Archive for the ‘Taxes’ Category

The Tax Lady Roni Deutch Analyzes the Tax Views of Sen. Barack Obama

Sunday, October 4th, 2009
Roni Deutch asked:


Higher Taxes on Top Earning Americans

Senator Obama is a big believer in our progressive tax system – and he is not afraid to hide that. So one of the first things Obama is set to do is letting President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to selectively expire. He also advocates increasing the income cap on payroll taxes. This would essentially be a huge tax increase for taxpayers earning between $97,000.00 and $250,000.00, which goes against Obama’s prior commitment to not raise taxes on individuals making less than $250,000.00. Although higher taxes on the rich is a popular thought for many liberals, you cannot expect to only tax the rich and cut taxes for the poor. The American public is not likely to support unbalanced tax increases and this could harm his chances in the general election.

Close Corporate Loop-Holes

Another major component of Obama’s tax plan is to close hundreds of corporate “loop-holes” that allow massive corporations to questionably reduce their tax liability. “Instead of having all of us pay our fair share, we’ve got over $1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code,” he claimed. “This isn’t the invisible hand of the market at work. It’s the successful work of special interests.” This plan would be highly efficient at creating new revenue for the federal government, but at what cost? Huge corporations are already moving factories and offices to countries with cheaper labor and more favorable corporate taxes. If the tax rates increase too much, then more corporations would likely move out of the country and it could result in thousands of lost jobs.

Senior Citizen Tax Breaks

Although it seems like an attempt to get the attention of the “senior voters” and the AARP, Obama is hoping to provide relief to millions of seniors struggling to make ends meet. His plan would eliminate federal taxes on seniors making less then $50,000.00 per year, which would account for $7 million dollars in total relief. It seems quite unlikely that the country would get behind this tax plan. I also have my own reservations – what about single mothers making less than $50,000 per year – that I expressed in a previous entry.

Make Work Pay Tax Credit

With his Make Work Pay tax credit, Obama is hoping to encourage Americans to take control of their lives, while providing tax relief to both low and middle income taxes. “I’d reward work by providing an income tax cut of up to $500 per person – or $1,000 for each working family – to offset the payroll tax that they’re already paying,” claimed Obama. “Because this credit would be greater than their income tax bill, my proposal would effectively eliminate all income taxes for 10 million working Americans.”

Capital Gain Tax Increase

Obama’s desire to increase the Capital Gains rate is probably the biggest actual increase of his tax plan. The current tax rate on Capital Gains is 15%, and Obama hopes to raise it to 28%. But although the Capital Gains tax rate is much lower today than it was a decade ago, it is being levied on a lot more people. Investing is not only for the rich, as there are millions of middle income Americans investing in stocks, retirement accounts, and mutual funds. In a time of a looming economic recession, we should be encouraging sound investment and savings strategies. Raising the capital gains rate is not going to do that.

Mortgage Relief for Homeowners

“Ten of the country’s largest mortgage lenders spent $185 million lobbying Washington so they could keep engaging in destructive practices,” claimed Obama. “And they got what they paid for. To help fix this problem Obama wants to create more accountability in the mortgage industry. In addition, he intends to pursue more tax breaks for current homeowners. Specifically, Obama announced intentions to “create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief.”

Because it is a credit, individuals claiming the standard deduction would have access to it. Currently, mortgage interest is a deduction that can only be claimed by itemizing your deductions on your tax return. The credit would provide about $500 to 10 million homeowners in this country, mainly for individuals making less than $50,000 per year.

Revamp the AMT

Although Obama voted “nay” on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), he does support a revamp of the tax. The specific details of his plan are a bit hazy, but Obama has claimed he would like to index the tax according to inflation so that it does not affect middle-income Americans. However, with dozens of social plans that cost billions of dollars to operate, the idea of reducing a tax that generates so much revenue for the government seems unlikely.

American Opportunity Tax Credit

One of Obama’s more popular tax views is to help make higher education more affordable for Americans by creating a credit to reimburse taxpayers for the costs of obtaining a college education. According to his plan, the credit would reimburse taxpayers on the first $4,000.00 they spend on a college education, and will cover two-thirds of the cost of attending a public college or university.

Immigration Reform and Undocumented Immigrant Taxes

Obama wants to reform the way the federal government deals with undocumented immigrants. Obama’s plan does have tax consequences, as it would not only require illegal aliens to file tax returns and pay income taxes, but would also require them to pay back taxes and the associated penalties and interest. If this idea became reality, it could account for millions of dollars in additional federal revenue. And, by not including tax amnesty in his immigration reform, Obama preemptively “plucks” a feather from the anti-immigration reform movement. It also preemptively stops American citizens from lobbying for similar treatment for their own unfiled tax returns and IRS back taxes.



