The latest week in Hyman commentaries began with a rather trifling look at a nuanced issue: tax-extenders. These are temporary tax breaks that tend to get “re-upped” year after year.
Hyman chastises both parties for their use of these as leverage over lobbyists—as ways to shakedown interest groups. And there is undoubtedly some truth in that.
However, it’s also true that some lobbyists *want* tax breaks to be rolled into tax-extenders. Not only does it allow them to lobby for tax breaks that avoid the usual 10-year forecast necessary for permanent acts, but, as Politico notes, the fact that these tax breaks are continually being reconsidered (at least technically) keeps the lobbyists themselves in business.
It’s also worth noting that some tax breaks ought to be temporary (e.g. tax incentives for reinvestment after a natural disaster, etc.).
It also the case that Congress actually *has* done away with many of these temporary cuts, meaning that, according to the Tax Policy Center, “tax extender deliberations now have lower stakes than in recent years.”
All of which is to say, while tax extenders are probably, on balance, not an efficient way to do business. They *can* be used and abused for short-term political gain (e.g. Mitch McConnell's pet tax break for racehorse owners). But the issue is (shocker!) more complex than Hyman’s framing of it would suggest.
The likely motivation for this is that tax extenders have an effect on tax reform policy, and addressing them has been seen as a prerequisite for substantial changes to the tax code, the next thing on Trump’s “to do” list after the trainwreck that was his attempt to gut the Affordable Care Act.
No comments:
Post a Comment