For more than two years, President Obama and the vast majority of Democrats have argued for extending and enlarging Bush’s middle class tax cuts while allowing rates to rise for those making more than $250,000 a year. Ask today, and that’s still the answer you get from every Democrat in a position of power. But as the Dec. 31 deadline approaches, don’t be surprised if Democrats cave and allow at least a one-year extension on all the Bush cuts.
This is one case where the parliamentary rules should give Democrats an advantage because if the Senate deadlocks and does nothing, all the tax rates would automatically rise for 2011 -- an outcome no one wants. That means Democrats could put a bill on the floor extending the lower rates just for middle incomers and dare the Republicans to block it. If Republicans do -- insisting they won’t vote for a bill that is a de facto rate hike on the rich -- Democrats would be able to go to the voters and blame the Republicans for a massive tax hike on the middle class.
The problem is that politically it probably won’t work. While Republicans have done everything they can to block every piece of Obama legislation over the past 18 months, independent voters still blame Democrats for the gridlock because Democrats are theoretically running the show. It may not be fair, but that’s the way it is, and Democrats aren’t likely to want to take a risk on the all important issue of taxes. Plus -- with the economy still shaky -- some Democrats worry about raising taxes even on the rich and prefer a delay.
Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free E-Newsletters
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more - straight to your e-mail.
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice - straight to your e-mail.
The irony gets even greater when you consider how much extending tax breaks on high incomes adds to the deficit -- about $55 billion in 2011. Republicans who have blocked all kinds of legislation (including $34 billion to extend aid to the unemployed) because it would add to the deficit think the offset rule shouldn’t apply to tax cuts. In fact, in an interview with Fox News, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) claimed that tax cuts should never have to be paid for. Not every Republican agrees with that, and one wild card in the extension debate is Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich, who says he’ll try to block an extension of the Bush tax cuts if they’re not paid for. Voinovich can afford to stand on principle because he’s retiring rather than running for re-election.
Debates on taxes always bring out a number of anomalies. Everytime we discuss them, all sorts of misinformation surfaces in e-mails and comments, with most people thinking their taxes are even higher than they are. The biggest mistake -- people in the 25% marginal tax bracket think they pay 25% of their income to the IRS. In fact, most of their income is taxed at a far lower rate.
The Congressional Budget Office provided some clarity in a recent report analyzing what people actually paid in 2007, the last year for which data are available. The CBO combined income taxes, payroll taxes, unemployment and even corporate taxes, using a formula that assumes businesses pass those taxes on to individuals in higher prices and lower dividends. They didn’t include state taxes on income, sales and property, which tend to be less progressive.
The results:
• The lowest 20% of earners (those who made less than $20,500 in 2007) paid just 4% of their income in federal taxes.
• Those making $20,500-$34,299 paid 10.6%; those making $34,300-$49,999 paid 14.3% and those making $50,000-$74,699 paid 17.4%.
• The top 20% -- those making $74,700 or more in 2007 -- paid 25.1% of their income in federal taxes.
Income tax, by the way, is a relatively small portion of the total, especially at the low ends but even at the high ones. Federal income tax for the top 400 household incomes in 2007 averaged 16.6%.
-
Trump Admin. Kills Support for NYC Congestion Pricing Despite BenefitsState Policy The toll program enacted in January charges commuters $9 if they enter Manhattan’s lower district during peak hours.
-
Stock Market Today: Trump Tariff Threats Keep Pressure on StocksThe president warned of 25% tariffs being levied on automobiles, semiconductor chips and pharmaceutical imports.
-
Why You May Owe More Tax Soon on Popular Employee BenefitsTax Law Workers could foot the tax bill for employer-provided benefits like parking, gyms, and meals.
-
Are Armed IRS Agents Headed to the Border?IRS Enforcement The Trump administration is considering a controversial move to redeploy some IRS agents.
-
Trump Federal Employee Buyout Offer: What It Means for You NowLaw & Politics The federal deferred resignation program accepted by thousands of workers continues to cause confusion and concern.
-
‘Back to the Old Days’? What’s Wrong With Trump’s Plan to Abolish Income TaxTax Policy The likelihood of Trump eliminating income tax and the IRS remains low, but the ongoing debate highlights the need for tax reform.
-
No New IRS Agents? What Trump’s Federal Hiring Freeze, Firings Mean for Your TaxesIRS Will an executive order and firing IRS workers reshape the federal tax agency and impact how long it takes to get your tax refund?
-
Trump Pushes for ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill’ With Focus on Tax CutsTax Policy Is combining taxes, border security, and energy policy into one piece of legislation to be passed in 100 days a realistic approach?
-
The TCJA May Help Nonprofits Next Year: Here’s WhyTax Law A potential TCJA extension could help nonprofits. But is it enough to keep up with inflation?
-
Can Tariffs Make Childcare More Affordable?Tariffs President-elect Trump suggested tariffs can address the childcare crisis, but economists are doubtful.
