For the last several months, I’ve been meeting a guitarist and sometimes other musicians at a Chicago park to play outdoor socially-distanced jazz. This Sunday, driving home, my wife asked me if we knew what Trump had paid in taxes. “Of course not,” I confidently responded. “It looks like we do now,” she said.
And with that, my work goals for this week changed. I’m sure everybody reading this has seen Sunday’s New York Times story (and probably also its follow-up from yesterday). Along with a ton of other tax people, I’ve been trying to make sense of and contextualize the story, both to myself and to the public. And I’ve largely been doing my thinking in real-time on Twitter.[fn1]
I thought that I’d assemble a lot of those Twitter threads here into one place. At most I’ll lightly edit them and I’ll link to the actual threads on Twitter, too. Because over there I included GIFs on almost every tweet and I think I outdid myself. The relevant content will be here, though. Continue reading “#TrumpTaxReturns”→
On Saturday, I made one of those goofy academic tweet threads summarizing the paper, and then it occurred to me that I really liked my goofy tweet thread! Therefore, I’ve taken the liberty of posting the tweets here for the marginal reader who is just interested enough in the topic to read the tweets but possibly not interested enough to read the actual paper.
Diane and I look forward to continuing conversation on this.
The question that drove us was extent to which Sec. 199A incentivizes shifts to independent contractor classification. Some key points: (1) It’s not just about 199A itself. We think that once tax interacts with non-tax considerations, the picture becomes more complicated…2/?
(3) It’s unclear how much incremental advantage the Sec. 199A "carrot" gives firms in keeping workers quiet when they are have been classified as ICs. Firms already have non-tax ways to mute worker challenges and, moreover, have used them. 4/?
In two follow-up tweets (here and here), he clarified and doubled-down on his position: essentially, he argues that (a) without the 16th Amendment, the country couldn’t have enacted an income tax, (b) without an income tax, we couldn’t have afforded to enter World War I, (c) if we hadn’t entered the war, the Versailles Treaty wouldn’t have happened,[fn1] and (d) without the Versailles Treaty, World War II, with all of its attendant evils, wouldn’t have happened.[fn2] Continue reading “Grover and Godwin”→
Every year, Kelly Erb (@taxgirl) posts her top tax Twitter follows. This year, I was fortunate to make the list. In addition to my shameless self promotion, I am directing you to her article because it was nice to see that many other academics made the list.
I think the fact that so many academics made this list is very important right now. First, academics tend to get a bad rap for living in ivory towers. Twitter is a great egalitarian platform. Second, in the upcoming months, active engagement by the best and brightest is paramount. Twitter for all its flaws allows for real time interactions. Seriously, you would be amazed how far you can spread your knowledge! Finally, it reminds me to update my old list I posted at Surly. If I am missing your name, please let me know and I will repost later this month.
In the meantime, here were the academics on the list:
A little over a week ago, I came across an article titled Top 50 Law Professors on Twitter. I did not even want to link to the article (although I did) because there was not one tax professor on the list. So on this #followfriday, if that is still a thing, I thought I would created a list of tax professors on @twitter. If I missed you, I am sorry; just send me your twitter handle or follow me and I will add it to the list!