High Taxes? Actually, They're at a 60-Year Low

Although some people think taxes are higher then ever, they are actually at a 60-year low, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

From CBS News.com:

And for the third straight year, American families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under former President George W. Bush, thanks to a weak economy and a growing number of tax breaks for the wealthy and poor alike.

Income tax payments this year will be nearly 13 percent lower than they were in 2008, the last full year of the Bush presidency. Corporate taxes will be lower by a third, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The poor economy is largely to blame, with corporate profits down and unemployment up. But so is a tax code that grows each year with new deductions, credits and exemptions. The result is that families making as much as $50,000 can avoid paying federal income taxes, if they have at least two dependent children. Low-income families can actually make a profit from the income tax, and the wealthy can significantly cut their payments.

"The current state of the tax code is simply indefensible," says Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "It is hemorrhaging revenue."

In the next few years, many can expect to pay more in taxes. Some increases were enacted as part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. And many states have raised taxes because — unlike the federal government — they have to balance their budgets each year. State tax receipts are projected to increase in all but seven states this year, according to the National Council of State Legislatures.

But in the third year of Obama's presidency, federal taxes are at historic lows. Tax receipts dropped sharply in 2009 as the economy sank into recession. They have since stabilized and are expected to grow by 3 percent this year. But federal tax revenues won't rebound to pre-recession levels until next year, according to CBO projections.

Continue reading at CBSnews.com...

Questions for the Tax Lady: December 20th, 2010

Check out the following new Questions for the Tax Lady answers and feel free to ask me questions through one of the links below. You can send me an email, direct message or @ reply, and I will do my best to get an answer for you!

Question: I bought a home in 2008 and took advantage of a $7,500 incentive. I recently got a letter saying the money was a 0% interest loan from the government and that I must pay back $500 per year. I can barely pay my bills and have to get food from the good bank. Is there any way to get this lowered or removed?

Answer: You are in good company. Many people who received the First-time Homebuyer Credit in 2008 did not realize they were going to have to pay back the credit. Unfortunately, there really isn’t a work around. Since the IRS considered this an interest-free loan, they will come collecting.

Your best bet is to increase your income tax withholding by $42 a month. I know times are tough, but trust me, $42 a month is a lot less than the interest and penalties that would result from failure to pay back the credit.


Question: Since Obama signed the tax cut deal, does that mean my tax rate is going down next year?

Answer: Isn’t that the question of the week? Everyone is desperately trying to figure out what the tax deal means for them. Here’s the basic breakdown:

The short answer is no, your tax rate will not change. This means your official marginal tax rate will be the same that it was last year. That being said, there are other changes to the tax laws that might affect your overall tax liabilities. The most obvious example is the payroll tax deduction.

The Making Work Pay Tax Credit is gone, however, the tax deal reduced Social Security tax withholding by about 2%, so you might get a better tax break in the long run. If you earn $40,000, you’ll end up saving $800 in payroll taxes.

Why 47% of Americans Paid No Income Tax in 2009

One specific statistic got a lot of media attention this last tax season: approximately 47% of Americans would pay no federal income tax in 2009. The Tax Policy Center recently published a report explaining why so many people would be tax-free.

The first factor in so many people not having to pay income taxes is the recession. Many people lost their jobs, or had their pay cut as a result of the economic downturn. The lower your income, the less you pay in taxes. If your income gets low enough, you will not be subject to federal income taxes.

The biggest factor in the high number of people who didn’t have to pay income tax: tax credits and deductions. The increase in deductions, credits and dependent exemptions has lowered tax liabilities almost across the board, often low enough to remove all tax liability.

So, is this a good thing? A bad thing? It’s up for debate. Yes, our country is neck-deep in budget deficits, and more tax revenue would certainly help solve that issue. On the other hand, nearly every family has suffered some economic losses in the last few years, and that extra cash in their pockets goes a long way in helping stay afloat. Either way, I will be keeping an eye on this trend over the coming years to see how it all plays out.

You can read the Tax Policy Center’s full report here.

US Tax Bite Smaller than Other Nations'

From CSMonitor.com:

As millions of Americans file their tax returns this month, they can find some solace in comparing US tax rates with those in other nations. Or can they?

The United States still has a lower overall tax burden than the typical advanced economy in Europe. But the gap isn't as big as you might think, and it may be poised to shrink as the pace of federal spending ticks upward. Here's a look at how Americans' tax burden ranks against that of citizens of other countries, and why it matters.

How do US tax rates compare with those in other nations?

The average American pays wage-based taxes that are similar to what Britons pay – and not much lower than in France. Japanese citizens enjoy the lowest rates among the Group of Seven large industrial economies, or G-7. This includes national and local income taxes, plus payroll levies such as the employee share of Social Security.

But wage and payroll taxes are just part of the picture. Add in sales taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes, and corporate taxes, and the US sends 28 cents of every dollar of output to the government. That still matches Japan for the lowest ratio of tax revenue to gross domestic product (GDP) among the G-7 nations. France and Italy score highest.

IRS Announces 2010 Air Transportation Tax Rates

In a new press release yesterday, the IRS announced the 2010 inflation adjustments on excise taxes for that apply to the domestic segments of taxable air transportation and to the use of international air facilities.

The Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act, Part II, signed into law on Dec. 16, 2009, extends these excise taxes to air transportation that begins or is paid for no later than March 31, 2010.

These excise taxes are adjusted annually for inflation:

For 2010, the excise tax on the domestic segment of taxable air transportation is $3.70, up from $3.60 in 2009.

The excise tax for 2010 for international flights that begin or end in the United States is unchanged at $16.10.

The tax on use of international air facilities also applies at a reduced rate to departures of interstate flights that begin or end in Alaska or Hawaii. For 2010, the international air facilities tax on these flights is $8.10, up from $8.00 in 2009.

Further details on the excise taxes on air transportation can be found in Form 720, Quarterly Excise Tax Return, and its instructions.

Changes in Federal Revenues and Tax Rates on Capital Gains

A few days ago, The Congressional Budget Office published a letter on recent changes in federal revenue and the tax rates on capital gains. I have included a small quote from the letter courtesy of the Tax Prof, but you can download the full PDF letter by clicking here.

As a result of the economic downturn, CBO expects revenues from individual and corporate income taxes in 2009 to account for about 50% of total revenue, below the average of about 57% over the past five years. ... CBO expects that when complete information for the year is available, it will show that receipts from corporate income taxes fell substantially in 2009, to about 1.0% of GDP, less than half of the 2.1% of GDP in 2008. The decline stems from a sharp drop in taxable corporate profits.

In answering your questions about how the pending changes in the taxation of capital gains tax will affect revenues and behavior, it is useful to consider how the pending increase compares with previous changes. The top tax rate on most long-term gains was reduced from around 35% to 28% in 1978 and 1979, and was reduced to 20% in 1981. It was raised to 28% in 1987, reduced to 20% again in 1997, and reduced to 15% in 2003. The increase pending in 2011 is to 18% for some gains held over five years and to 20% for most other long-term gains. Thus, the pending tax change is well within the range of changes experienced in the last 30 years, and we have incorporated the impacts from those historical changes into our modeling of the effects of the upcoming law change.

The 0% Tax Rate Solution

From the Wall Street Journal:

The federal income tax code is now so mangled that we can probably increase federal revenues with a 0% income tax rate for a majority of Americans.

Long before President Barack Obama took office, the bottom 40% of income earners paid no federal income taxes. Because of refundable income tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), in 2006 these bottom 40% as a group actually received net payments equal to 3.6% of total income tax revenues, according to the latest Congressional Budget Office data. The actual middle class, the middle 20% of income earners, pay only 4.4% of total federal income tax revenues. That means the bottom 60% together pay less than 1% of income tax revenues.

This actually resulted from Republican tax policy going all the way back to the EITC, which was first proposed by Ronald Reagan in his historic 1972 testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on the success of his welfare reforms as governor of California. Besides calling for workfare, Reagan proposed the EITC to offset the burden of Social Security payroll taxes on the poor. As president, Reagan cut and indexed income tax rates across the board and doubled the personal exemption. The Republican majority Congress, led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, adopted a child tax credit that President George W. Bush later expanded and made refundable, while also reducing the bottom tax rate by 33% to 10%.

President Bill Clinton expanded the EITC in 1993. But it was primarily Republicans who abolished federal income taxes for the working class and almost abolished them for the middle class. Now Mr. Obama has led enactment of a refundable $400 per worker income tax credit and other refundable credits, which probably leaves the bottom 60% paying nothing as a group on net.

Many conservatives are deeply troubled by this, arguing that everyone should be contributing something to the tax burden. They worry that, not paying for any of the tab, this majority will see no reason not to vote for limitless spending burdens. But are conservatives now going to campaign on increasing taxes on the bottom 60%, arguing that is good tax and social policy? Steve Lonegan recently demonstrated in the New Jersey gubernatorial primary that this is not a viable political position. He proposed a 3% state flat tax which, while very good tax policy, would increase taxes slightly for the bottom half of income earners. His victorious opponent Chris Christie pounded away in advertising on that point.

But what if Republicans proposed a federal tax reform with a 0% income tax rate for the bottom 60% of income earners? With that explicit 0% tax rate framing the issue, abolishing the refundable tax credits that actually ship money to lower income earners through the tax code would become politically viable. Trading an explicit 0% tax rate for the bottom 60% in return for eliminating the refundable tax credits would likely be at least revenue neutral, and probably result in a net increase in revenue.

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.

More States Look to Raise Taxes

From The Wall Street Journal:

A free fall in tax revenue is driving more state lawmakers to turn to broad-based tax increases in a bid to close widening budget gaps.

At least 10 states are considering some kind of major increase in sales or income taxes: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. California and New York lawmakers already have agreed on multibillion-dollar tax increases that went into effect earlier this year.

Fiscal experts say more states are likely to try to raise tax revenue in coming months, especially once they tally the latest shortfalls from April 15 income-tax filings, often the biggest single source of funds for the 43 states that levy them.