Kansieo.com

The Tax Lady Roni Deutch Compares the Tax Views of Presidential Hopefuls Obama and Mccain

Friday, July 3rd, 2009
Roni Deutch asked:


1. Mortgage Crisis

Obama

The ongoing mortgage crisis is a problem that is affecting more and more American families every day. To help protect home ownership and fight mortgage fraud, Obama has presented a multi-tiered plan designed to help families facing foreclosure and also monitor the mortgage industry better to avoid future problems.

Obama supports the Stop Fraud Act that provides a definition of mortgage fraud and rules and regulations to help stop the problem. The act also requires the Government Accountability Office to evaluate lending practices and report their findings to congress.

The final component of Obama’s mortgage relief plan is to create a universal mortgage credit. Currently, the United States tax code only encourages families to purchase a home with a tax deduction. However, it is currently only available to taxpayers that itemize their returns. This leaves out about 2/3 of Americans who elect to take the standard deduction. Obama would like to create a universal mortgage credit that he claims will benefit an additional 10 million homeowners.

McCain

Senator McCain also has is own take on the mortgage crisis. His plan is called the new “Home Plan,” which aims to provide help to those hurt by the housing crisis. McCain claims that his plan will allow every deserving homeowner the opportunity to trade in a burdensome mortgage for a more manageable one that will reflect his or her home’s current value.

However, exactly “who” is deserving? According to McCain’s website, eligible individuals include those Americans that hold a non-conventional mortgage taken after 2005. The house will need to serve as the home owner’s primary place of residence and he or she will need to be able prove they cannot meet current payments, but would be able to comply with a new 30 year fixed rate mortgage.

The Difference

Although Obama’s plan seems more substantive than McCain’s, they both attempt to help solve the countries mortgage problem. However, as with many other issues Obama’s seems to target lower income families namely those that do not itemize which typically correlates to families that make under $50,000. I think it is also interesting to note that they both propose the creation of a government agency to monitor the mortgage industry, but they propose them for different branches of the government.

2. Lower Income Americans

Obama

Sen. Obama’s tax plan seems in line with his redistribution of wealth ideals. His economic plans surround the idea of giving every lower-income American an opportunity to better themselves. The centerpiece is his “Make Work Pay” tax credit that would encourage Americans to take control of their lives, while providing tax relief to both low and middle income taxes. The credit would offset federal taxes on the first $8,100 of a taxpayers earnings and would essentially generate a credit of up to $500 for single persons or $1,000 per family. According to Obama, this credit would eliminate income taxes for at least 10 million low-income Americans.

Another of Obama’s more popular tax views is to help make higher education more affordable. He would do this through creating a credit to reimburse taxpayers for the costs of obtaining a college education. According to his plan, the credit would reimburse taxpayers on the first $4,000 they spend on a college education. Obama’s campaign claims that it will cover two-thirds of the cost of attending a public college or university.

McCain

As with most Republicans, McCain’s tax plan is more geared to middle and upper income Americans. However, one major component of his campaign has been “Immediate Help for American Families.” In this plan, he claims to target policies that will provide relief to American taxpayers facing rising gas and food prices and record foreclosures. However, it is unclear how McCain’s actual proposals will do that. Specifically, McCain target opaque issues like corn and sugar subsidies, trade barriers, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). While we all know that nothing happens over night, it is even more unclear how these changes in these policies will immediately help the American taxpayer as McCain claims.

One of the tax cuts McCain supports is raising the personal exemption for dependents from $3,500 to $7,000. This would help any working taxpayer with dependents they have to provide for, regardless of income level.

The Difference

Obama’s tax plan is much more favorable to lower income Americans than McCain’s. He supports programs like the “Make Work Pay” credit that will not only help lower income Americans, but also encourage them to work. It is also interesting to note that both candidates support tax credits designed to help families or anyone taking care of dependents.

3. Higher Income Americans

Obama

Senator Obama is a big believer in our progressive tax system – and he is not afraid to hide that. So one of the first things Obama is set to do is letting President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to selectively expire. By “selectively expire”, Obama endorses extending those tax cuts on the rates for all but the top two income tax brackets. In addition, Obama also advocates increasing the income cap on payroll taxes. This would essentially be a huge tax increase for taxpayers earning between $97,000 and $250,000, which goes against Obama’s prior commitment to not raise taxes on individuals making less than $250,000.

