President Biden sent ripples through the financial world when he proposed a “once-in-a-generation” investment in the foundations of middle-class prosperity [1] with a tax reform agenda set to neutralize the wealth disparity in our country.
The proposed agenda in the American Families Plan (“AFP”) marks an ambitious proposal to reconfigure both how the United States rewards the American Dream and how it proposes to roll out enough social programs to solve what ails our country. It proposes paying for those programs with an equally ambitious plan to tax the wealthy in ways heretofore unimagined—or if imagined, previously unattainable.
From the outset, it is vitally important to recognize that “tax” is a multi-layered conversation and, depending on the facts used, any conversation about tax will have different outcomes. This article does not attempt to fully explore all facts. Instead, it seeks to start a conversation and aid in understanding the proposed agenda. Thus, first we will touch on some facts related to the actual amounts of tax paid by the wealthy. Next, we discus the capital and ordinary income tax proposals raised in the AFP. Finally, we explore some potential outcomes if the AFP is passed into law.
President Biden has said, on several occasions, that America’s wealthy need to “just pay their fair share.” While we recognize most Americans distrust the tax system (and in many cases, government generally), most Americans do believe they should pay “something” in tax. After all, this is the greatest nation in the world with access to public services, including free schooling for our children, and rights, such as free speech, which we often take for granted. Most Americans’ views start to differ when “fair share” becomes a rally cry with reports on billionaires qualifying for certain tax credits reserved to the poor. Again, not to delve into the probably-completely-legal-and-ethical means by which corporations and their owners manage taxation, we present the following graphic from the Heritage Foundation :

The Administration makes its projections on eight (or ten) year plans for revenue. However, the revenue to be raised requires fifteen years to reach its funding goal (in a vacuum). Thus, the AFP begins with a five-to-seven-year shortfall. Unfortunately, even if the laws backdate eligibility or claw back income to fall under the future laws, it is unlikely to catch everyone. We wonder how many Fortune-level companies will pay their Big 4 accounting firms to find a way to pay some tax in year one only to plan an escape after that? If some of the biggest companies do so, the AFP loses tax dollars during the next nine tax years.
Corporations with sufficient revenue at risk are likely to go offshore (again) to take advantage of better tax treaties. Apple’s (and others’) use of the Dutch-Irish Sandwich should provide a good example of the lengths a corporation will go to limit or reduce taxation by even just small percentages.
The truly wealthy are likely to move assets and income to creditor protection jurisdictions and take advantage of legitimate investments with income tax benefits for their investments and wealth. Individuals will find other ways to pass income and transfer wealth or push off selling businesses/stock/houses/etc. The tax on the wealthy may face significant hiccups in tax collection, even with a doubled budget for the IRS. This could be why the Biden Administration is putting such a priority on global corporate and minimum taxes. With all the tax minimization options available to wealthy individuals, it is questionable how we will pay for these social programs.
The tax starts to trickle down. We are possibly seeing it now with the lowered upper income bracket. Increased corporate taxes do not mean less money to the wealthy. It usually means higher prices, increased costs passed on to consumers, and more entry level jobs being handled by robots or self-service kiosks (think Wal-Mart self-check and McDonald’s ordering kiosks).