November 15, 2024

White House Budget Curbs Some Deductions for the Wealthy

Outlining his budget proposals to Congress on Wednesday, Mr. Obama pushed to raise more than $600 billion in new revenue, mainly by curbing deductions for the most affluent taxpayers and forcing millionaires to pay a minimum rate of 30 percent. Under the White House plan, deductions for tax breaks like mortgage interest and contributions to charities would be capped at a maximum rate of 28 percent. The caps would limit the value of the breaks to the top 3 percent of taxpayers who face higher marginal tax rates and generate about $529 billion in additional revenue over 10 years.

Many of the budget proposals, including the limit on deductions, have been made before by the Obama administration. Analysts said Congress was unlikely to adopt them in isolation, but that some Republicans might be open to a broader deal that included measures to close various loopholes in the tax code.

Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the main part of the tax proposal — curbing tax deductions for high-earners — could form part of a future deal because they were close to what Republicans have themselves proposed in the past. “In any agreement that finally comes together this will be the core revenue piece of it,” he said.

At the same time, the administration formally proposed the so-called Buffett rule, which would impose a new minimum 30 percent tax rate on households earning incomes above $1 million. It said this could generate an additional $53 billion in revenue over a decade. It is named after Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor, who said in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times that he was paying a lower tax percentage than members of his office.

“This proposal will prevent high-income households from using tax preferences, including low tax rates on capital gains and dividends, to reduce their total tax bills to less than what many middle class families pay,” according to the White House.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center in Washington, said the rule’s inclusion in the budget proposal was an indication that the Obama administration was determined “to make sure that the rich people pay something.”

Tax rates for high-earners were increased this year for the first time in two decades as part of the postelection deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff and to help pay for the cost of expanded health care coverage.

Despite those increases, the effective tax burden for the very wealthy remained considerably lower than in past decades, according to Emmanuel Saez, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. He estimated the recent tax increases could take the total average federal tax rate of the top 0.1 percent of earners to about 40 percent, compared with about 51 percent in 1981. The total tax take from that group had fallen to about 33 percent after the Bush tax cuts.

In its proposal, the Obama administration also proposed a $3 million limit on tax-deferred individual retirement accounts — another tax measure aimed at wealthy individuals who have been accused of using the accounts to shelter large amounts of money rather than for simple savings.

The White House also proposed, as it has in the past, ending the preferential treatment of private equity and hedge fund profits, known as carried interest. These profits are currently taxed as a long-term capital gain.

The treatment of carried interest has for years been strongly defended by elements of the financial industry, and the White House proposal was quickly attacked on Wednesday by the leading private equity industry trade group. Even supporters of the proposal conceded that it faced stiff political opposition.

“Republicans are never going to sign off on this,” said Andrew Fieldhouse, an analyst at the Economic Policy Institute.

While most of the proposed tax increases were aimed at higher earners, there were important proposals that would affect all individuals.

The administration proposed higher taxes on tobacco products to pay for early childhood education, raising about $78 billion over a decade.

Its plan for a new cost-of-living formula to reduce future Social Security benefits would also involve indexing income tax brackets to the different measure of inflation. This would effectively increase the money raised by the income tax across the board over the next decade, affecting “people throughout the income distribution,” said Donald Marron, director of the Tax Policy Center.

President Obama said he was still committed to lowering the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent. But he also wanted to close tax loopholes that allow many companies to pay a much lower effective corporate tax rate.

In the budget, he proposed eliminating special tax privileges for the oil, gas and coal industries to save a further $44 billion over 10 years, increased taxation of foreign earnings, and special rules for corporate jets.

The Business Roundtable, a lobbying group that represents major corporations, said it welcomed any cut in corporate taxes, but wanted the reductions to be part of broader reform, and objected to measures that aimed at particular industries.

“Singling out certain industries for taxation is bad tax policy,” the group said in a statement.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/business/white-house-budget-curbs-some-deductions-for-the-wealthy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: On Online Matchmaker for Tax Preparers and Clients

The traditional way to find a tax preparer is to ask your friends and family for a recommendation. But what if you don’t want to go the word-of-mouth route — and risk ending up with your eccentric second cousin doing your taxes (or your ignorant but well-meaning friend’s idea of a good accountant)?

Glen Ross, an accountant on Long Island, thinks he has the answer: A new Web site that aims to match taxpayers with preparers online.

The site is Prosado.com. Mr. Ross concedes that it doesn’t really mean anything, although he says it is derived, sort of, from the root of the words for “to bid,” in Latin. It has signed up about 400 tax preparers in more than 40 states and is seeking consumers who need their tax returns prepared.

Mr. Ross said he noticed that over the last year or two, the number of inquiries he received from clients who had located him online was increasing. It seemed to him as though consumers were ready to consider new ways of finding tax preparers other than through the traditional word-of-mouth.