Although Obama voted “nay” on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), he does support a revamp of the tax. The specific details of his plan are a bit hazy, but Obama has claimed he would like to index the tax according to inflation so that it does not affect middle-income Americans.

McCain

McCain is a strong supporter of lowering taxes to encourage economic growth, which is the dominant economic stance of the Republican Party. Not only does he support renewing the Bush tax cuts, but he also favors numerous tax cuts. McCain hopes to reduce taxes on Capital Gains, Interest, Dividend, Investment income, and even corporate tax rates.

McCain is a strong supporter of repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which would be a tax cut for the upper middle income taxpayers. However, if McCain wants this tax fully repealed, then he is going to have to strike a deal with Congress, and it seems highly unlikely that he would get enough support to make this drastic and costly change.

Although McCain had originally voted against the Bush tax cuts, he now claims to support an extension of the plan. “I voted to extend them because it would have the effect of having a tax increase,” claimed McCain when asked about his flip-flop. “The tax cuts have increased revenues enormously. They’ve been very beneficial. The problem is that spending has lurched completely out of control. My proposal was to restrain spending. I do not support tax increases. And the effect of not making them permanent would have the effect of a tax increase.”

The Difference

It is no surprise that McCain’s tax views favor the upper income Americans, as he supports the full extension of President Bush’s tax cut. On the other hand, he does support the repeal of the AMT, which is being levied on more of middle income Americans each year. Although Obama does support other tax breaks for the middle class, he does not want to repeal the AMT.

4. Capital Gains

Obama

One of the more controversial aspects of Obama’s tax proposal is his hope to nearly double the taxes levied on Capital Gains. The current tax rate on Capital Gains is 15%, and Obama hopes to raise it to 28%. “At a time when Americans are working harder than ever, we are taxing income from work at nearly twice the level that we’re taxing gains for investors,” Obama claims. “We’ve lost the balance between work and wealth.”

When questioned about his plan’s to nearly double the rate, Obama claims that he wants to raise the tax for fairness, not for revenue. One of his arguments is that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year, but paid lower tax rates then their secretaries did. Obama wants to restore the rate back to what it was in the Clinton era. Although the rate is much lower today than it was a decade ago, it is being levied on a lot more people. Investing is not only for the rich any more – millions of middle income America invests in stocks, retirement accounts, and mutual funds.

Additionally, Obama also fails to mention that the 28% Capital Gains rate was dropped to 20% during President Clinton’s time in office and studies show that the federal government’s revenue from Capital Gains actually increased. Then, when President Bush dropped the rate down to 15% the revenue increased yet again.

McCain

McCain plans to keep the current Capital Gains tax rates. He claims that since these taxes are voluntary, they should not be taxes as ordinary income. In order to make a profit, someone must sell a stock. Further taxes could distort decision-making, increase the use of tax shelters, and even lower the federal government’s revenue. Additionally, McCain claims that this tax policy actually helps lower income Americans, as half of all capital gains end up benefiting persons earning less than $50,000 a year.

The Difference

The differences between McCain’s and Obama’s views on Capital Gains are quite simple. Obama favors doubling the tax rate and McCain wants to keep it at current levels. Although it may seem unfair for Capital Gains to be taxed at lower rates than income, there is some evidence that supports the belief that it encourages economic growth. The federal government’s revenue from Capital Gains has increased since the rate was lowered. You cannot argue against facts. Finally, raising a tax for fairness and not for revenue is not a sound economic policy.



Caffeinated Content – Members-Only Content for WordPress

The Danger Lurking Behind Obama’s Tax Policy

Friday, May 15th, 2009
Jim Davidson asked:


Following an historic election, we take a moment to examine just what an Obama presidency will mean to the United States – what we have to look forward to, and how he will deal with our current financial crisis. And according Jim Davidson, some of the numbers just don’t add up.

One of Obama’s prime campaign planks has been his promise to mercilessly raise taxes on the “rich,” a group initially defined as those making more than $250,000 per year. This was later dropped to $200,000 per year, and more recently has been defined as those Americans making more than $150,000 annually.

Setting aside the precipitous downward slide in the definition of “rich,” there is ample reason to suspect that Obama’s tax changes portend much higher, if not confiscatory, taxes on the most productive Americans. Obama has strongly argued for higher taxes as a way of employing government to alter the pre-tax distribution of income, which he believes has concentrated too much of the gains from productivity in recent years in the hands of the very rich.

