Health Care = Tax Increases

This morning it seems like all the headlines are about the new plans for health care reform. For those of you who have not have heard, yesterday House Democrats unveiled their health care reform bill (H.R. 3200). To finance the massive project, they are hoping to raise taxes on the following taxpayers.

• 1.0% increase for married couples earning $350,000 - $500,000
• 1.5% increase for married couples earning $500,000 - $1,000,000
• 5.4% increase for married couples earnings > $1,000,000

Additionally, the 1.0% and 1.5% rates are scheduled to increase in 2013 to 2.0% and 3.0% unless the government can find $150 billion in health care savings. Understandably, many taxpayers are angered by the announcement, which would push the total tax rates in some states to nearly 60%.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, “Obama has promised to let the lower Bush tax rates expire after 2010. This would raise the top personal income tax rate to 39.6% from 35%, and the next rate to 36% from 33%. The Bush expiration would also phase out various tax deductions and exemptions, bringing the top marginal rate to as high as 41%.”

Then add the Rangel Surtax of one percentage point, starting at $280,000 ($350,000 for couples), plus another percentage point at $400,000 ($500,000 for couples), rising to three points on more than $800,000 ($1 million) in 2011. But wait, there's more. The surcharge could rise by two more percentage points in 2013 if health-care costs are larger than advertised -- which is a near-certainty. Add all of this up and the top marginal tax rate would climb to 46%, which hasn't been seen in the U.S. since the Reagan tax reform of 1986 cut the top rate to 28% from 50%.

States have also been raising their income tax rates, so in California and New York City the top rate would be around 58%. The Tax Foundation reports that at least half of all states would have combined state-federal tax rates of more than 50%.

The Associated Press also published an article on the new surtax, claiming that the “House Ways and Means Committee announced it would vote on the proposal beginning on Thursday. The panel is one of three that must act before the bill can go to the full House, probably later in the month.”

Their article also explains Obama’s involvement in the bill, noting that “the developments occurred one day after President Barack Obama met with key Democrats in a White House session in which he told a powerful Senate chairman he wants legislation by week's end in his committee.”

In a statement, Obama praised the proposal, saying it "will begin the process of fixing what's broken about our health care system, reducing costs for all, building on what works and covering an estimated 97 percent of all Americans. And by emphasizing prevention and wellness, it will also help improve the quality of health care for every American."

In addition to Obama’s efforts to work with congress, his administration is also set to begin airing television commercials to generate more support for their plan. According to Yahoo Finance, “the 30-second ads will begin airing Wednesday in Washington, D.C., and on cable TV nationally. In the ads, private citizens describe problems they've had with the medical system and say it's time for action. The sponsor is Organizing for America, Obama's campaign organization, which has become part of the national Democratic Party. The group would not reveal the cost.”

Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich

From the Wall Street Journal:

With states facing nearly $100 billion in combined budget deficits this year, we're seeing more governors than ever proposing the Barack Obama solution to balancing the budget: Soak the rich. Lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Oregon want to raise income tax rates on the top 1% or 2% or 5% of their citizens. New Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn wants a 50% increase in the income tax rate on the wealthy because this is the "fair" way to close his state's gaping deficit.

Mr. Quinn and other tax-raising governors have been emboldened by recent studies by left-wing groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that suggest that "tax increases, particularly tax increases on higher-income families, may be the best available option." A recent letter to New York Gov. David Paterson signed by 100 economists advises the Empire State to "raise tax rates for high income families right away."

Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.

And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, "Rich States, Poor States," published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.

Progressive Says to Pay No '08 Dividend

From Reuters.com:

Progressive Corp, the No. 3 U.S. auto insurer, said on Monday it will not pay investors an annual dividend in 2008 because it is barred from doing so unless it meets financial targets.

Progressive said because it expects to have a 2008 after-tax comprehensive loss it will be precluded from paying a dividend. Under a variable dividend policy, the company cannot pay a dividend if after-tax comprehensive income is lower than after-tax underwriting income.

As of Nov. 30, Progressive's after-tax comprehensive loss totaled $860.8 million over the first 11 months of the year, the Mayfield Village, Ohio-based insurer said.

The Effect of Changing Work Patterns on Income Tax Progressivity

Chris Sanchirico has published this very interesting paper titled Progressivity and Potential Income: Measuring the Effect of Changing Work Patterns on Income Tax Progressivity. You can download the full PDF by clicking here, but I have listed the abstract from the paper below.

The income tax taxes the proceeds from market work, but not the proceeds from time otherwise allocated - whether enjoyed as self-provided goods and services or leisure time per se. A two-earner couple that out-sources household and child care services, for instance, pays for these services with after tax earnings, while a single-earner couple that self-provides such services pays no tax on their provision. This article uses data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to measure the distributive impact of the implicit exclusion for non-market activity. Viewing the exclusion as a kind of tax benefit, it asks: how is such tax benefit distributed across the income spectrum? The article finds that variation across income levels in the labor-income realization ratio - the portion of potential labor income that is realized as actual labor income -- has played a decisive role in shaping the real progressivity of the Federal income tax. On paper, the Federal income tax became more progressive during the 1990s. When average tax rates are measured in terms of potential rather than actual income, however, the income tax shows a decline in progressivity during that decade. The discrepancy arises from a change in work patterns. At the start of the decade, tax units with higher income were realizing a greater proportion of their potential earnings than were tax units with lower income. By the end of the decade, the realization ratio was greater at the lower end of the potential income spectrum. This reversal in labor income realization patterns was substantial enough to overpower the increase in statutory progressivity.

Progressive Income Taxation and Socialism

Professor James Edward of Mauled Again has posted his take on the “progressive tax” concept. Below is a quote from the entry, but you can read the full text by clicking here.

Perhaps we interpret Obama's statement differently. I did not read it as revoking the tax cut on the wealthy in order to give cash to the poor and middle class. I read it as revoking the tax cut on the wealthy so that the government did not need to rack up deficits to provide the health care, school lunches, head-start education programs, and other benefits that indeed give opportunity to people who otherwise would be stuck in poverty.

This nation has been doing that for decades. It's socialism, perhaps not as far along the spectrum as Sweden's version, but it's socialism. When the administration refused to raise taxes to finance the war, it ended up cutting benefits to those in need. Obama seeks to fix that problem. That problem is exacerbated by the impact of cutting taxes on the wealthy, who didn't trickle much down to the poor other than short-term smoke and mirrors and longer-term financial distress. The poor and lower middle class will suffer far more from the present and continuing recession (depression, perhaps) than will the wealthy.

What I think underlies these charges of socialism is fear. It's fear, not of millionaires paying another fifty or a hundred thousand dollars in taxes, not of government taking over ownership of all assets, but of change. For quite some time, the economic and tax arrangement have favored the wealthy. They created this arrangement by persuading the middle class and even the poor that life would be better if income taxes were cut, particularly income taxes on capital gains and dividends. Yet when all was said and done and the policies advanced by the tax cutters played out, the nation ended up in what may be the worst economic catastrophe it has faced. While wages barely kept pace with inflation, and in some instances fell, while jobs were outsourced, while the quality of products and services suffered, while health care became less affordable and less available, while resources allocated to education continued to be insufficient, the percentage of wealth owned by the wealthy increased. Because the sales pitch worked in the past, they expected it to work again, but to their surprise, the track record of the don't-tax-but-spend crowd has turned out to be no better than, and in most respects worse than, the track record of the tax-and-spend crowd. With that taking the wind out of their economic policy sails, they turned their focus on a broader question, using terminology designed to spread their fear throughout the electorate.

The answer to Joe the Plumber's question was honest. It might not be something with which people agree, but at least it's not the misleading promise that cutting taxes will make everyone economically secure. And underneath this trumpeting of the "socialism" warning cry is an unarticulated lack of faith in America, a notion that somehow citizens will sit back and do nothing if it attempts to fix the economic mess turn too sharply to what genuinely is socialism rather than returning the country to the path which uses economic policy to promote fairness, affordable health care, improvement in children's education, and the other characteristics of high quality of life that were promised but not delivered by the merchants of tax cuts for high income taxpayers. I don't see the appeal in continuing to do what has been done, when what has been done is what brought us to where we are.

McCain & Palin: Obama tax plan will 'spread the wealth'

From CNN.com:

Sen. John McCain's camp on Monday continued its weekend assault on Sen. Barack Obama's tax plan, which it called an attempt to "spread the wealth."

Speaking at a campaign event in St. Charles, Missouri, McCain said Obama "wants to spread the wealth around."

A chorus of boos rang out as the senator from Arizona continued, "He believes in redistributing wealth -- not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs and opportunities for all Americans. Sen. Obama is more interested in controlling who gets your piece of the pie than in growing the pie."

In Colorado Springs, Colorado, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin also continued her line of attack from the weekend, but softened her tone in that she didn't call Obama's plan outright socialism.

"Our opponent's plan is just more big government, and John and I think that that is the problem, not the solution," she said. "Instead of taking your hard-earned money and spreading your wealth, we want to spread opportunity so people like you and Joe the plumber can create new wealth."

The Rich are Paying Less in Taxes

According to a new study from the tax experts at the Wall Street Journal, the richest taxpayers in America paid less last tax year then they have in 18 years. Below is a quote from the article, you can read the full version at Richest Americans See Their Income Share Grow.

“In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.

Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income.

The figures are from the IRS's income-statistics division and were posted on the agency's Web site last week. 2006 data is the most recent data made available.

The figures about the relative income and tax rates of the wealthiest Americans come as the presumptive presidential candidates are in a debate about taxes. Congress and the next president will have to decide whether to extend several Bush-era tax cuts, including the 2003 reduction in tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Experts said those tax cuts in particular are playing a major role in falling tax rates for the very wealthy.

Sen. John McCain has proposed extending the lower tax rates of 15% on long-term capital gains and dividends that apply to most taxpayers, while Sen. Barack Obama has said he will seek to raise them to at least 20%, the rate before the 2003 cut, and possibly higher.”