Here’s how it works. You register at Prosado, which requires giving your name and e-mail address and choosing a password. (You don’t have to provide any financial details until you accept a bid and communicate with the preparer.) You designate what sort of criteria you’re seeking in a preparer, like an advanced accounting degree, years of experience, etc. You can also indicate if you prefer someone who has offices close to you.

(Mr. Ross says the idea is that the selection shouldn’t always be based on the lowest bid but rather on whether the preparer is best-suited to your requirements.)

Then you go down a checklist and mark what type tax-related documents you have, whether you’ve made any charitable contributions, etc. Based on that information — say, you have a W-2 (wages), two 1099s (miscellaneous income), a dividend statement and form for mortgage interest — participating preparers submit bids for your business. [Read more…]

Article source: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/on-online-matchmaker-for-tax-preparers-and-clients/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Today’s Economist: Casey B. Mulligan: A Tale of Two Welfare States

DESCRIPTION

Casey B. Mulligan is an economics professor at the University of Chicago. He is the author of “The Redistribution Recession: How Labor Market Distortions Contracted the Economy.”

In “A Tale of Two Cities,” Dickens wrote, “It was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness.” The governments of the United States and Britain are embarking on different approaches to helping their poor and unemployed, and one of them may regret its policy decisions.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

As recently as 2010, Britain had a complex system of antipoverty programs ranging, including housing benefits, job seekers’ allowances and mortgage-interest assistance. With so many benefits available, many people found they could make almost as much from the combined programs as they could from working, even while any one of the benefits might not have been all that significant by itself. As Britain’s Department for Work and Pensions described, beneficiaries remained “trapped on benefits for many years as a result.”

Beginning next month, Britain will strive to put its welfare system on a different path by unifying many programs under a single “universal credit” system, what the department describes as an “integrated working-age credit that will provide a basic allowance with additional elements for children, disability, housing and caring.” The department forecasts that its “universal credit will improve financial work incentives by ensuring that support is reduced at a consistent and managed rate as people return to work and increase their working hours and earnings.”

In the United States, the welfare system includes dozens of federal programs, enumerated by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation as those “providing cash, food, housing, medical care, social services, training and targeted education aid to poor and low-income Americans.” Beginning in 2014, more programs will be added and expanded by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: new health-insurance premium-support programs, new cost-sharing subsidies for out-of-pocket health expenditures, financial hardship relief from the new individual mandate penalties, new subsidies for small businesses employing low-income people and expansion of Medicaid.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Affordable Care Act’s means-tested subsidies and cost-sharing will implicitly add more than 20 percentage points to marginal tax rates on incomes below 400 percent (see Page 27 of the C.B.O. report) of the poverty line (a majority of families fit in this category) by phasing out the assistance as family incomes increase, although a number of families will not receive the subsidies because they already get health insurance from their employer.

These marginal tax-rate additions are on top of the marginal tax rates already in place because of personal income taxes, payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other taxes and means-tested government programs. In 2014, some Americans will be able to make almost as much from combined benefits as they would by working, and sometimes more.

In summary, the United States intends to move in the direction of more assistance programs and higher marginal tax rates, while Britain intends to move in the direction of fewer programs and lower marginal tax rates.

Either country, or both, may ultimately fail to fully carry out the new programs by granting waivers and exceptions, refusing to administer them or by rewriting its new laws. But if both do follow through, perhaps future empirical economic research comparing the United States and Britain will reveal which country is living an age of wisdom and which one in an age of foolishness.

Article source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/a-tale-of-two-welfare-states/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Republicans Talk of Limiting Tax Breaks

The Republicans met Monday to consider a proposal that would raise additional revenue by limiting some income tax deductions that primarily benefit higher-income households.

Republicans cited the proposal as evidence that they were open to ideas that would raise revenue and thus help reduce the federal budget deficit, which has exceeded $1.2 trillion in each of the last three years.

Democrats, however, said the proposal was unlikely to lead to an agreement.

Under the proposal, Republicans would agree to limit certain itemized tax deductions in return for a permanent reduction in marginal tax rates. This would not just extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, but reduce the rates that apply to each additional dollar of a taxpayer’s income.

The 12-member panel, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, has a little more than two weeks to present a plan to reduce deficits by a total of $1.2 trillion over 10 years. If it falls short, or if Congress does not approve its plan, the government would make up the difference with automatic cuts, starting in 2013.

A Republican with knowledge of the talks said that limiting tax breaks was a major concession. As an example of such tax breaks, Republicans pointed to the deduction allowed for mortgage interest on a second home.

Republicans said the proposal had been discussed by Senators Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana.

But Democrats said the Republicans had not offered any constructive ideas that would narrow differences. Moreover, they noted, Mr. Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, has said that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be allowed to expire for the most affluent 2 percent of taxpayers, as part of “a balanced solution.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a940af43846dcad2de257defc9381d66