• Comment (9)

3 Inconvenient Truths About Taxes

May 2, 2012 RSS Feed Print

A lot of the talk between now and Election Day will involve the economy, federal spending, and taxes. The "right" level of taxation, if there is such a thing, is often in the eye of the beholder. But when you hear political candidates railing about taxes, it may help to know some basic tax facts. Here are three of the most prominent statements about the need for tax reform, and the reasons they're either wrong or dangerously oversimplified.

1. Federal Income Taxes Are Too High. There are lots of ways to measure how much we pay in taxes. So, when someone says taxes are too high, make sure you understand exactly what measure of taxes they're talking about.

One yardstick is the tax brackets that set the percentage tax rates for various levels of income. In terms of tax rates, the top brackets are clearly low by historic standards. In 1944, there was a 94 percent tax bracket on income above $200,000. The top tax rate dropped to a low in 1988 of 28 percent on income above $29,750 a year. The top bracket then rose to 39.6 percent between 1993 and 2000, before the Bush tax cuts helped reduce it to today's level of 35 percent. Tax rates thus are lower than they've been, not higher.

Beyond tax rates, how much federal income tax do people actually pay? Here, low tax rates on capital gains and dividend income have reduced effective tax rates for many wealthier Americans. They also get the most advantage from popular deductions such as mortgage interest. But even lower-earning households have experienced reduced federal tax burdens. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center calculated that in 2010, a typical family of four paid 4.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes—the second-lowest percentage during the past 50 years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has issued similar findings. So, tax burdens are lower, not higher.

It's also relevant to look at the nation's tax burden in terms of the actual amount of federal taxes collected as a percentage of overall economic activity. In a 2011 study, the nonpartisan CBO issued a 40-year look at federal tax rates. It included individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, social insurances (Social Security and Medicare), excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and miscellaneous receipts.

In 1971, the total take from all these taxes equaled 17.3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP)—a common way of measuring the impact of taxation. In 1980, Americans were paying 19 percent of taxes as a percent of GDP. Tax burdens were in the 17 to 18 percent range for most of the 1980s and 1990s, but started rising in the late 1990s and topped out at 20.6 percent in 2000, the highest percentage in 40 years. It was also one of the few times when the government did not run a budget deficit.

Triggered by the Bush tax cuts and, more recently, by the recession, tax burdens fell during the past decade and bottomed out at 14.9 percent of GDP in both 2009 and 2010, their lowest levels in the 40-year period covered by the CBO report.

2. Poorer People Pay No Taxes. It's true that low-income Americans pay little or no federal income taxes, but that doesn't mean they don't have "skin in the game," to cite a widely voiced criticism. They do pay lots of other taxes. For most people, Social Security payroll taxes are their largest tax payments, and these tax rates are the same for all wage earners.

"The oft-cited figure that 51 percent of households didn't pay federal income tax in 2009 is a temporary spike caused by the recession," the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in a recent report. "In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax." Further, many of these households are led by old and young people who are not in the labor force and thus should not be expected to earn enough money to trigger federal income taxes.

"When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average," the report said. "The second poorest fifth pays about 21 percent."

3. Closing Tax Loopholes is the Answer. The federal government provides tax breaks to individuals and companies each year that exceed $1.1 trillion. These so-called "tax expenditures" provide an attractive target for both liberals and conservatives to cite in explaining how their plans would save the government money while still allowing us to afford cuts in tax rates (conservatives) or increases in spending (liberals).

Here are the 10 biggest individual tax expenditure items and their annual value, as compiled in a recent Congressional Research Service report:

Employer health insurance: $164.2 billion

Employer pensions: $162.7 billion

Mortgage interest deduction: $99.8 billion

Exclusion of Medicare: $76.2 billion

Capital gains: $71.4 billion

Earned income credit: $58.4 billion

Deduction for income taxes: $54.0 billion

Estate tax exclusions: $51.9 billion

Child credit: $51.7 billion

Deduction for charitable contributions: $51.6 billion

A cursory look at these benefits makes it painfully clear that even modest reductions would be very controversial, and not just among those "special interests" that make convenient targets. There are a lot of solid reasons to overhaul our tax code. Painlessly recapturing huge amounts of federal tax revenue will not be one of them.

Twitter: @PhilMoeller

Tags:
taxes,
retirement,
money

Reader Comments Read all comments (9)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Interesting comment by Howard, who thinks taxpayers should pay taxes equal to the "percentage of total income they garnered."

Apparently, Howard does not realize that this would result in a huge tax DECREASE to the wealthy.

Those top people who earn 50% of all income are already paying 70% of the taxes collected, and the top 1% who earn 13.4% of all income pay 22.3% of all taxes - not quite double the proportion of the income they "garnered."

Guglielmo of PA 10:20AM November 08, 2012

Some of the comments posted suggest that it is unfair that the top earners pay over 50% of the taxes. I would suggest that they should pay an equal percentage of tax to the percentage of total income they garnered. I.E. if that group earned 98% of the income wealth, they should pay 98% of the necessary taxes required for that year.

Do not forget that they exploited the systems in place to garner the wealth through avoidance of payment of their taxes. That exploitation should not be rewarded. The tax system should be fixed to eliminate the loopholes that allowed the explosion of the wealth in the top percentage through false derivatives that were never allowed before the dissolution of Glass Steigle.

Howard of DC 11:16PM May 04, 2012

"The 'right' level of taxation", is not as important as the right balance of taxes. Please consider the 2-4-8 Tax Blend - a comprehensive tax reform for both individuals and business that can be defined in one sentence:

Tax individual and corporate income at a flat 8% rate (with no deductions, credits or loopholes), tax individual net wealth at 2% (excluding $15,000 cash and retirement funds) and impose a 4% Value Added Sales Tax (VAT) on business.

For business the combined 8% income rates and 4% VAT would be the lowest and most competitive business taxes of all the developed countries. [The U.S. is the only developed country without a VAT]. The 8% income tax rate also resolves the significant problem in the deferral of taxes on foreign profits caused by imposing a 35% tax (less credit for foreign taxes paid) when the money is brought back into the U.S.

For investors, the net wealth tax might seem revolutionary by U.S. standards, but most high earners would willingly pay a 2% net wealth tax in exchange for eliminating the capital gains and estate taxes and keeping 92% of taxable earnings. The ability to buy and sell assets without being taxed on the gains would spur a new era of investment freedom. The increased after tax income would also create wealth much faster than a 2% net wealth tax could diminish it.

For workers, the elimination of the payroll tax and reduction of the income tax rate creates an immediate boost in take home pay. For example, a young family earning $70,000 currently pays combined federal taxes of 19% but would take home $7,700 more with an 8% income tax (assuming net wealth of under $30,000). This additional $641 per month represents an enormous opportunity for both savings and consumption. The $15,000 per person cash wealth tax exemption also encourages a responsible level of liquidity. The retention of tax exempt retirement savings programs recognizes the need for the elderly to have sufficient assets to supplement social security. Current interest tax deductions for mortgages and student loans are replaced by the ability to deduct the loan principal in computing net wealth. This is the equivalent of a 2% reduction in the interest rate and is arguably a better incentive for both home ownership and higher education.

Eugene Patrick Devany, JD, MPA

www.TaxNetWealth.com

Eugene Patrick Devany of NY 10:41PM May 02, 2012

The Best Life

Philip Moeller, contributing editor for U.S. News Money, writes about achieving success and happiness in older age.

advertisement

Our retirement readiness calculator will provide a rough idea of how long your retirement savings and income will last.


Latest Video

advertisement