take a fresh look at the U.S. trade agenda.

The Iran deal and collective security

A buoyant President Obama announced on April 2 “a historic understanding with Iran” to defang its nuclear program. Chalk one up for the president’s oft-criticized Middle East diplomacy.

If it holds, the deal will indeed be a major foreign policy accomplishment for a president who badly needs one. But equally, if not more important, it could breathe new life into collective security.

That’s the vision of liberal internationalists like Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. After the colossal failure of balance-of-power politics to keep peace in Europe, they envisioned a new order upheld by great powers acting through legitimizing organizations like the United Nations and formal alliances like NATO.

Continue reading at the Hill.

Jobs and Millennials: How are They Faring?

Economists everywhere are scrambling to determine how today’s weak jobs report impacts the strong recovery story of 3.2 million jobs created over the last year. But when it comes to millennials in the labor force, the monthly numbers are only a small part of the story. That’s why I’ve done some number crunching to see what’s really going on with my generation.

My research highlights two factors that are holding millennials back: too many are not completing college, and too many that do have skills that are not well-matched to labor market demands.

When it comes to young workers, aged 25-34, the gap in labor force participation for those with and without a degree is now roughly 10 percentage points – and the gap is widening.* The chart below illustrates this stark reality – having a college degree could make the difference in whether or not millennials find a job.

LaborForceMillennials

However, my research also shows that in today’s labor market, having a college degree may not be enough. That’s because, in addition to completing college, the economic prospects of millennials depends on having high-wage skills employers demand.

Since the recovery began in 2009, college graduates’ outcomes have diverged. Some have seen great success in the economic recovery, while others have floundered at the expense of their less educated peers. I call this phenomenon the “Great Squeeze,” and I have previously written on it here. That real average annual earnings for young college graduates fell by 12 percent over the last decade reinforces this divergence between workforce success and underemployment.

CollGoneWrong

It turns out that what you study matters, as not all graduates are struggling. Graduates in high-skill, high-demand fields such as computers and mathematical occupations, for example, are doing just fine. The most recent Conference Board data shows the ratio of unemployed workers to advertised jobs for computer and mathematical occupations is just 0.17.

The skills mismatch helps in part to explain why too many college graduates find themselves underemployed well after graduation. Our higher education system has not adjusted to the changing shape of the labor market, one where job creation is focused at the high and low end of the skills spectrum.

That’s why it is not obvious that while some postsecondary credential is necessary, a college degree for everyone is the right fix. Instead, these charts suggest we need to look outside status quo higher education, to encourage more pathways into the workforce that provide young people with the skills employers demand.

*Note: Few in the aged 25-34 cohort are enrolled in school, and both men and women with a high school diploma or some college, no degree had significantly lower labor force participation rates than college graduates.

Forbes: Hillary Clinton and Trade: Not a Marriage Made in Heaven

PPI senior fellow for trade and global opportunity, Ed Gerwin, today was quoted in a Forbes piece regarding Hillary Clinton and how Democrats approach to trade:

“The problem is there is a strain within the Democratic Party and the progressive movement that is of the view that support for any kind of free trade agreement is an absolute non-starter,” said Ed Gerwin, a trade expert with the Progress Policy Institute. “For these folks, it has become a part of their almost religious canon that you can’t support these FTAs.”

That’s counter-productive, he said, “because if that’s the attitude they take, then they lose all influence in the trade debate. People write off these hard-core anti-trade people because they’re not going to support you, whatever you do.”

Read the piece in its entirety at Forbes.

Rotherham: No Congressional District Left Behind

In an op-ed today for U.S. News & World Report, Andrew Rotherham, cofounder and partner at Bellwether Education Partners, intriguingly argues that the best school reform idea is to fix the gerrymandering of legislative districts:

One of the interesting things about my job is that wealthy people ask me for ideas about how best to use their resources to improve America’s schools. There are plenty of important issues demanding attention: overhauling the sorry state of teacher preparation and teacher policy (I wrote an entire guidebook about that), giving low-income Americans more educational choice and improving educational finance are three obvious ones. But, to the consternation of colleagues in the education world, I don’t first suggest those or other specific education issues. Instead, I urge donors to support efforts to reform congressional redistricting. We won’t be able to genuinely improve our schools (or address a host of other issues) until we create legislative districts based on geography rather than gerrymandering.