He seems to think that the ‘very rich’ are a closed caste of more or less fixed membership, which changes little from year-to-year. This figures in his concept of ‘fairness,’ which supposes that it is perfectly just to burden a small fraction of the population with a majority of the costs of running the Federal government. This was detailed in a New York Times article on “spreading the wealth” by David Leonhardt. He wrote of Obama:

“He would then pay for the cuts, at least in part, by raising taxes on the affluent to a point where they would eventually be slightly higher than they were under Clinton. For these upper-income families, the Tax Policy Center’s comparisons with McCain are even starker. McCain, by continuing the basic thrust of Bush’s tax policies and adding a few new wrinkles, would cut taxes for the top 0.1 percent of earners – those making an average of $9.1 million – by another $190,000 a year, on top of the Bush reductions. Obama would raise taxes on this top 0.1 percent by an average of $800,000 a year. ‘It’s hard not to look at that figure and be a little stunned. It would represent a huge tax increase on the wealthy families. But it’s also worth putting the number in some context. The bulk of Obama’s tax increases on the wealthy – about $500,000 of that $800,000 – would simply take away Bush’s tax cuts. The remaining $300,000 wouldn’t nearly reverse their pretax income gains in recent years. Since the mid-1990s, their inflation-adjusted pretax income has roughly doubled.’

“To put it another way, the wealthy have done so well over the past few decades, with their incomes soaring and tax rates plummeting, that Obama’s plan would not come close to erasing their gains. The same would be true of households making a few hundred thousand dollars a year (who have gotten smaller raises than the very rich but would also face smaller tax increases). As ambitious as Obama’s proposals might be, they would still leave the gap between the rich and everyone else far wider than it burdensome on the young entrepreneur who was making his first millions as it would on the aging plutocrat who actually had enjoyed the prosperity of the past-quarter century since Reagan cut marginal tax rates.”

An October 13 editorial in The Wall Street Journal clarifies the mysterious arithmetic of Obama’s sweeping claims to cut income taxes for millions who currently have no income tax liability and pay no taxes:

‘For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase ‘tax credit.’ Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

“- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to ‘make work pay’ that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

“- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

“- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

“- A ’savings’ tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

“- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

“- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

“- A ‘clean car’ tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

“Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be ‘refundable,’ which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer – a federal check – from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this ‘welfare,’ or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a ‘Demogrant.’ Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.

“The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

“The total annual expenditures on refundable ‘tax credits’ would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as ‘tax credits,’ the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.”

After all the sloppy definitions are parsed, one point remains clear. The top 5% of U.S. income earners, who presently pay 60.14% (2006 figures) of all income tax, are destined for a huge federal tax increase under Obama.

One of Obama’s specific proposals is to raise the capital gains and dividend taxes to 25%, which will sharply increase capital confiscation as increasing percentages of “gains” will reflect inflationary depreciation of the currency. In the U.S., an investor must pay tax on the difference between the sales price of an asset and it purchase price, with no adjustment for inflation. Consequently, when the tax rate and inflation are high, a large portion of the “capital gain” is illusory. Any asset that appreciates by less than the rate of inflation will result in its owner losing purchasing power and having to pay taxes on the illusory gains. At Obama’s higher tax rates, (he has suggested that capital gains and dividend taxes should be hiked to as much as 25%,) capital confiscation would result from modest levels of inflation.

And the Great Credit Crunch implies that inflation will be far higher than in recent experience.

Setting aside whether it is moral or equitable to force a small fraction of the population to essentially pay for the whole cost of government, much of which entails the shuffling of checks to purchase votes of various aggrieved groups, there is a bigger question. Can it be wise for the whole fiscal regime to stand on the shoulders of a small group, like a pyramid tottering on its point, so that any tribulation which undermines the prosperity of those who pay would promise to bankrupt the state?

It is a worthwhile question to ask if you have considerable assets. In light of the worldwide credit crunch, which has deflated assets of all kinds, the prospect of burgeoning prosperity at the magnitude required to enable one-in-20 Americans to become “Super Rich” benefactors of Big Government is vanishingly small. There won’t be enough rich people to fill the role assigned to them in Obama’s scheme. The result to be expected, in addition to confiscatory taxation, is a dramatic shortfall of revenues. This, in turn, implies surging deficits and deficit financing requirements that will rapidly swamp the capacity of the Treasury to borrow.

Source: The Danger Lurking Behind Obama’s Tax Policy



Caffeinated Content