Archive for October 29th, 2008

Encore – Those %#@! Bush Tax Cuts

October 29, 2008

Note: This brief was originally posted July 23, 2008.  Yesterday, Sen. Biden said “Bush’s tax cuts didn’t help the middle class at all.”  Huh?  Sorry, Joe — there were plenty of goodies in there for everybody.  Read on …

* * * * *

Summary: We’ve all heard the  rants about the cuts in the top bracket rate, capital gains rate, dividend taxes, and estate taxes.

But, when was the last time that your heard a candidate (on either side) or a pundit (O’Reilly included) mention the new 10% bracket, larger and refundable child and earned income credits, negative income taxes, elimination of the marriage tax penalty, or expanded college benefits?

* * * * *

The income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are shorthanded by the press and political candidates as “Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy — who didn’t even want them”, and are blamed for an accelerating polarization of wealth distribution (i.e. rich get richer, poor stay poor).

Warren Buffet says his secretary pays more taxes than he does (really?). McCain says he’ll stay the course. Obama says that he’ll roll back the tax cuts if he’s elected and redistribute them to the “folks who need them the most”.

All of the rhetoric got me thinking.  Somewhat embarrassed, I realized Ihat I didn’t know exactly what was in the Bush tax plan.  (Quick Test: take out a sheet of paper and jot down the tax breaks enacted as part of the Bush plan)

Prompted by curiosity (and a modicum of selfish interest) I did some digging.  Here’s what I found, along with my “take”:

The top marginal income tax rate  was cut from 39.5% to 35% (applied to Adjusted Gross Income >$350,000)
– the 36% marginal rate was cut to 33%  (TI > $161,000)
– the 31% marginal rate was cut to 28%  (TI> $77,000)
– the 28% marginal rate was cut to 25%  (TI > $32,000) 
…  a clear benefit to the top half of income earners; with the biggest benefit to the highest earners

Capital gains and dividend tax rates were reduced to 15% for high-earners, zero for low earners … more of a benefit to high-earners, but 1/3 of households own stock and more than 1/4 of returns (including many retirees) report dividend income … turned out to be a windfall for hedge funds and private equity via the “carried interest” loophole (more on that in a subsequent post)

A low-income 10% tax rate bracket was introduced … benefit to many low-earners previously in the 15% bracket

Child Care Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit were increased and made refundable … resulting in zero or negative tax due balances for millions of people (note: “refundable” means that any negative tax due is paid to the citizen — a very important policy shift)

Income limits were eliminated on personal exemptions and itemized deductions … the former helps low earners most — since it’s a higher proportion of income; the latter benefits higher earners most — since they are the ones who itemize deductions. (Note: roughly 2/3’s of tax filers take the standard deduction)

Marriage penalty was neutralized … benefits middle-earning couples most

College education benefits were liberalized, e.g. 529 plans, student loan interest deduction, tax-free employer paid tuition … benefits mid- and high-earners most (since their family members disproportionately attend college)

Estate taxes were reduced and to be phased out… only impacts wealthy folks with estates that are big enough to be subject to “death taxes”

                          

* * * * *

Details re: “Bush Tax Plan” – 2001 and 2003

Officially, the first round of Bush tax cuts were codified in the “Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001” which was approved by the Congressional conference committee on May 25, 2001; signed into law shortly thereafter; but phased in over a several year period.  The key provisions of the law (as reported in the conference committee’s report):
 
Introduce a 10-percent rate bracket… reducing the rate from 15% to 10% for the first $6,000 of taxable income for single individuals ($7,000 for 2008 and thereafter), $10,000 of taxable income for heads of households, and $12,000 for married couples filing joint returns ($14,000 for 2008 and thereafter).

Reduce individual income tax rates  … from 28 percent, 31percent, 36 percent, and 39.6 percent are phased-down over six years to 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, and 35 percent, effective after June 30, 2001.

click table to make it bigger

Phase-out of Itemized Deductions and Restrictions on Personal Exemptions … by eliminating all limitation on itemized deductions and any restrictions on personal exemptions for all taxpayers by one-third in taxable years beginning in 2006 and 2007, and by two-thirds in taxable years beginning in 2008 and 2009, and by 100% for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.

Increase and Expand the Child Tax Credit… Increasing the child tax credit to $1,000, phased-in over ten years. and by making the child credit — subject to certain income limitations — non-taxable and refundable (i.e. payable to the person if the net tax liability is zero),

Provide relief from the “marriage penalty” … by increasing the basic standard deduction for a married couple filing a joint return; by increasing the size of the 15-percent regular income tax rate bracket for a married couple filing a joint return to twice the size of the corresponding rate bracket for an unmarried individual filing a single return.; and by increasing limits on the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Provide Education Benefits… by increasing the annual limit on contributions to education IRAs to $2,000; by expanding the reach of 529 tuition programs; by extending the non-taxibility of employer paid tuition; and by raising income phase out levels for deductability of student loan interest.

Phase-out and Repeal of Estate and Generation-Skipping Transfer Taxes:

click table to make it bigger

* * * * *

In 2003, a second round of tax changes was enacted in the “JOBS AND GROWTH TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2003” which:

Accelerated the phase in of the 10% bracket, the reduction in other bracket rates, the child care tax credit, and marriage penalty relief.