Read the op-ed in its entirety at U.S. News & World Report. 

A Bottom Up Approach to Reducing U.S. Carbon Emissions

With last year’s landmark U.S.-China agreement on climate change, the Obama administration has raised the bar for America when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). That deal set new targets for reducing emissions by 26—28 percent (from 2005) levels by 2025, well above the previous pledge of 17 percent by 2020. Given implacable Republican opposition to taking action against global warming, how can the United States deliver on this ambitious promise?

Congress has tried, and failed repeatedly, to pass legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions. In June of 2009, the House of Representatives, then controlled by Democrats, narrowly passed a bill that placed an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Attempts to move a Senate bill floundered in the summer of 2010 on Democratic defections; monolithic Republican opposition and, some environmentalists complained, tepid White House support. That fall, Republicans took back the House and narrowed the Democrat majority in the Senate, killing any prospect of national legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The impasse led President Obama to reach for the only policy lever he had left—executive action. In a landmark 2007 decision, the Supreme Court gave the Environmental Protection Agency the green light to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Download “2015.03-Freeman_A-Bottom-Up-Approach-to-Reducing-US-Carbon-Emissions”

The Hill: With Schumer likely next Senate Dem leader, a trend is broken

The announcement that Harry Reid will be retiring from the Senate in 2016, and likely succeeded by Chuck Schumer of New York as Democratic leader, would break a long streak in which floor leaders of the Senate — both majority and minority leaders — have predominantly hailed from smaller states. It’s a little-recognized pattern that for several decades has expanded the influence of small states that are already greatly overrepresented in the Senate by virtue of the equal-representation principle that allocates two senators to each state.

he pattern is undeniable: No Senate floor leader since Republican Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania left the minority leadership in 1977 has been from one of the nine largest states, which cumulatively make up more than half of the U.S. population. Indeed, nearly all Senate leaders have been from the bottom half of the states when ranked by population, including some of the very smallest in the Union.

To wit: Over the past three decades, the Republican leaders in the Senate have been Howard Baker of Tennessee (17th-largest state today), Bob Dole of Kansas (34th), Trent Lott of Mississippi (31st), Bill Frist of Tennessee (17th) and currently Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (26th).

Continue reading at the Hill.

Washington Post: Setting the record straight on a net neutrality fact check

The Washington Post today set the record straight regarding a fact check it made in January involving a PPI policy report. Since the fact check was published, it has been widely misused by net neutrality proponents to discredit the report, which found that reclassification of the Internet as a public utility under Title II would pass millions of dollars in taxes and fees on to consumers.

The Fact Checker awarded Three Pinocchios to widely-cited claims that the FCC reclassification would cost $15 billion a year in new taxes and fees. The figure originated from a December 2014 report by the left-leaning Progressive Policy Institute, which calculated the worst-case scenario of all possible local and state telecommunications fees and taxes that could be levied on Internet services. After the report was published, Congress renewed the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), which prohibits state and local governments from levying new taxes on Internet access. So researchers published an update with state and local telecom fees, and modified the figure to $11 billion. It was noted in a footnote of a follow-up an article and was not readily available to average readers not following the debate.

Since the fact check published, some net neutrality proponents misquoted it on social media, either attributing the Pinocchios to PPI or to the $11 billion figure. 

Read the article in its entirety at the Washington Post.

Weinstein: March Madness at Time Magazine

Time Magazine (courtesy of the New America Foundation) recently re-published a new way to rank NCAA tournament winners according to their graduation success rates. According to the Time bracket, some pretty prestigious academic universities fair pretty poorly. Harvard, Georgetown, Texas, Wisconsin, and UCLA all lose in the first round followed by Virginia in round two. Among the top ten institutions on the list, seven had graduation rates for their basketball teams of 100 percent. In each of these cases, the rates for the basketball teams were higher than for the male population as a whole. In addition, the University of Kentucky’s (UK) Men’s Basketball team finished 20th on the list, with a team graduation rate of 89 percent compared to an overall male student graduation rate of 55 percent. That might be odd to some basketball aficionados given the large number of “one and done” players at UK (players who go professional after one year of college ball).

So what explains the discrepancy? Is UK really graduating 89 percent of its players? Is the Time Magazine bracket accurate? The answer for both is no.

It is important to understand that Time are not actually using graduate rates (how many entering students get their degrees) with regards to college basketball players. Rather, they have chosen to utilize the NCAA’s questionable bogus Academic Progress Rate (APR), which does not count many “one and done” players who leave to go onto the pros (NBA or elsewhere)

How does APR work? The system awards one point for each scholarship athlete in good academic standing and one for each one who either stays in school or graduates. So if a team has 10 scholarship players, and one drops out and is not on track to graduate, but all the others keep their grades up and either stay in school or graduate, then the team would earn a very good APR score (18 out of 20 points).

Now, it might seem that with all the early departures, Kentucky’s APR would take a big hit. However, if a scholarship athlete in good academic standing leaves to pursue a professional career, there is an adjustment to the APR so that there is no penalty.

So schools like Kentucky, which in reality graduate very few basketball players, get ranked high on Time’s list, while schools that actually graduate most of its players like the University of Virginia, University of Wisconsin, and Georgetown University look poor in comparison (disclosure, I graduated from Georgetown University in 1985).

Second, the comparison of APR and graduation rates for the male student populations at large is not “apples to apples” because APR does not include all dropouts but a graduation rate does. This makes the bracket pretty worthless in terms of usefulness.

Finally, there is the question of whether or not the APR data provided is even accurate. As recent scandals have underscored (see Syracuse University and the University of North Carolina), some institutions may be using a number of tactics (in violation of NCAA rules) to help student-athletes stay in good academic standing.

Maybe Time and New America should leave the prognosticating to the professional bracketologists.

Paul Weinstein Jr. is a Senior Fellow at PPI and directs the Graduate Program in Public Management at Johns Hopkins University.

The Hill: Obama trade agenda

PPI President Will Marshall was quoted by Kevin Cirilli in The Hill on the growing tensions in the Democratic party over President Obama’s trade agenda:

Will Marshall, president of centrist Democratic think tank the Progressive Policy Institute, said that “Democratic candidates in 2016 aren’t going to get into trouble for supporting” the trade agreements.

“Most voters understand that America can’t prosper in isolation and they have little interest in yet another reenactment of the long-ago battle of NAFTA,” he said.

Continue reading at The Hill.

U.S. News & World Report: Why Charter Schools Work — Or Don’t

Nothing frosts me more than Diane Ravitch and her friends’ charge that charter schools amount to “corporate reform.” This is such nonsense. The charter movement was launched in the 1990s by public activists and state legislators – most of them Democrats – while business conservatives were busy pushing standards or vouchers.

The critics also love to repeat that charters perform no better than other public schools. This statement may have been true in 2009, if one accepts the critics’ favorite study, from Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes or CREDO. But a closer look at those results reveals a deeper truth. Where charter authorizers do their jobs, charters vastly outperform traditional public schools, with far less money. Where authorizers fall down on the job, letting failing charters live on just like traditional schools, the average charter performs no better, and sometimes worse.

The original charter idea was to open the public school monopoly to competition from new schools, operated on contract by other organizations: nonprofits, teacher cooperatives, universities, even for-profit businesses. The charter was usually a five-year performance contract, laying out the results expected from the school. Charter authorizers – typically school districts or state boards of education – would reject charter applications from groups that did not appear equipped to succeed, and they would close schools if students did not learn as promised.

Continue reading at U.S. News & World Report.

Oregon Grapples with Broadband Regulation

The FCC’s “Open Internet” order was just released today. Plenty of people are hashing it over, including PPI (see statement here).

However, what’s less appreciated is how the FCC’s action puts the spotlight squarely on states and municipalities. No longer constrained by federal “light-touch” policies, state and local politicians and regulators must decide: Will they act in a way to encourage private investment in broadband networks? Or, instead, will they choose to discourage private investment in their region by regulating broadband prices and excessively taxing broadband providers?

Here’s the simple fact: States and municipalities that choose to place excess regulations and taxes on broadband providers will find themselves losing out on private investment in new networks, with negative long-term economic consequences.

One state struggling with this decision is Oregon. The Oregon situation is both complicated and illuminating, because it brings together so many different strands. Oregon currently has a set of rules for property tax called “central assessment.” As applied in Oregon, these rules mean that broadband providers such as Comcast pay property taxes based not just on the value of their facilities in Oregon, but on a tax base including intellectual property and other intangibles worldwide. This rule had the effect of driving up Comcast’s tax payments in Oregon by a factor of six, according to the company. The state legislature is considering a bill that allows the central assessment rule to be partly but not fully rolled back, leaving providers such as Comcast still exposed to substantially higher taxes.

