The Bring Jobs Home Act Won’t

The Bring Jobs Home Act is a classic message bill. Its Democratic sponsors have no interest in making it law, they merely see it as a way to boost the party’s Senate candidates in part by forcing Republicans to vote against something that sounds like a good idea. After all, who could be against bringing jobs home?

Trouble is, this bill would do almost nothing to “bring jobs home.” It combines two ineffectual ideas into a single bill, and the whole is no more than the sum of its exceedingly modest parts.

The measure aims to do two things: Reward U.S. firms with a 20 percent tax credit for relocating business units from overseas to the U.S. and punishing firms by denying a tax deduction for the cost of relocating operations from the U.S. to foreign countries. “It protects American jobs and encourages future job creation within our borders,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Tuesday.

Actually, it wouldn’t.

The ideas in this bill, or variations on their themes, have been floating around the policy world for years and have rarely gotten traction. At first glance the measure looks a bit like an employment subsidy, and its title certainly implies that it is. But look closely, and this bill is quite different. It doesn’t subsidize firms that create U.S. jobs at all. Rather, it rewards them for merely moving business units to the U.S.

In the past, lawmakers promoted tax incentives to encourage hiring as a way to help reverse economic slumps (The theory: hiring more people would increase demand which would encourage more hiring).

Such a measure was enacted during the Carter years. For an insider’s take on what happened, read Emil Sunley, who was a top Treasury official at the time. Len Burman helpfully dug out Emil’s comments in a blog back in 2009 when the Obama Administration was toying with a similar idea.(For a contrary—and more positive view—of the Carter bill, you can read another Tax Vox blog and its comments here).

But unlike that measure, this bill does not link the credit to the actual number of new jobs created in the U.S. Rather it allows firms to take a credit against such costs as permit, license, and brokerage fees, or the cost of installing equipment. Unlike the older-style jobs bills, this one does not provide tax subsidies to offset labor costs. And to qualify for the subsidy, firms must only show some increase in domestic jobs. If I read the bill correctly, one new job will do.

Presumably, a U.S. firm could move a business unit to the U.S, take the credit, and then open new production facilities in China.

For many multinationals, the credit would be largely meaningless. Those firms already pay close to a zero U.S. tax rate thanks to their ability to shift income to low-tax countries. With their U.S. tax liability already low, the credit would do almost nothing to encourage them to shift operations to the U.S.

The penalty side of this bill–disallowing deductions for the costs of moving production overseas– would be similarly ineffective. The costs of such a move are normally trivial: Firms build new factories, they don’t hoist existing U.S. plants onto container ships and trundle them off to China.

The Joint Committee on Taxation figures the credit would add about $360 million to the deficit over 10 years, while disallowing the deduction would reduce the deficit by about $143 million over a decade—an indication of how small an impact it is likely to have on corporate behavior.

Finally, remember that this bill would do nothing whatever to stop the latest wave of corporate inversions. A U.S. firm that reincorporates as a foreign entity to reduce its taxes is changing a mailing address on some legal documents, not moving jobs. Deductible costs are trivial compared to tax savings.

Democrats have tried this bill before. A couple of years ago, Michigan senator Debbie Stabenow proposed a similar measure with White House backing. This time the sponsor is Montana’s John Walsh. But the idea has gotten no better with age.


Reducing Income Inequality, Taxing Businesses to “Hire American”

Have Obama’s tax policies reduced income inequality? TPC has some new data, but the answer depends on who you compare him to. Relative to George W. Bush, who pushed major tax cuts for high-income households, Obama has reduced inequality. But compared to Bill Clinton, his policy is pretty standard Democratic fare. The Washington Post has […]

How Progressive is Obama’s Tax Policy?

Has President Obama’s tax policy reduced income inequality? It depends on what you are comparing it to. White House Council of Economic Advisors chief Jason Furman claims that President Obama’s tax policies have sharply reduced inequality. Today’s Washington Post Wonkblog featured some new tables from the Tax Policy Center that show Obama tax policy is […]

ACA Tax Subsidies Face Risk; IRS Enforcement Is Overtaxed

Two appeals courts deliver opposing rulings on Affordable Care Act tax subsidies. The DC Circuit Court ruled yesterday that the tax credits can only go to residents in states that run their own  health exchanges. In Richmond, VA, the 4th Circuit Court said the ACA language isn’t clear, so the tax credits are also available […]

Have We Created a Two-Tiered Tax System—One for the Powerful and One for the Rest of Us?

Unlike the rest of us, many high-income, influential people and organizations have close to a free hand when it comes to their taxes. Already underfunded and understaffed, the IRS seems incapable of stopping many aggressive or even abusive interpretations of the tax laws, often by hedge funds or politically-motivated tax-exempt organizations. Over the past few […]

Abuse of financial products by hedge funds

Today, I testified before the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (the “Subcommittee”) on the abuse of structured financial products by hedge funds, in particular by the Renaissance funds. This is what I told the Subcommittee: Almost a century ago, Congress reduced the tax rate for long-term capital gains. Then, long-term meant holding assets for […]

State Taxes and the April Surprise

In recent months, several governors have complained about the April, 2014, surprise in state tax revenues. They say they were shocked when personal income tax payments fell far below expectations. They shouldn’t have been. What happened? In part, in an effort to beat an upcoming increase in capital gains taxes, investors accelerated realizations into tax […]

Baskets of Billions, Inversions and Revenues

Did banks help a hedge fund avoid $6.8 billion in US taxes? Yes, according to the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs panel’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Its report, released in advance of this morning’s hearing, argues that “basket option structures” were designed to conceal two things: the true ownership of sets of assets; and […]

Summer Blockbuster? Congress’ Week Is Tax-Action Packed

Another big inversion deal heads to closing. Pharmaceutical giant AbbVie agreed to purchase UK drugmaker Shire, making it the largest US company so far to move its address overseas for lower taxes. The deal, now estimated to be worth about $55 billion, will likely close despite any US action to curb inversions. The Senate may […]

A Ditch, an Add, and Maybe an End Run

Australia repeals its two-year-old carbon tax. It’s been a contentious issue for seven years. Australia is one of the biggest producers of carbon emissions per capita. Its government is committed to reducing emissions to 5 percent below year 2000 levels  by 2020. A carbon tax might have been the most expedient method to accomplish that […]