- The Washington Times - Monday, September 16, 2002

On Sept. 9, columnist Robert Novak reported that President Bush's proposed investor tax relief plan was dead on Capitol Hill due to opposition from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas , California Republican.
My own reporting confirmed there was a lack of support on the committee for another tax bill this year. This is mainly due to fears about losing revenue at a time when the budget has moved from surplus to deficit. However, I found no indication Mr. Thomas opposed investor tax relief. Rather, he feared bringing up a bill that would not even pass out of committee because of a lack of Republican votes.
I have no doubt strong White House support for a new tax package would at least ensure unified Republican support in Congress. The problem is there is nothing to support. The White House has yet to put forward an actual plan.
All we have on the record at this point are some brief comments Mr. Bush made to reporters following his Waco economic summit.
White House staff insist to me that the tax package is not dead and work on it continues. They expect some formal statement by the president in the next week or so.
Unfortunately, in the meantime, Congress comes ever closer to adjournment for the year, with much work on appropriations bills still to be done. Nevertheless, I still think a tax package aimed at the investor class would greatly benefit Republican candidates in November.
Mr. Bush mentioned several tax initiatives, including increased deductions for capital losses and 401(k) and individual retirement account (IRA) contributions. However, his suggestion that the double taxation of corporate profits should be relieved probably has the greatest political potential.
Economists have complained for decades about how corporate profits are taxed once at the company level and again when paid out to shareholders. The result is that businesses organized as "C" corporations pay an extra tax of 35 percent that is not paid by sole proprietorships, partnerships or "S" corporations. (The last is a special type of corporation for small businesses.)
There is simply no logic in taxing differently two equally profitable businesses solely because of their legal forms of organization.
As a consequence, the number of "C" corporations has been falling as a share of all business in the U.S. Between 1978 and 1998, the number of nonfarm businesses roughly doubled from 12.5 million to 24.1 million. However, the number of "C" corporations increased by just 363,000. Almost all the growth, therefore, was in businesses that do not face double taxation.
There are a number of ways to relieve double taxation of corporations. One way would allow dividends to be deducted from corporate income, as interest payments now are. Another would allow shareholders to receive dividends tax-free.
In all likelihood, the administration will go with the latter. Even though the two methods are economically equivalent, those who make up distribution tables would show the first as more beneficial to the "rich" than the second.
In any case, the administration is unlikely to propose full elimination of double taxation although Rep. Christopher Cox, California Republican, already has done so (H.R. 5323). It will probably propose a partial dividend exclusion such as existed from 1954 to 1986. During that time, individuals were allowed to receive $100 of dividends tax-free; couples filing jointly could get $200. Had these amounts been fully indexed to inflation, individuals today could receive $670 of dividends tax-free, with couples getting $1,340.
Even though dividend tax relief will be limited, the class-warfare crowd still will claim that any reduction in taxes on dividends is a giveaway to the rich. However, IRS data show that those with modest incomes get a lot more dividends than one might imagine. In 2000, taxpayers with less than $20,000 in income received more than $10 billion in dividends 16 percent of all dividends received. Those with incomes under $30,000 represent 30 percent of all taxpayers with dividend income.
A key reason so many with modest incomes receive dividends is that many of them are the elderly. They buy dividend-paying stocks for income, whereas younger stockholders are more inclined to buy so-called growth stocks that often pay no dividends at all. Instead, they get their profits in the form of capital gains, which are more lightly taxed than dividends.
If Mr. Bush does come forward with a dividend-relief proposal, he should make clear that this is just one step toward full abolition of double taxation.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide