Archive for April 16th, 2009

My #1 tax beef: Under the Team Obama tax plan, a majority of voters will be paying zero income taxes (or less)

April 16, 2009

Note: This analysis was originally posted on July 31, 2008 during the run-up to the election.  It proves the point (ahead of its time)  that less than half of all voters pay any income taxes now that “Make Work Pay”  has been enacted (as part of the  stimulus program).  Think about it: the majority gets to demand more government programs that they don’t pay a cent towards.  I think that’s scary.  Very scary..

It’s the post that continues to get the most hits, and the topic is ‘hot’ this week because of the tea party rallies.  So, here’s a flashback .
..

* * * * *

Despite the drumbeat of warnings from various sources, the prospects that a minority of voting age Americans will be paying Federal income taxes under the Obama tax plan doesn’t seem to arouse much visible public anxiety.

 

Why?

 

First, for those in the emerging majority that won’t pay any income taxes – or may even be getting government checks for tax credits due – the deal is almost too good to be true.  To them, Obama’s  plan must make perfect sense.  So, why rock the boat?

 

Second, some people argue that low-earning people who don’t pay income taxes shoulder a regressive payroll tax burden to cover Medicare and Social Security.  Yeah, but these programs – which are most akin to insurance or forced savings plans — offer specific individual benefits that are directly linked to each wage earner’s contributions.and the benefits phase down quickly as qualifying income increases.  That is, they’re not as regressive as many people argue.

 

Third, most of the energetic criticism of Obama’s plan has centered on its redistribution intent — taking over $130 billion of “excess” income from undeserving rich people, and giving it directly to those who earn less and need it more.

 

Fourth, most folks just don’t believe that the numbers will really shift enough to create a voting majority of citizens who don’t pay income taxes. They’re wrong.  Very wrong.

Here are the numbers … and why they should bother you.

 

* * * * *

Today, 41% of voting age adults don’t pay Federal income taxes

Based on the most recent IRS data, slightly more than 200 million out of 225 million voting age Americans filed tax returns.  That means that 25 million adults – presumably low income ones – didn’t file returns and, of course, didn’t pay any income taxes. See notes [1] to [4] below

Of the 200 million voting age filers, approximately 68 million (33% of total filers) owed zero income taxes or qualified for refundable tax credits (i.e. paid negative income taxes). [5]

Add those 68 million to the 25 million non-filers, and non-payers already total 93 million –  41% of voting age adults.

* * * * *

Obama’s Estimates – Make that 49%
Not Paying Federal Income Taxes

Obama says (on his web site) that he will give tax credits up of $1,000 per family ($500 per individual) that will  “completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans”.  And, he says that he will “eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors making less than $50,000 per year.”  [6]

Taking Obama’s estimates at face value,  the incremental 17 million that he intends to take off the income tax rolls will push  the percentage of non-payers close to 49% of voting age Americans  — within rounding distance to a majority. [7]

* * * * *

And, Obama’s estimates are probably low,
so make the number 55% (or higher)
 

Since Obama’s basic proposal is for tax credits  ($500 per person or $1,000 per family) – not  simply deductions from Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) — they will have a multiplier impact on the amount of AGI that tax filers can report and still owe no taxes.

 

For example, a childless married couple that files a joint return can currently report about $17,500 in  Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and owe no income taxes. [8]

 

Under the Obama Plan,  that couple’s zero-tax AGI is bumped up to $27,500 since their new $1,000 tax credit covers the 10% tax liability on an additional $10,000 of AGI.  And, married couples filing jointly can keep adding about $10,000 to their zero-tax AGI for each qualifying dependent child that they claim. [9]

 

click table to make it bigger

click table to make it bigger

Based on the 2006 IRS data, approximately 25 million tax returns were filed that reported AGI less than  $27,500 (the post-Obama zero-tax AGI) and required that some income taxes be paid.  [10]

 

Assuming that 45% of those were for couples filing jointly, they represent  over 22 million adults.  For sure, these 22 million will  come off the tax rolls —  and they alone will be enough to create a non-taxpayer majority (51% of voting age adults),

click to make table bigger

And, there are more folks being pushed off the tax rolls.  About 4.7 million childless individuals earn less than $13,750  (the post-Obama zero-tax AGI for childless individuals), and currently pay some Federal income taxes.   This group will shift  to non-payer status.

 

So would several million joint filers who can take advantage of the Child Tax Credit to report more than $27,500 and not pay Federal income taxes.

 

And, some portion of the 7 million Seniors that Obama says will have their taxes eliminated — that is the Seniors couples earning more than $27,500 (but less than $50,000) — and Senior individuals earning more than $13,750 (but less than $50,000).

 

So, post-Obama, the percentage of non-taxpayers will  easily exceed 55% of voting age adults — a solid majority.  It won’t even be close.

 

* * * * *

The Bottom Line – Why You Should Worry

An income tax paying minority of voting age adults isn’t just a possibility. Under Obama’s plan, it’s a virtual certainty.  Based on the hard numbers, Obama’s plan will create a new majority — a powerful voting block: non-tax payers. UH-OH.

 

Again, for those in the emerging majority that won’t pay any income taxes – or may even be getting government checks for tax credits due – the deal is almost too good to be true.  To them, Obama’s  plan must make perfect sense.  Count on their perpetual support for the plan.

 

But for those in the new minority, watch out if the new majority decides that more government services are needed, or that  $131 billion in income redistribution isn’t enough to balance the scales.

The Tax Foundation — a nonpartisan tax research group – has repeatedly warned that  “While some may applaud the fact that millions of low- and middle-income families pay no income taxes, there is a threat to the fabric of our democracy when so many Americans are not only disconnected from the costs of government but are net consumers of government benefits. The conditions are ripe for social conflict if these voters begin to demand more government benefits because they know others will bear the costs.”  http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1111.html

* * * *  *

Sources & Notes

[1] The Census Bureau reported 217.8 million people age 18 and over; as of July 1, 2003.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001703.html
 
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/files/NST-EST2007-alldata.csv

[2] The IRS reported 138.4 million personal tax returns filed in 2006.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in11si.xls

[3] The IRS reported that in 2006, approximately 45% of filed returns were by married couples filing jointly (i.e. 2 adults per return); 55% for individual filers (including ‘married filing separately’ and ‘head of household’).  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in36tr.xls

[4] Calculation: 138.4 million returns times 1.45 (adults per return) equals 200.7 million adults represented on filed returns

[5]  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in01fg.xls      http://ftp.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06inplim.pdf

[6]  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief

[7]  Analytical note: 93 million plus 17 million equals 110 million divided by 225 million equals 49%.

[8]  Analytical note:  $17,500 less a $10,700 standard deduction, less 2 exemptions at $3,400 each, equals taxable income of zero – so no federal income taxes are due.

[9] Analytical note:  $27,500 less a $10,700 standard deduction, less 2 exemptions at $3,400 each, equals taxable income of $10,000, which at a 10% rate is a $1,000 tax liability that gets offset by the $1,000 Obama credit, reducing the tax liability to zero.

* * * * *

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

 

Simple math … the seeds of a tax revolt

April 16, 2009

Counterattacking the Tea Parties yesterday, Team Obama was out in force declaring: (1) 95% of workers are getting a tax break (2) over 60% of Americans support the President’s spending plans.

Let’s see …

Regarding the tax break: keep in mind that it’s a whopping buck-a-day for the average worker.  Better than nothing, but not by much. If that buys financial stability and happiness, I say ‘go for it’.

Regarding the support for the spending plan: keep in mind that about half of voters don’t pay any income taxes — or get a refundable credit check.  They have no skin in the game — why wouldn’t they support a boatload of new benefits — after all, they’re FREE.

Assuming all 50 on non-tax payers support the programs, getting to 60% support means that 20% of tax payers support the spending plan … or, said differently, 80% don’t.

Think about it: using Team Obama’s own numbers, 80% of the folks who have to pay for the spending spree oppose it … but politically, the payers are dwarfed by the freeloaders.

It’s simple arithmetic.

Finally, a windfall profits tax that I can support …

April 16, 2009

According to the WSJ, Team Obama (Barack & Michelle) reported $6.8 million income in 2007 ($4.1) and 2008 ($2.7) …  “mainly from book sales”.

I think it’s fair to say that if Obama had not been selected to give a speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, his book sales would have been statistically insignificant.

In other words, his book earnings are, by definition, a windfall.

Why not tax them at windfall profits rates — say 90%, Barney Frank’s favorite number?

Obama has an grand opportunity to lead by example.

Makes sense to me

Source article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123983002234522435.html

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

When Every Hour is Happy Hour … Restaurants Make More Room at the Bar

April 16, 2009

Excerpted from WSJ, “Bar Wars” By Katy McLaughlin, Apr 3, 2009

* * * * *

When chef Eric Greenspan opened the Foundry, a $1.3 million restaurant in Los Angeles, two years ago, he created a menu of high-end cuisine, showcasing the culinary skills he had honed at some of the world’s top restaurants. Three months ago, Mr. Greenspan turned the restaurant into a lounge with nightly live bands, cocktail waitresses and promotions such as “fried-chicken-and-waffles night.” The dining room has been banished to a back patio.

Around the country, proprietors are turning their restaurants — or significant parts of them — into glorified bars. They’re ripping out dining-room tables to make more bar space, applying for late-night and cabaret licenses and adding the word “bar” to their names. Top chefs are serving up bar snacks like grilled cheese sandwiches and hot dogs.

The reason: While consumer spending at restaurants is falling precipitously, drink orders, particularly for cheaper drinks like beer, are barely dropping off. For restaurants, it’s now proving more cost-effective to serve lower-priced dishes that diners can munch on as they buy drinks …  

The morphing of some of the nation’s top dining rooms into bars and lounges with food demonstrates how dramatically and quickly consumer behavior has changed since the economy plummeted this fall … this year fine dining sales will plunge at least 12%, after falling 4% last year. Meanwhile, analysts are predicting a less painful contraction in alcohol sales …“Historically, consumption of alcohol tends to outperform compared to other parts of the economy in a recession” …

Selling alcohol, and cocktails in particular, is typically a better business than selling restaurant food because the margins are higher. While ingredient costs may account for as much as 35% of the price of an entrée in a high-end restaurant, they typically only account for about 14% of the price of a cocktail or 25% of the price of a glass of wine.

Bar snacks, which often include inexpensive items like pizzas, can also have better margins than fine-dining dishes with expensive proteins such as filet mignon or organic lamb. Since restaurants are already paying to run a kitchen, selling additional, easy-to-make food is simply an extra revenue stream.

Beyond thrift, there is a social component to noshing at bars. Restaurateurs say patrons seem especially eager to rub shoulders with one another at the bar, rather than isolate themselves at dining-room tables.

“People want to socialize and be out; they don’t want to be miserable at home,” says Chris Douglass, co-owner of three Boston-area restaurants … Informal dining is increasingly popular, and some of the restaurants launching bar menus and lounges will likely keep them even after the economy bounces back …

Edit by SAC

* * * * *

Full Article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871155276784313.html#

* * * * *

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

The power of FREEconomics

April 16, 2009

Excerpted from Knowledge@Wharton, “How About Free? The Price Point That Is Turning Industries on Their Heads”, March 4, 2009

* * * * *

There’s an old joke about a businessman who gives away his products. A customer asks: “How do you make money doing that?” He answers: “I make it up on volume.”

It’s nonsensical, yes. But a funny thing has happened: Giving away the product has become a legitimate business model on the Internet and even beyond. And it’s been getting increased attention. Author Chris Anderson will publish a new book in July titled, Free: The Past and Future of a Radical Price. Anderson, the editor of Wired and a former Economist reporter, also wrote the 2006 book, The Long Tail, in which he observed how companies such as Amazon.com and Netflix were thriving by offering gigantic catalogs of products that each sell in small quantities. Today, those companies are among the few thriving through a recession.

Anderson isn’t alone in exploring what has been dubbed “freeconomics.” Venture capitalist Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures popularized the term “freemium” to describe an emergent business model — popular among online service and software companies — of acquiring users en masse with a free offering but charging for an enhanced version in hopes of subsidizing the free usage.

But what is really new here? After all, “free” has been around “probably since the beginning of business,” says Z. John Zhang, a Wharton marketing professor who has authored books on pricing strategy. “You go to a supermarket and they give you free samples and then you buy a whole box. Some bars let women go in for free and they charge the men. ‘Free’ is one of the most powerful words in marketing. It truly motivates people. If you see ‘free,’ even if you don’t want it, you’re going to get it. Marketers will take every opportunity to use that word.”

Bending the Demand Curve

Indeed, the appeal of “free” has been shown to be so extraordinary that it bends the demand curve. “The demand you get at a price of zero is many times higher than the demand you get at a very low price,” says Kartik Hosanagar, a Wharton professor of operations and information management who studies pricing and technology. “Suddenly demand shoots up in a nonlinear fashion.” Josh Kopelman, a venture investor and entrepreneur who founded Half.com, has written about what he dubbed “the penny gap.” Even charging one cent for something dramatically lessens the demand [generated at] zero cents.

It’s no surprise that many companies have worked “free” into their offers in a number of different ways. “Cosmetics are never on sale. They say, ‘Buy this at regular price and get a free gift.’ That protects the normal price,” says Wharton marketing professor Stephen J. Hoch. Adobe gives away its Adobe Reader software for displaying documents that use the company’s PDF electronic document format, but charges corporations for the Adobe Acrobat software needed to create the documents. “If you charge for both, the software will never take off,” states Hosanagar.

Of course, products and services offered for free aren’t really free; they’re just paid for in another way. Cross-subsidies have been a selling strategy for ages, the classic example being Gillette’s move a century ago to sell razors cheaply to create demand for expensive blades, long before printer makers adopted a similar strategy with printers and their supplies.

Then there are two-sided markets, which derive revenue from two sets of customers. In those, “whichever side is more price inelastic [less sensitive to price changes], that’s the side you want to charge more [for],” says Zhang. In the case of “Ladies’ Nights,” he says, establishments may increase overall revenue by letting women in for free to attract more males — who are price inelastic in that their desire to be there will not be greatly affected by entrance price.

