by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, LAW, TAXES
The stated intent of the new proposed Tax Reform Package is to grow the economy while providing tax cuts and simplification for the middle class. Forget the fact that as the most progressive tax system in the World, our lower and middle classes already carry a substantially smaller tax burden than in any other country. Just note that the principal middle class tax cuts being proposed is simple political theater and do little or nothing to simplify the tax law, grow the economy, or help the taxpayer.
The lawmakers have proposed nearly doubling the standard deduction from $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples and from $6,350 to $12,000 for single filers. On paper, that sounds good. It provides a tax reduction for those who do not itemize their deductions, though it is neutral for those who will continue to itemize. It has no benefit for economic growth – it just reduces taxes owed.
The tax proposal goes on to get rid of personal exemptions. Currently, taxpayers can claim a personal deduction of $4,050 each taxpayer and dependent. The exemption functions just like the standard deduction in that it reduces the taxpayer’s taxable income for the year. Eliminating the exemption would cause a net tax increase to most taxpayers, but the tax writers seem to be trying to offset this by increasing the child tax credit. This credit has the same effect as the exemptions had – that is, to reduce the tax for individuals, with more benefit going to those households with more dependents, and with no additional contribution to the economic growth of the economy. But since credits are always more complicated than deductions in its operation, this swap of credits for exemptions is a change for the worse.
It should be noted that one reason Congress is pushing for the tax credit instead of exemptions is that the credit can be “refundable”. That means that even if a taxpayer has no tax to pay, the credit would be sent to him in a refund. As such, this is not part of our tax structure – it is simply welfare Government spending wrongly dressed up as a tax reduction.
Thus, these changes really don’t simplify the tax code; it merely shifts formulas and amounts around. In fact, since credits are more difficult to implement than deductions, this actually adds complexity to the Tax Code. A far better solution would be to eliminate the Child Tax Credit, and use the standard deduction and exemptions to reduce the tax burden (using exemptions to the extent that you would like to confer a benefit to larger families).
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 | 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 | 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 | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, IRS, LAW, TAXES
We need to eliminate the AMT from the tax code entirely. Here’s why:
The Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”) presents hardships to the practitioner as well as the taxpayer who prepares his own return by, as its name implies, imposing a second tax calculation mechanism on taxpayers. It serves virtually no useful purpose, other than the raising of an ever-increasing amount of tax revenue. But it has become very clear in recent years that this AMT tax revenue is not coming from just the taxpayers who were the intended targets of this tax.
The AMT was instituted in its present form when the prior “add on” Minimum Tax was transformed into the AMT in the early 1980’s. Its stated purpose was to require that all taxpayers paid at least a fair share of tax. It was to do this by identifying “loophole” type deductions, also known as “preferences”. There would then be an alternative calculation using lower tax rates applied against this taxable income as increased by the preferences. Whichever of the taxes is higher is the one the taxpayer must pay.
However the AMT was seriously flawed from the outset. Instead of focusing on these loophole type preferences (which would have limited the tax to a very small number of tax law “abusers”), the law that was passed included items that were not loopholes at all. A convoluted formula compares the differences between income and deductions to determine who falls under the guidelines.
A very substantial majority of all AMT paid by taxpayers results from the following four factors:
- Treating state and local taxes as a preference
- Treating miscellaneous deductions as a preference
- Allowing lower exemptions than the regular tax.
Each of these, however, can be quickly shown as inappropriate factors with which to base a tax system intended to just make sure everyone pays a “fair share” of tax.
- State and local taxes are hardly a loophole. The taxes exacted by state and local governments are hardly “voluntarily” paid by taxpayers in an attempt to avoid paying federal taxes.
- Miscellaneous deductions is the category of deductions that consists primarily of expenses incurred to earn income that is subject to tax. It includes unreimbursed employee expenses, investment expenses, etc. This is the most basic and important deduction needed to have a truly fair income tax system. For example, if an individual pays a lawyer a fee for collecting back wages, the legal fee is a miscellaneous deduction. If an individual pays the lawyer $300 for collecting $1000 of back pay, netting $700, the AMT would tax the individual on the full $1000.
- The exemption available under the AMT tax system is a fixed dollar amount which, unlike exemptions and standard deductions under the regular tax system, is not indexed for inflation. Furthermore, it is phased out entirely over certain income levels. And each year Congress has to approve an annual “patch”, which raises the threshold for inflation, in order to raise the exemption limits of the tax so that less wealthy taxpayers won’t be subject to the AMT.
The AMT in its present form has no place in tax law. The AMT does not serve the purpose for which it was intended and functions in a most inequitable manner while adding enormous compliance burdens. It should therefore be changed to eliminate the adjustments for state and local taxes and miscellaneous deductions, update its rates, and modify its exemption — or else the AMT needs to be eliminated completely.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, IRS, LAW, POLITICS, TAXES
The Democrats have continuously claimed that they are looking out for America’s middle class by keeping the tax rates the same for them while seeking to raise rates on the wealthiest Americans who need to “pay their fair share”. This assertions serves to deflect attention away from the one policy that is already the mechanism for ensuring that the wealthiest pay more. What is it? The AMT.