Provide reductions in taxes on capital gains and dividends … reducing the 10- and 20-percent rates on capital gains on assets held more than one year to five ( zero, in 2008 ) and 15 percent, respectively. and providing that dividends received by an individual shareholder from domestic and qualified foreign corporations generally are taxed at the same rates that apply to capital gains.

* * * * *

Source Reports
http://www.jct.gov/x-50-01.pdf
http://www.house.gov/jct//x-54-03.pdf

 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

This administration and Congress will be remembered like Herbert Hoover …

October 29, 2008

So says Art Laffer (of Laffer Curve fame) in the  WSJ: The Age of Prosperity Is Over , Art Laffer, Oct.27, 2008.

Here are some snippets.  Full article (link below)  is worth browsing.

* * * * *
Financial panics, if left alone, rarely cause much damage to the real economy, output, employment or production. Asset values fall sharply and wipe out those who borrowed and lent too much, thereby redistributing wealth from the foolish to the prudent.

* * * * *

When markets are free, asset values are supposed to go up and down, and competition opens up opportunities for profits and losses. Profits and stock appreciation are not rights, but rewards for insight mixed with a willingness to take risk. People who buy homes and the banks who give them mortgages are no different, in principle, than investors in the stock market, commodity speculators or shop owners. Good decisions should be rewarded and bad decisions should be punished. The market does just that with its profits and losses.

* * * * *
Taxpayers had nothing to do with either side of (toxic) mortgage transactions. If the house’s value had appreciated, believe you me the overleveraged homeowner and the overly aggressive bank would never have shared their gain with taxpayers.

* * * * *

Housing price declines and their consequences are signals to the market to stop building so many houses, pure and simple.

* * * * *
The government doesn’t create anything; it just redistributes. Whenever the government bails someone out of trouble, they always put someone into trouble, plus of course a toll for the troll. Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved.

* * * * *
Some 14 months ago, the projected deficit for the 2008 fiscal year was about 0.6% of GDP. With the $170 billion stimulus package last March, the add-ons to housing and agriculture bills, and the slowdown in tax receipts, the deficit for 2008 actually came in at 3.2% of GDP, with the 2009 deficit projected at 3.8% of GDP.

* * * * *

The net national debt in 2001 was at a 20-year low of about 35% of GDP, and today it stands at 50% of GDP.

* * * * *
Giving more money to people when they fail and taking more money away from people when they work doesn’t increase work.

* * * * *
An improving economy carries with it the prospects of enhanced profitability as well as higher employment, higher wages, more productivity and more output.

Just look at the era beginning with President Reagan’s tax cuts, Paul Volcker’s sound money, and all the other pro-growth, supply-side policies.

Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan added their efforts to strengthen what had begun under President Reagan. President Clinton signed into law welfare reform, so people actually have to look for a job before being eligible for welfare. He ended the “retirement test” for Social Security benefits (a huge tax cut for elderly workers), pushed the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress against his union supporters and many of his own party members, signed the largest capital gains tax cut ever (which exempted owner-occupied homes from capital gains taxes), and finally reduced government spending as a share of GDP by an amazing three percentage points (more than the next four best presidents combined).

* * * * *

Whenever people make decisions when they are panicked, the consequences are rarely pretty.

For example, Jimmy Carter’s emergency energy plan, included wellhead price controls, excess profits taxes on oil companies, and gasoline price controls at the pump. The consequences of these actions were disastrous. Just look at the stock market from the post-Kennedy high in early 1966 to the pre-Reagan low in August of 1982. The average annual real return for U.S. assets compounded annually was -6% per year for 16 years. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a bear market.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122506830024970697.html 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Again: Dogbert for President !

October 29, 2008

Dogbert’s tax plan … sound familiar ?

>> Current Posts

Gas is $4 per gallon … car buyers are going 'green' … coincidence ?

October 29, 2008

Excerpted from BrandWeek: “Car Buyers Motivated By ‘Green'”, Sept 23, 2008

* * * * * 

Toyota, Honda and Chevrolet are perceived by consumers as selling the most environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient models, according to a new Eco Watch study from Kelley Blue Book Marketing Research.

The top 10 “green” cars of 2008 are (in order):  Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid, Smart Fortwo, Nissan Altima Hybrid, Mini Cooper, Ford Escape Hybrid, Honda Fit, Mercedes E320 BlueTec, Toyota Highlander Hybrid and the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid.

* * * * *

60% of respondents reported they were “extremely concerned” or “very concerned” about the environment, citing water and air pollution, global warming and energy shortages as their primary issues.

58% were considering a more fuel-efficient vehicle for their next purchase. On average, they said they would be willing to spend up to $2,600 more on an environmentally friendly vehicle.

57% said they had changed their driving habits.

* * * * *

58% who have already changed the type of vehicle they are planning to buy said they would not go back to their former vehicle of choice even if gas prices were to drop to $1 a gallon.

The alternative-fuel technologies they most favored were hybrid engines, hydrogen fuel cells and natural gas vehicles.

They were most skeptical of biofuel, diesel and battery-electric vehicles.

75% said they wished there were more alternative fuel vehicles in the marketplace to choose from.

* * * * *

A lot of Chevy’s perceptions are based on the Volt, which is being heavily advertised, but  isn’t available in the market.

Hybrids, the alternative fuel technology that has receives the most attention, represent only 1.6% of new car sales

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/automotive-travel/e3i0e4fd2428ec797838e295ef4fcbc08fe

* * * * *

clip_image002