In a recent journal article, Rashkin provided the following example of how a revised tax credit should work: “Under this proposal, research on Apple’s first iPad would have easily qualified, but any succeeding models would not unless the improvements were very innovative in nature. Since the development of breakthrough products is usually costly and risky but at the same time provides the greatest benefit to the economy, the credit rate should be increased.”
Other incentives for product innovation and manufacturing investment should include lower tax rates for companies that develop and manufacture products in the US, Rashkin told Congress. “By providing this incentive to manufacturers and their suppliers, and by removing the [IP] tax haven advantage, we would reverse the foreign outsourcing trend and reinvigorate the US manufacturing industry,” Rashkin testified.
The R&D tax credit has been renewed several times since its inception in 1981. The technology industry has longed lobbied for a permanent extension. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mt.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, along with ranking committee Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, have jointly proposed a permanent extension of the credit. The proposal also would increase the nominal tax credit from the current 14 percent of research expenses to 20 percent.
“Making this tax credit permanent will provide certainty, and it will help spur economic growth for generations to come,” Baucus said last fall.
Observers doubt whether any tax proposal could make it through the GOP-controlled House of Representatives in a presidential election year. “A bill that does not include making the Bush tax cuts permanent or a thousand other tax provisions” has no chance of approval in the House, one observer said.
As for the Obama administration, one manufacturing advocate notes, “It's not an uphill fight to get the [White House] economists to agree that the country needs to have manufacturing.”
I agree that tax incentives have to be a viable tool for enticing manufacturers to keep key R&D and manufacturing jobs on our shores. And the argument seems strong that increasing the credit to a more substantial number (should it ever pass in the Congress and the Senate--an entirely different story) could have some merit. It wasn't clear to me, however, how the curent R&D tax credit encourages companies to park R&D in overseas tax havens? If the credit is tied to U.S. manufacturing, no matter what the rate, how would it foster this overseas investment? Any one care to wade in?
This is an excellent example of what has failed to happen -- an effective chain from government funding research, to product development and manufacturing. Everyone seems to agree that we need to rebuild manufacturing but it's an area where we need effective legislation that doesn't produce unintended consequences. Let's hope we can get it done.
I'm not an anarchist, but I do consider myself a constitutionalist. Our current situation has been developing for decades and it looks like we have reached a point where there is no longer a concept of freedom to "pursue happiness" but a "regulation of everything". Once all rights and permissions flow from an all-regulating bureaucracy, it can attempt to control the system by increasing regulations here, and providing tax incentives there. We do not have the models and knowledge of the number of variables necessary to calculate our way out of our current situation. Agile Design has taught us the Waterfall method of development doesn't guarantee success but often guarantees cost overruns and fault-ridden work product that arrives too late to be of use. Our Founders praised the Agile Design method of continuous improvement and rampant experimentation by individual stakeholders. I for one hope we can evolve our system in that direction.
I like the idea proposed in this article, but I doubt it would reverse the overseas manufacturing drain.
The cost to manufacture in the US is high because of labor costs. US workers expect (RIGHTLY!) a safe work environment (and it is mandated by law). China does not offer the same safety to its workers. US workers are paid more than Chinese workers, have better benefits. Until the disparity is truly acknowledged, there will be no change in manufacturing location. The "global" market is a fallacy until such differences are leveled.
I am not taking a false moral stand; I'm no different than anyone else. I know that my desire to purchase things at the lowest cost to me means I will be purchasing Chinese-manufactured items.
Set aside safety (let's assume for sake of argument all factories have the same level of worker safety). If a factory here were to try to get away with paying its workers what Chinese factory workers earn, the newspapers here would have banner headlines with phrases like "sweat shop" and "slave labor". If that is what it is here, then why is it not there?
Thanks for posting the link. After reading it, I think we should let the tax credit die. In practice, while the idea of the R&D tax credit is definitely appealing, the RESULTS over 30 years have been less than impressive. It's just another example of government spending going to companies that don't need it, and spending not producing specific results.
Good points, TJ. Yet at some point the differential between China labor costs will even out somewhat. China is already seeing increased labor costs, particularly in plants that make goods aimed for the U.S. and Europe. That trend is sending a lot of manufacturing to Viet Nam.
Here in this country, manufacturers have negotiated labor costs down. Add shipping to the cost of China manufacturing and the gap begins to close somewhat. Add a few tax incentives and the U.S. may become an attractive place for manufacturing again.
making the credit applicable only to "innovative research and breakthrough products,"
Who determines if a product meets those conditions and then how soon before the companies start gaming the system so ALL products are innovative and breakthroughs.
The beancounters and lawyers will not rest, not with the money involved and the desire to wring the highest profits possible, irregardless of the societal and technological aspirations of the R&D credit.
I'm not a tax expert, but my understanding based on what I've read elsewhere is that companies can't claim the R&D tax credit for any research conducted after the start of commercial production.
If the goal is simply to promote development of new technologies, then this makes sense. But, as George points out, there is no guarantee that companies won't use this credit to develop products in the U.S., write off the development costs, and then manufacture the products overseas. Then the U.S. gets both less tax revenue and fewer jobs. It's win-win for companies who do this, and lose-lose for the U.S.
But if the goal is to promote manufacturing, it might be a good idea to allow companies to claim the credit for research directed towards improving existing manufacturing processes -- provided, of course, that these manufacturing processes are located in the U.S.
Michael Rashkin's article in EETimes makes a number of other interesting points, such as how the credit disproportionately benefits large companies, who don't need it in the first place. On the other hand, small start-up companies can't benefit from tax credits if they haven't made any profits, because they don't have any tax liability to begin with.
It seems to me like it might make sense to put a cap on the size of company which is eligible for the credit, like some income-based education credits. Maybe, for very small companies, the credit could even be made refundable, like the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The argument for leaving the market unregulated is good until one comes up against what China does to support its industries and technology vis a via the U.S. If China is unbalancing the playing field, as it were, then doesn't the U.S. have a right (and even a responsibility) to rebalance it by offering some levels of support, whether it's tax credits or R&D support, or whatever?
On April 21, NASA launched a novel project, putting into orbit three satellites that employ an off-the-shelf commercial smartphone as the control system.
The legacy endpoint devices that control our critical infrastructure (utility systems, water treatment plants, military networks, industrial control systems, etc.) are some of the most vulnerable devices on the Internet.
In a switched-capacitor filter, capacitors and switches take the place of resistors and accurately reproduce the characteristics of continuous-time Bessel, Butterworth, and elliptical filters.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 5
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
11 