Newspapers traditionally have charged readers as well as the advertisers who want to reach those readers. For years, however, some types of publications have been given away to readers for free, with publishing costs supported by advertisers. But the profusion of free content online has made reader demand extremely elastic — suddenly sensitive to any price above zero — and many publishers are fumbling with revised models, including cross-selling. The Wall Street Journal, for example, now sells wine to readers at wsjwine.com, Zhang notes.

What’s new, of course, is the Internet, which makes the marginal cost of delivering one more product close to zero. As Anderson explains in a February Wall Street Journal article, “Digital goods — from music to Wikipedia — can be produced and distributed at virtually no marginal cost … making price a race to the bottom.” Add in easier sourcing online of cheap products and materials, and the Internet means cost is evaporating from the system and opportunities for free offers have exploded.

Beyond minimizing distribution costs, the Internet has fostered other distinct trends that have pushed prices and consumer expectations toward zero. Two-way markets become more sophisticated online — Google is able to offer web searches for free by matching advertisers to what people appear to be seeking: Search for cars, get some car ads. “Some of these transactions could not be done before, because transaction costs for matching an advertiser with a consumer were too high,” says Hosanagar. This has inspired online firms, such as Google, Yahoo and Facebook, to take advantage of the nonlinear allure of “free” to build giant audiences in hopes of future revenues, even in cases where revenues from ads or other sources are not covering the cost of the free service.

Other factors also have been at play. On the web there’s little financial barrier to set up a store, an information site or blog, and compete with established players who may have high fixed costs and brick-and-mortar investments. This easy entry into markets has played a role in creating what BusinessWeek called the “free-labor economy.” People are putting together elaborate and sometimes useful sites at no cost other than time. Simultaneously, digital technology has enabled easy copying of copyrighted materials — music, movies, photos and news articles — that are or were products of traditional industries. The result of all this has been a change in consumer expectations. A “culture of free” has emerged — there are a lot of things for which people simply don’t expect to pay.

Consumers’ sense of entitlement to free content online “has had catastrophic effects — meaning both large and quick — that I don’t think anyone would have predicted,” says Hoch. “It’s had a yet unknown catastrophic effect on the news. It’s had a catastrophic effect on music. Clearly the concept that you can make it up in volume is bogus, because you can’t. Music CD sales have gone from $13 billion in the U.S. to about $7 billion since 2001 while legal digital downloads generated about $1.5 billion in sales.” 

“Right now, newspapers are doing things that level the playing field, bringing themselves down to the level of lower-quality competition. They should move to the high-end and exploit their advantages and distinctions.” Isaacson advocates for a system that makes it easy for readers to pay small “micropayments” online for the articles they view. But that’s easier said than done. The sort of online micropayments Isaacson and others advocate have a poor track record, in large part because the psychology of the “penny gap” is hard to overcome. It’s especially difficult because people have come to expect a vast selection of no-cost news online. “The last thing you want to do is get people addicted to free. If you’re going to go free, you ought to expect that it is going to be the price forever,” says Hoch. “If you’re going to be a low price seller,” he adds, “you sure as hell better have low costs.”

More Software Apps, Fewer People

The effects of the free culture online have had a hard impact on offline businesses. Many jobs once done by people are turning into software applications, Anderson says. “Your cranky tax accountant has morphed into free TurboTax online, your stockbroker is now a trading web site and your travel agent is more likely a glorified search engine.”

Companies have experimented and struggled with a wide spectrum of pricing strategies. Some see hope in the “freemium” model, giving away a basic version of a product, but charging for premium features. Yahoo lets tens of thousands of fantasy football players participate in its online leagues for free every season, then lures them into paying for real-time game statistics or player scouting reports. Every tax season, companies — including H&R Block and Intuit — offer free basic online tax filing, but charge for more complicated returns. Newspaper web sites have grappled with the question of what content to give away and what to lock up in areas that readers must pay to see.

Some businesses have been especially creative. In 2007, the rock band Radiohead offered its album In Rainbows as a download for a “pay what you want” price. Research firm ComScore estimated 38% of people downloading the album paid an average of $6. A later release of the album as a physical CD sold more copies than the band’s prior two CDs.

“A business needs to adapt its revenue models to new technology,” says Zhang. Not everyone can compete against free, but there are still creative ways — more ways now than ever — to employ the strategy. 

“The problem is in thinking the business model of your industry is ordained forever,” says Werbach. “Business isn’t static, and it’s less static today than it’s ever been. The great challenge the Internet poses is that it makes it possible to very quickly shift the allocation of money in certain industries. It’s not easy to go through that kind of transformation, but that’s life. Successful companies are the ones that appreciate that.”

Edit by NRV
Full article
:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2169

* * * * *

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