The squeeze is especially severe in states hit hardest by the recession, such as Arizona, where sales-tax revenue has fallen by 10.5%, income-tax collections are down 15.7% this fiscal year, and the government faces a $3.4 billion budget gap next year. But such shortfalls are likely to be widespread; federal income-tax receipts from individuals have dropped more than 15% in the past six months, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.

While most states so far have managed to cope with dwindling cash by cutting spending and raising fees on things such as fishing licenses and car registrations, that is unlikely to be enough in the new fiscal years that generally begin July 1, many analysts said.

"Income taxes and sales taxes are the go-to taxes when you really need to raise a lot of money," said Donald J. Boyd, who monitors states' fiscal health for the Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, N.Y.

Sales-tax revenue has fallen more sharply than at any time in the past 50 years, Mr. Boyd said, and he expects income-tax collections to drop below levels state officials projected -- though the extent of the damage probably won't become clear until May.

Raising taxes is a perilous proposition for lawmakers, who must balance their states' budgets every year. Not only do they face political heat for increasing financial burdens during the recession, but added taxes risk worsening their states' economic problems by, for example, further hobbling consumer spending.

Higher Cigarette Tax Is Very Sensible

From The Wall Street Journal:

The Feb. 2 editorial "The New Poor Tax" is based on the same old faulty logic that manufacturers have been making for decades whenever cigarette tax hikes are suggested as a means of paying for social programs. There is no argument that cigarette taxes discourage consumption especially among the poor, who can least afford to be addicted to cigarettes.

Ninety-five percent of those who smoke say they regret their decision ever to start. The majority of smokers say they want to quit, so why is it so bad for the government to provide an economic incentive to help move smokers to cut down or quit? The U.S. has one of the lowest tax rates on tobacco in the world and the meager 39 cents-per-pack tax is hardly enough to pay for the massive annual medical bill caused by smoking.

By boosting the federal tax by the proposed 61 cents-per-pack to pay for the children's insurance fund, Congress will not only maintain a much-needed health insurance program but will also help reduce smoking.

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.

Top 10 Highest and Lowest Taxed States

The Tax Foundation recently released “State-Local Tax Burdens Dip As Income Growth Outpaces Tax Growth,” which also includes a list of the 10 highest and lowest taxed states. Below is the list, along with the individual states tax rates.

Highest:

1. New Jersey: 11.8%

2. New York: 11.7%

3. Connecticut: 11.1%

4. Maryland: 10.8%

5. Hawaii: 10.6%

6. California: 10.5%

7. Ohio: 10.4%

8. Vermont: 10.3%

9. Wisconsin: 10.2%

10. Rhode Island: 10.2%

Lowest:

1. Alaska: 6.4%

2. Nevada: 6.6:

3. Wyoming: 7.0%

4. Florida: 7.4%

5. New Hampshire: 7.6%

6. South Dakota: 7.9%

7. Tennessee: 8.3%

8. Texas: 8.4%

9. Louisiana: 8.4%

10. Arizona: 8.5%.

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.”

California is Number 1… When it comes to taxes.

In another interesting article on the Wall Street Journal’s website, the author delves into the idea that California would take over the title of highest tax jurisdiction if Democrat legislators were able to pass their new tax increases. Below is a quote from the opinion piece.

“New York City has long been the highest tax jurisdiction in the United States, but California politicians are proposing to steal that brass tiara. California faces a $15 billion budget deficit and Democrats who rule the state Legislature have proposed closing the gap with a $9.7 billion tax hike on business and ‘the rich.’ There's a movie that describes this idea: Clueless.

The plan would raise the top marginal income tax rate to 12% from 10.3%; that would be the highest in the nation and twice the national average. This plan would also repeal indexing for inflation, which is a sneaky way for politicians to push middle-income Californians into higher tax brackets every year, especially when prices are rising as they are now. The corporate income tax rate would also rise to 9.3% from 8.4%. So in the face of one of the worst real-estate recessions in the state's history, the politicians want to raise taxes on businesses that are still making money.

This latest tax gambit was unveiled, ironically enough, within days of two very large California employers announcing they are saying, in the famous words of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, "hasta la vista, baby" to the state. First, the AAA auto club declared it would close its call centers in California, meaning those 900 jobs will move to other states. "It costs more to do business in California," said an AAA press release, in the understatement of the year.

Then, last week, Toyota announced it is canceling plans to build its new Prius hybrid at its plant in the San Francisco Bay area because of the high tax and regulatory costs. Adding to the humiliation is that Toyota will now take this investment and about 1,000 jobs to a more progressive and pro-business state: Mississippi.

There is already a reverse gold rush going on in California and the evidence points powerfully toward high tax rates as a culprit. Census Bureau data show that, from 1996-2005, 1.3 million more Americans left than came to California. And the people who are leaving are disproportionately those with higher incomes: the very targets the Democrats want to tax more.”

On the Third Day of Taxes…

The government gave to me… Three French returns, two W-2’s, and a partial payment in a money tree! Today is the third tax of taxes, and the featured video surrounds the idea that taxes are not just something we have in the United States.

Today’s featured article is titled “Average Tax Rates of 70 Countries around the World,” and includes the average personal and business income tax rates of 70 different countries. Check out the full table by clicking here.