by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, LAW, TAXES
There is a very real problem within the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) that deserves attention. The IRS generally requires that hedge fund investors pay taxes on huge amounts of “income” that does not exist. This is derived from rules that require investors to pay tax on investment income while denying them an offset for the expenses that were incurred to generate that income. That is the very definition of inequality.
It is simply not uncommon for hedge fund investors to pay tax rates of 70-100% or more on the hedge fund income they earn.
Yes, you read that correctly. 100% or more. In fact, in my practice I see clients every year forced to pay more taxes on an investment than that investment earned. True, it is a small percentage of people affected in any given year, but this does not mitigate the blatant unfairness. How does this injustice take place?
It follows from what is the most inequitable provision of the current tax code, namely, the severe limitation on the ability to deduct the necessary expenses incurred by a hedge fund operator (or any individual taxpayer for that matter) in order to earn income: investment fees and expenses, accountant’s fees, legal fees for collecting a settlement, etc.
The tax code requires those expenses — which include virtually all operating expenses of private equity hedge funds, including fees to the operators — to be listed under the category of “miscellaneous deductions”.
However, these deductions may not be claimed until and unless they reach 2% of the taxpayer’s entire income. The upshot of this is that most taxpayers do not get to benefit from these deductions. To add further insult to injury, that even if investors have expenses which exceed the threshold, these expenses become addbacks for the dreaded alternative minimum tax (“AMT”).
This taxpayer abuse then certainly discourages investment and is a major source of inequity in the code. If Congress were ultimately concerned with reforming the hedge fund industry, this problem — the inability to deduct necessary expenses incurred while earning income — would be the right one for Congress to fix.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT, LAW, POTUS, TAXES
A major problem in constructing tax legislation is the “No deficit after 10 years” problem.
It takes a 60 vote majority in the Senate to pass permanent legislation. A key exception is what is known as “budget reconciliation”, whereby financial budget items, including tax changes, can pass with a simple majority vote. But this requires that any proposed legislation cannot produce a deficit after 10 years. To satisfy this requirement, legislation often contains a provision that it will terminate at the end of the tenth year.
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 (and 2003) was the poster child for that problem. Tax rates were reduced in 2001 and 2003 using budget reconciliation This required that the lower rates would automatically expire (sunset) in 2011 so as to comply with the “no deficit after 10 years” issue. Everyone ignored the cuts which then became a big headache and political battle when the time came to renew them – or let them expire. After ten years, the lower rates suddenly terminated for those most important for growing the economy, creating one of the largest tax increases and worst economic recoveries in history. This disaster has made Congress hesitant of passing badly needed tax cuts and reform in fear of the 10 year spring back. But this does not to be so.
The best way to deal with sunset clauses within the tax code is to extend them annually during the budget process so that we don’t enact a tax change and then forget about it over time. This is something to consider as Congress embarks on potential major reforms to the tax code in the coming months.
Trump’s tax reform proposal includes a major pro-growth change to depreciation rules. The change would allow for claiming an immediate deduction for the cost of new equipment, without having to spread the write–off over many years. This would be a boon to the economy. But due to budget constraints this change would likely be scheduled to terminate after 10 years. That should not be allowed to happen. Instead Congress should examine the policy yearly, and extend it out an additional year from that date. This way the tenth year will never come and there will be no unnecessary tax battle. This process could continue until there are the votes to make the provision permanent.
by | BLOG, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, TAXES
It is virtually impossible to defend the part of the Internal Revenue Code that provides for a deduction for individuals who pay State and Local income taxes (“SALT”). The deduction is simply a subsidy for those states who levy high income taxes on their constituents. It actually incentivizes those states to levy high taxes, knowing that their constituents will have their federal taxes reduced as their state taxes go up. But this is patently unfair to constituents who live in low tax states, whose share of the federal tax burden therefore goes up.
Senator Chuck Schumer is leading the attack against proposed Tax Reform legislation that would eliminate the deduction for SALT. But since there is no rational argument to attack the proposal directly, he argues that the tax deduction is fair because NY (and other big blue states) send much more tax money to Washington than they get back.
But this is hypocrisy of the highest order. It is Schumer’s own preferred legislation that causes this imbalance. He has successfully advocated for policies that greatly increase the size of the federal Government (sends money to DC), that increase the welfare state (benefits going disproportionately to the poorer parts of the country), and substantially raise the tax burden on the wealthy (many of whom live in NY). So he created the problem and is now asking to be bailed out?
As I have repeated many times before, If Kansas ever gouged its farmers, or Texas ever gouged its oilmen, like New York legislators (like Schumer) gouge their financial community, they would be run out of town!
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, LAW, NEW YORK, TAXES
With President Trump proposing to eliminate the Federal tax deductions for state and local taxes, there has been an outcry from states that allow this deduction currently. The biggest criticism is that it creates “double taxation” because it forces individuals to pay two separate taxes – federal and State – on the same income- without giving any relief against the federal tax in recognition of the tax paid to the State. Without the deduction, Lawmakers warn that tax bills will rise substantially for their citizens.
However, the truth is that these attacks are nothing more than an attempt to shift the focus away from affected states (like New York, New Jersey, and California) who are failing their fiduciary responsibility to its taxpayers. They currently levy a very high level of taxation upon its citizens. The deduction is simply a subsidy that masks the egregious overspending of the state which creates the situation in which high taxation is necessary to feed the body politic.
Why should the federal government have to subsidize some states at all? If the residents of these states think that high (some would say ludicrously wasteful) government spending paid for by very high taxes is the right way to run a state, it is certainly their right. But these residents also have no right to ask taxpayers of other states to subsidize them. And that is exactly what happens when the federal tax code enables some states to reduce their federal tax — via the state and local tax deduction — simply because they pay high taxes to their states.
So yes, although the proposal will hurt some citizens, it is essentially and simply a reform that puts all taxpayers around the country on a level playing field, especially if it helps to reduce federal tax rates across the board. If lawmakers are so concerned with their affected taxpayers, they should aim to reduce the scope and size of their state governments and the wildly out of control spending that created it, instead of expecting other citizens to subsidize their irresponsibility.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, LAW, POLITICS, TAXES
Capital gains are unusual in that the taxpayer has the ultimate decision as to whether and when to sell his asset (stock, his business, a work of art, etc.) The higher the tax rate, the less likely he is to sell, seeing as he will only be able to enjoy or reinvest what is left of the proceeds after tax. History has borne this out – capital gains tax collections go down in the periods after increases, and go up in the years after decreases.
The actual impact of raising the capital gains rate by the Obama administration was devastating to the economy. By discouraging the sale of assets, there was reduced capital available for new projects and opportunities, reducing job creation and wages, and resulting in lower revenue collection.
Furthermore, with higher capital gain rates, the expected after tax rate of return on new projects went down, assuring that fewer of them went forward.
Additionally, there were a number of localities, like the state of California and New York City, which have tax rates of 12% or more and also a large concentration of wealthy people and high performing businesses. The Obama federal capital gains increase brought total capital gains rates of more than 37%. A capital gains rate this high virtually brought elective capital to a standstill. This amounted to a rate of almost 60% higher than the rate during the Bush Administration (15%) – when growth and the economy were very strong.
The higher capital gains rate put a stranglehold on risk taking and available capital. Why sell an asset to fund further investment and opportunity when the government takes a large share of the gain with the loss remaining all yours? It makes virtually no economic sense to do so, and the result meant an already anemic economy continued to struggle. Lowering the capital gains rate as part of the Trump Tax Reform package is a positive game-changer for the economy.
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, POLITICS, TAXES
The concept of an American President (Obama) going after people making a lot of money and paying a relatively low tax rate on it was particularly naïve; it displayed an absolute lack of familiarity with how people get wealthy. As a CPA, I can attest to the fact that the most common way people accumulate massive wealth is either by a huge amount of hard work (creating a successful business) or selling an asset (an invention, real estate, etc).
Many people who file tax returns with large amounts of income, such as selling a business for $10 million, will have a multi-million capital gains amount. It’s not that the higher income earners have some sort of capital gains loophole, but it’s really that the wealthy have done something well to attain the American Dream. And when they do strike it rich through their effort, part of their wealth is treated as a capital gain and it gives those earners a chance to keep a part of it. Knowing that there is a low capital gains rate is an extra incentive to work hard and be successful.
Many of my clients are wealthy, and I have experienced time and again that they will come to me and ask the question: if they are successful, can they keep the majority of their money?” This is because they know that government wants to take more from the highest income earners who have proven their success, while at the same time, the government is quite happy to let them lose on their own on their particular endeavor.