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) currently serves virtually no useful purpose, other than the raising of an ever-increasing amount of tax revenue. The AMT was instituted in its present form when the prior “add on” Minimum Tax was transformed into the AMT in the early 1980’s. Its stated purpose was to require that all taxpayers paid at least a “fair share of tax”. Yet it has become very clear in recent years that this AMT tax revenue is not coming from just the taxpayers who were the intended targets of this tax.
The AMT was developed to identify “loophole” type deductions, also known as “preferences”. There would then be an alternative calculation using lower tax rates applied against this taxable income as increased by the preferences. Whichever of the taxes is higher is the one the taxpayer must pay.
However the AMT was seriously flawed from the outset. Instead of focusing on these loophole type preferences (which would have limited the tax to a very small number of tax law abusers), the law that was passed included items that were not loopholes at all. A convoluted formula is used to calculate and compare the differences between income and deductions in order to determine who falls under the guidelines. Interestingly, a very substantial majority of all current AMT paid by taxpayers results from the following factors: 1) treating state and local taxes as a preference; 2) treating miscellaneous deductions as a preference; 3) allowing lower exemptions than the regular tax.
These factors have flaws. For instance, state and local taxes are hardly a loophole because taxes exacted by state and local governments are hardly “voluntarily” paid by taxpayers in an attempt to avoid paying federal taxes. Likewise, “Miscellaneous Deductions” is the category of deductions that consists primarily of expenses incurred to earn income. It often includes unreimbursed employee expenses, investment expenses, etc. This is the most basic and important deduction necessary to have a truly fair income tax system and should not be considered a loophole. Furthermore, the exemption available under the AMT is a fixed dollar amount which, unlike exemptions and standard deductions under the regular tax system, is not indexed for inflation; it is also phased out entirely over certain income levels.
During AMT discussions over the years, Congress used to posture and point to the AMT patch as some major revenue loss (had the AMT been applied to those families) as an excuse to raise to raise taxes in order to offset this “potential missing tax revenue”. Once the “patch” became permanent and the higher exemption level kept many taxpayers from being hit with the AMT, Congress stopped talking about the AMT altogether. But the fact still remains that there is a parallel tax system already that goes after the highest income-earners; they already pay “their fair share” — and then some
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, LAW, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY
Entitlement reform is necessary for the fiscal health of this country, but it is something that no one wants to talk about, much less tackle. How can we begin? How can we open up the conversation and the possibility to reform and improve our social security system?
One step in the right direction would be to treat Social Security as a true retirement plan, and not as a wealth transfer system that it currently is. This could begin with reclassifying the payroll tax. The majority (6.2% out of 7.65%) of the payroll tax covers Social Security retirement benefits. If we actually used it (or at least most of it) for that individual’s social security retirement, everyone’s perception would change. Instead of being viewed as a hated tax (just ask any young person who has received their first paycheck), it would be viewed as a desirable saving for their future!
Let’s make another incremental change. The employer and employee contribute equally to the Social Security Tax. If the individual’s part went towards his personal retirement, the other part could go towards defraying the past obligations that are coming due. If we had done such a thing 20 years ago, the entire system would have been fixed. Unfortunately, the present situation would probably require some portion of the individual’s portion to also go towards paying the ever growing obligation for past unfunded promises. It’s that dire! And every year that we do not fix it, it gets worse.
We must stop treating Social Security like welfare or wealth transfers and start treating it like a retirement system. It’s our money anyway, even though the government wants to act like it is being generous when it gives us back our money. This would lessen the loose-and-fast accounting gimmicks that contribute to the fiscal mismanagement of Social Security anyway — and may move it away from its impending insolvency.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, IRS, LAW, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Whenever tax reform, tax packages, or tax changes get discussed and debated, the focus is always on “the middle class.” While this sounds noble, the reality is that the middle class already pays very little in taxes. The majority of the middle class “tax bill” is actually Social Security — which is not truly a tax.
For example, my son made about $35,000 last year. He paid $1,500 in income tax and $4,500 in Social Security. But contributions to the Social Security system should not be viewed as a tax — it is effectively a forced retirement payment. Pundits and lawmakers need to stop calling Social Security payments a tax, and need to stop including Social Security payments in their tax equations because it does not operate as a tax.
I strongly believe that with some tweaks to the Social Security system that make the benefits more tied to contributions and allow for some ownership of the underlying assets, we can get people to view those payments in a positive light – investing for their future. When you remove the Social Security line item from the amount of tax liability, you see that the lower and middle classes have a very low income tax liability.