The same high-tax rule would also apply to Google, if and when the company follows through on potential plans to build a gigabit fiber network in Portland, Oregon. The bill does offer potential relief for Google and other potential builders of gigabit broadband networks, with a tough caveat: They would have to meet certain build-out, price and performance characteristics in order to qualify for deeper tax reductions. In particular, the provider would have to

 …. offer communication services at or above a speed of 1 gigabit per second symmetrical service and at a price to customers that does not exceed 150 percent of the United States average price for the same speed of symmetrical service. The Public Utility Commission shall determine the maximum price of service and may update the standards for speed, type and price of service as the commission considers appropriate. The commission shall recertify each qualified project under this subparagraph every five years

In effect, the bill gives the PUC a mandate to set rates for gigabit networks–a return to the old-style top-down utility regulation that once helped throttle innovation. Rate regulation would make it much more difficult for providers to put together packages that would work for consumers and support investment. What’s more, because the regulators can change the price and speed standard at will, companies who build gigabit networks and qualify under this clause have no assurance that their tax bill won’t suddenly skyrocket, even if they have met their original promise. Indeed, regulators will be under political pressure to raise speed standards and lower maximum prices.

Now, the partial tax rollback, combined with the conditional tax reduction for gigabit providers, is better than the original tax rules. But if Oregon state legislators really want to attract private broadband investment and spur innovation and growth, they shouldn’t boost taxes on broadband providers and encourage regulators to micromanage prices and services. After the FCC’s open internet decision, that’s a lesson that all states and municipalities are going to have to learn.

 

Will Marshall discussed New Democrats Policy Agenda on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal

PPI President Will Marshall appeared on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal to discuss the policy statement recently issued by the House New Democrat Coalition. The American Prosperity Agenda focuses on growth and expanding the middle class. Building on America’s strengths in rapid innovation and entrepreneurship, the Prosperity Agenda also calls for expanding vital investments in infrastructure and a skilled workforce.

Press Release: PPI Statement On FCC Open Internet Order Release

PPI Statement On FCC Open Internet Order Release

Time for Congress to Act

WASHINGTON—Dr. Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), today released the following statement after the FCC published the Open Internet order:

“Today, the FCC released the 400 page text of its Open Internet order. From the economic perspective, it’s distressing that the Commission has decided to impose this many new regulations on a technologically dynamic and innovative sector that has been propelling growth. From the political perspective, it’s equally distressing that Americans are only seeing this order after the Commission approved it, showing a lack of transparency. And from the common sense perspective, the FCC’s promise to forbear from rate regulation is total nonsense, given all the other rules the Commission has pledged to enforce in its order.

“We all believe that having an open internet is important, but the FCC has picked the wrong approach. We urge Congress to pass a set of open internet rules that don’t take us back in time.”

###

Read PPI’s previous work on this issue:

The Truth Behind The FCC’s “Fact Sheet” by Hal Singer
The Best Path Forward on Net Neutrality by Hal Singer and Bob Litan
Outdated Regulations Will Make Consumers Pay More for Broadband by Hal Singer and Bob Litan
One last chance to save the Internet by Ev Ehrlich
The Wrong Way to Enact The Wrong Policy — The FCC’s No Good, Very Bad Day by Ev Ehrlich

The Hill: The most important talk Clinton gave this week was not about email

This week, Hillary Clinton garnered huge media coverage of her remarks at the United Nations. Yet the truly important comments she made didn’t involve email accounts, but rather “the great unfinished business of the 21st century.”

At the outset of the annual two-week session of the United Nation’s Commission on the Status of Women, Clinton built upon one of the most important legacies from her time as first lady: the landmark 1995 speech in which she outlined the many ways in which “human rights are women’s rights … and women’s rights are human rights.”

That speech, given at a U.N. conference in China, supported the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. The platform was designed to achieve the ambitious aim of “removing all the obstacles to women’s active participation in all spheres of public and private life through a full and equal share in economic, social, cultural and political decision-making. This means that the principle of shared power and responsibility should be established between women and men at home, in the workplace and in the wider national and international communities.”

Continue reading at the Hill.