Most in the top echelon get there from a one-time income-producing significant event. To punish such success by having a high capital gains tax only served to drive a deeper wedge between the have- and have-nots in an attempt to level the economic playing field. Trump would do well to lower the capital gains rate and and restore a sense of trust with those who work hard, contribute to the economy, and attain the American Dream.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, LAW, POLITICS, TAXES
Taxpayers have been long bamboozled into making generous commitments to the retirement systems of public service workers. All over the country, in all levels of federal and state governments, these defined benefit plan pension plans have proven to be vastly untenable. To sustain the plans in their current arrangements and cover the obligations that have already been promised, the rest of society will be compelled to contribute to the retirement of those public service workers via higher taxes. This is turn makes the rest of the populace poorer — because their hard-earned money is being levied to the promised public pensioner, and not available to be saved for themselves.
The grand scheme is becoming unhinged. One must realize that the more people continue to buy into the idea that they are supposed to “retire at 65”, the more they are suckered into continuing to make their retirement years poorer and subsequently make the retirement years of public service employees richer. People see a public service worker being able to retire at that age and they think, “I should be able to also do so”. This idea needs to change.
There are two reasons why most people think that such pension programs are still sustainable and normal: 1) the exorbitant pension costs are buried in the category of “education costs” which allow advocates to falsely argue that higher education costs mean better education, and 2)the costs are largely buried in the larger budget process of federal/state/local governments (and how many people pay attention?).
In the private sector, costs are held in check by the fact that out-of-control costs make the overall cost of the product too high in the marketplace, and will bring the company down. The employees negotiate with company officials who are responsible to a board of directors and shareholders who need to provide a competitive product. But in the public sector, with no competition, costs become whatever the public sector unions can squeeze out of the elected officials who they have helped elect, and who are more accountable to them than to the taxpayers who pay the bill.
The costs to keep public employee pension plans afloat are borne by all the rest of society — the taxpayers. This arrangement enables a small group of people to be paid a sizeable and continuous pension until death. It is not out of the ordinary anymore for a person to receive $65K- $100K for the rest of his or her life. But the actuarial cost to provide that promised benefit is astronomical, and unfair to hard-working private sector employees.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Everyone thinks he can retire at age 65. It’s an American ideal born in the last century with the rise of unions, the defined benefit plan, and generous pension systems. In reality — especially due to advances in health, medicine, and nutrition — many people have great capability to continue to work and contribute to society and themselves until 70-80. And they should, because they need to.
There is a crisis of affordability looming. Besides the enormously wealthy, for the most part no average person can afford to retire at 65. It is simply not possible, living a normal lifestyle, for anyone to put enough toward retirement by age 65 that will enable him to be supported for another 20-30 years. A life span of 85-95 is swiftly becoming the new norm. The only workers today who are the exception to this reality, and have any hope of a lengthy retirement with comfort, are public service employees. (That point is addressed in a subsequent piece entitled, “Abuse to the Taxpayer by Public Service Employees.”)
With the lifespan of Americans growing longer, retiring at 65 is no longer viable; the systems are badly strained. And it is certainly not rational for the longevity of Social Security and Medicare either. Yet the steadfast refusal of most of government to overhaul retirement systems or make age and formula adjustments to entitlement programs — in order to maintain this retirement facade — only compounds the problem.
Another one of the biggest detriments of being able to retire at 65 is investment return. Interest rates have been historically low for the last six years and there is a strong likelihood of them staying low for some time. As a result, people’s retirement portfolios have lagged in their anticipated growth and goals. The low rates mean less money overall for retirement time, a problem which can be offset by continuing to work and contribute to a retirement fund past the basic age.
Likewise, inflation is not the issue that everyone thinks it is. The true problem is the cost of living — but really, it’s the cost of modern living, the “keeping up with the Jones’s”. The cost of aspirin, color TV’s, computers, and long distance calls are NOT going up. But people now can have Celebrex instead of aspirin, surround-sound with flat screens instead of color TV, and smart phones instead of computers and standard phones. Newer models of everything due to technology is constantly changing — upgrading quality of life, but at an increased cost.
In sum, with living longer, low rates of return, and the “cost of Jones’s increase”, people must begin to realize that the time span between 65 – 75 can be, and should be, a healthy and productive time of life. Working, staying active, and continuing to save will be beneficial in the long run. The mindset of older citizens needs to change and they need to understand that they can should aim to be productive until they are 75. At 65 they can certainly slow down, but the concept of retiring and not working anymore at that age is unrealistic and unaffordable.
