Does the Tax Code Favor Robots?

In recent months, a number of scholars and commentators have articulated versions of the following argument: (1) U.S. tax law favors capital over labor;1 (2) Robots are capital; 2 (3) Therefore, U.S. tax law favors robots over labor. 3 Three implications tend to be drawn from this syllogism: (a) that U.S. tax law leads to inefficient investments in automation;4 (b) that automation—because it is capital-intensive and capital is tax-favored—will result in a reduction in tax revenues;5 and (c) that policymakers should respond to the automation trend either by imposing explicit taxes on robots or by raising taxes on all capital.6 This short essay seeks to illustrate why the line of argument above is misguided. First, the claim that U.S. tax law is biased toward capital rests entirely on an unstated (and uncertain) normative premise: that the United States should tax income rather than consumption. If an income tax is the baseline, then U.S. tax law exhibits a pro-capital bias; if a consumption tax is the baseline, then U.S. tax law exhibits an anti-capital bias. Which baseline we choose depends on normative choices that claims of capital-favoritism tend to occlude. Second, robots do not only (or even primarily) represent “capital”; they also embed the labor of engineers and others. The labor of robot makers is often taxed at unfavorable rates relative to the labor of the workers whom automation threatens to displace. Third, the idea that U.S. tax law incentivizes firms to replace human workers with robots rests on doubtful logic, and the claim that automation will erode the tax base finds little support either. This essay is not an argument against capital income taxation or a defense of the current Code, which does tax capital income but not all that much. I believe, though, that the case for capital income taxation will be stronger if it is based on firm foundations rather than on dubious claims of robot favoritism. The essay also is not a full treatment of the arguments for and against taxing capital. Its objective is to evaluate one such argument and to show why it is unpersuasive. Part I of the essay examines the claim that the U.S. tax system favors capital over labor. Part II turns to the question of whether robots represent capital or embedded labor. Part III considers the case for explicit taxation of robots or broader taxation of capital once illusions about the tax code’s pro-robot bias are cleared away

Comparison of research framing preferences and information use of state legislators and advocates involved in cancer control, United States, 2012–2013

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based policy plays an important role in prevention of cancer and other chronic diseases. The needs of actors involved in policy decision-making should inform knowledge translation strategies. This study examines the differences between state legislators and advocates in how they seek and use information and what their preferences are for how research information is framed. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional comparison of survey responses by US advocates (n = 77) and state legislators (n = 265) working on issues related to cancer control. RESULTS: Advocates differed significantly from legislators on all demographic characteristics. Advocates reported seeking and using information more frequently than legislators, though legislators used legislative research bureaus more often (0.45 point difference, P = .004). Both legislators and advocates prioritized the presentation and timeliness of research information similarly but reported different preferences for source (information bias, information relevance, delivery of information by trusted person) of research information. Several differences between advocates and legislators were modified by participant age. CONCLUSION: Our study provides insights for development of knowledge translation strategies to enhance evidence-based policy making for cancer control that are tailored to state-level legislators and advocates. Additional research efforts should evaluate the effectiveness of such knowledge translation strategies, particularly among advocates

A Philosophy Toolkit for Tax Lawyers

Philosophy functions as a tool for tax lawyers.The various schools of philosophy are akin to a toolkit with different tools suited for differing projects where the more tools the tax lawyer knows how to use, the more effective he or she will be in the practice of tax law. This paper accordingly sets out to provide a systemization of philosophy relevant to tax law in the areas of Moral Philosophy, Legal Philosophy, Law and Economics, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Language, and Critical Legal Studies. A summary is provided of each followed by a discussion of prior applications to taxation along with its most cogent critique. With this mapping of philosophical thought, tax lawyers might be better positioned to apply philosophy to tax law in various future contexts. Also, prior criticisms of philosophy as applied to law as intellectual voyeurism” or unwarranted “brilliance” are revealed as forms of doctrinal authoritarianism. Prior criticisms of interdisciplinary research in law, including those by the Chief Justice, are also addressed

Adolescent delinquent behavior and well-being: family-peer linkages

Recent acts of aggressive and delinquent behavior have initiated a search for the predictors of adolescent delinquent behavior. Poor psychological well-being could lead to depression, suicide, and apathy which may be related to delinquency. Research indicates that parent influences on well-being influence the quality of peer relationships which then influences delinquent behavior. This review examines direct and interactional influences of aspects of the parent-adolescent and peer relationships on different aspects of adolescent wellbeing and delinquent behavior. Theories/models regarding the linkages between family and peer groups are related to research studies in an attempt to find the most appropriate model. Most studies support the view that the parent-adolescent relationship remains very important in adolescence although the peer relationship does gain importance

Tax Ethics and Legal Indeterminacy

The modern framework of professional tax ethics is often given in reference to famous quotations of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes or Judge Learned Hand. The common quote from Holmes is that “the very meaning of a line in the law is that you may intentionally go as close to it as you can if you do not pass it”; Hand’s quote is that “there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible . . . [a taxpayer] is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.” However, there are two significant problems when these are applied to form the basis of tax ethics. First, Holmes’ idea of “crossing the line” is taken as a presumption that tax laws are legally determinate. They are not. Every tax practitioner ought to be aware that tax laws are not legally determinate. Accordingly, the limits of tax planning should not be expected to be clearly marked. Second, Hand’s premise of the legitimacy of “arranging affairs” raises the problem of structuring. By structuring, the tax practitioner creates a convoluted and indeterminate transaction out of a previously known set of facts. The respective “facts” then become slippery, just as Karl Llewellyn said, so the dream of tax law as a complete and fully valid set of intersecting code provisions dramatically falls apart. The Internal Revenue Service has struggled to respond to this challenge with new penalties and ever-changing tests. However, tax structuring represents a new animal in terms of legal philosophy comprising Factual Indeterminacy, where the underlying “facts” become indeterminate in various ways. This changes things for tax ethics because the standard line—”the lawyer applies the law to the facts”—is not an exclusive description of tax lawyering. By structuring, the tax lawyer is sometimes pushing toward indeterminacy. In nearly all other legal contexts lawyers push in the opposite direction, away from indeterminacy. Various ethics scholars have proposed that the tax lawyer merely acts in different roles in different contexts, and that personal standards of ethics (or, morals) could serve as a guide to ethical lawyering. An alternative framework of professional tax ethics based on the direction of tax planning toward or away from indeterminacy is proposed here

Introduction: Communicating Research to Policy Makers—Briefing Report Chapters from the Massachusetts Family Impact Seminars on Youth at Risk

Research and policy should go hand-in-hand. With few exceptions, however, the history of research utilization in policy making has been disappointing. Policy makers typically do not have the resources to seek out the growing body of research on the complex issues they face. Instead, they tend to rely on personal impressions or information from special interests that is often fragmented and biased. This practice occurs despite growing evidence that public policy would be more effective if it were based on hard evidence and dispassionate analysis. How can we better connect researchers and policy makers? One proven, cost-effective, and replicable model was recently named a “Bright Idea” by the Harvard Innovations in Government Program—the Family Impact Seminars (FIS). The FIS are a series of presentations, discussion sessions, and briefing reports that provide state policy makers with objective, high-quality research on timely topics. The six articles that follow were all originally published as policy briefs that were part of the third and fourth annual Massachusetts FIS on “Youth at Risk” convened in spring 2012 and 2013 at the Massachusetts State House. Each seminar featured an expert panel speaking and writing about issues that face today’s youth in the Commonwealth. The Massachusetts seminars are part of a national network of twenty-two sites across the country, all university-based, that are building relationships with and communicating research to state policy makers