5 ms·

Obama Will Seek to Raise Taxes on Wealthy to Finance Cuts for Middle Class

21 points by jpgvm 12y ago

byoung2 12y ago
I feel like the tax code needs a much bigger overhaul than anyone has proposed. For example, AGI should be weighTed relative to cost of living. A couple living in San Francisco or LA filing jointly and earning $210k doesn't qualify for the child tax credit or even the IRA deduction, but they are by no means living lavishly. That same couple could make $100k in Atlanta and have a huge mansion but qualify for every tax credit available.
- mc32 12y ago
  I would agree with you but I think people are apt to tolerate 'big' injustices over 'small' injustices. If you had some kind of COLA apply to taxes --which I think would be more just, you know there would be people suing over the COLA being miscalculated or that their living within a given neighborhood as opposed to the one two blocks away should mean their adjustment is greater... it could get byzantine and unweildly quick.
  - martingordon 12y ago
    The government puts out cost of living indexes for select urban areas, so we could just go by that: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/prices/consumer_price_indexes_cost_of_living_index.html http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/prices/consumer_... The data is from 2010, so a bit outdated, but it puts Manhattan at 2.1x the national average and SF at 1.64x the national average. The high cost of housing also pushes more people to renting instead of buying, eliminating any tax deductions for mortgage interest that people in low-cost areas are more likely to take.
    - zaroth 12y ago
      A rent deduction, up to a maximum amount determined by that index. Now that would be a pro middle-class policy that I would support.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  The San Fran couple chose to live there. Why should th government give monetary reward to those who wish to live in high cost of living areas? If anything I feel like I'd rather encourage folks spread out more. Although I'd be open to hearing arguments as to whether fewer larger cities is better than more smaller hubs.
  - zaroth 12y ago
    The economic benefits of having that many people that close together are absolutely massive. It's absolutely true that costs are enormously higher in certain areas, the value of a dollar significantly lower. Due to the progressive nature of the code, lower-value areas are overly penalized. It's just another flaw in the system.
zaroth 12y ago
"Capital gains at 28 percent" That's one way to kill venture capital! Title could just as easily read "Obama will seek to raise taxes on Startups to finance ...". Thankfully startups have at least the QSBS Section 1202 100% exclusion on the first $10m of capital gains through 2014. It helps smaller funds and founders, but there are enough gotchas (e.g. 5 year holding period) that VCs would still be looking at that 28 percent pretty seriously. I wish they would make the 100% exclusion permanent to eliminate the uncertainty, it's hard making decent planning decisions when all the tax rates are changed retroactively at the end of the year. "The administration’s proposal on capital gains at death would exempt the first $200,000 in capital gains per couple plus $500,000 for a home, along with all personal property except for valuable art and collectibles. The rest would be treated for income-tax purposes as if it had been sold." -- Bloomberg. That is absolutely terrifying. It would be bad enough to eliminate the step-up in basis and make heirs pay tax on the full nut when selling... but to actually treat the property as if it were sold, that means you actually have to sell it in order to pay the tax! This is actually extremely hostile to middle-class taxpayers. Imposing taxes in the absence of an actual sale is brain dead. If your parents spend their lives accumulating a couple million dollars in assets they want to pass onto the children, you should not have to liquidate their entire estate just to give nearly half in taxes the day after they die. Maybe all of this is after the estate tax exemption, in which case it wouldn't be nearly as catastrophic. But it doesn't sound like it from what I can find.
- yuhong 12y ago
  How about making the capital gain and normal income tax equal?
  - 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
    That's called short-term capital gains.
  - zaroth 12y ago
    A lot of capital gain, particularly for the middle class, is actually inflation. You buy a house, pay your mortgage for 30 years, and perform regular maintenance. After 30 years your basis is nearly $0 and the market price has gone up 4x-10x what you paid. Now you've paid for the house once, plus all the local taxes year after year. Trivia, how much more should you have to pay? Currently the basis of the house would step-up to market value when you bequeath it to an heir, so no taxes are due. If you take that away, there's 30% of the value of the house in federal and possibly more in state taxes that would have to be paid. A $500k exclusion is grossly insufficient. Home ownership is the golden road to middle-class. A tax policy like this is akin to saying you have to be able to buy the house all over again. E.g. If you can't afford to pay a 20% down payment (to the IRS) on the house you just inherited then you can't keep it. To put some hard numbers in an example, your parents buy a $120k house with a 30 year mortgage in 1970. Due to nothing but inflation the house is now worth over $700k. That is not current income, and should not be taxed as current income. That's (one reason) why long term capital gain is taxed at a lower rate. In many cases it's just double taxation on the same dollars over time.
EGreg 12y ago
How exactly will Obama achieve this with a republican House and Senate?
- zaroth 12y ago
  I think the point is he can say whatever he wants without any downside since it doesn't matter anyway. I think as we see here, showing the 'grand vision' however is not without its risks.
glomph 12y ago
Predictably the top comment here says that this is unjust. No idea why....
chrisbennet 12y ago
I think it is shortsighted to increase taxes on the .1%. Everyone knows that if they (those that have managed to capture most of the fruits of production) have less money, the less likely they are to leave crumbs for the rest of us. /sarcasm "Those darn native Americans. Once we destroyed their food supply (the buffalo) and took all the good land for ourselves, now they want a handout. The nerve!"
dctoedt 12y ago
As @EGreg says downthread, this package has zero chance of enactment any time in the next two years (or longer). It sounds to me like "highball" negotiating [1] --- ask for the world so that you can make "concessions" and still end up with what you really want. [1] E.g., http://changingminds.org/disciplines/negotiation/tactics/highball.htm http://changingminds.org/disciplines/negotiation/tactics/hig...
cpursley 12y ago
The top 10% already pay 65% of the federal tax burden. I'd prefer to see a less "punishment" motivated approach and make up the difference needed with strategic budget cuts. I'd also prefer to see a move away from the divisive progressive income tax towards a tiered national sales tax. We should be taxing luxury items the way Singapore taxes automobiles. This would allow low income earners to keep their entire paycheck, encourage thrift for the middle income earners and destroy the tax evasion mechanisms high income earners employ.
- cpursley 12y ago
  BMW at $260,000 as Singapore Tax Keeps Cars for Rich: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-16/bmw-3-series-costs-260-000-as-singapore-tax-keeps-cars-for-rich.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-16/bmw-3-series-costs-...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
Tyrehernandez 12y ago
I think it will be fair if the government will review tax codes not just for the wealthy but across all sectors.They need to review it for everyone and not just for a specific class
blutgens 12y ago
Lol, that's hilarious. Too bad the middle class doesn't have billions of dollars worth of lobbyists to make this happen. The 1%'ers do have those lobbyists though, so yeah; good luck with that!

21 points by jpgvm 12y ago

I feel like the tax code needs a much bigger overhaul than anyone has proposed. For example, AGI should be weighTed relative to cost of living. A couple living in San Francisco or LA filing jointly and earning $210k doesn't qualify for the child tax credit or even the IRA deduction, but they are by no means living lavishly. That same couple could make $100k in Atlanta and have a huge mansion but qualify for every tax credit available.

mc32 12y ago
I would agree with you but I think people are apt to tolerate 'big' injustices over 'small' injustices. If you had some kind of COLA apply to taxes --which I think would be more just, you know there would be people suing over the COLA being miscalculated or that their living within a given neighborhood as opposed to the one two blocks away should mean their adjustment is greater... it could get byzantine and unweildly quick.
- martingordon 12y ago
  The government puts out cost of living indexes for select urban areas, so we could just go by that: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/prices/consumer_price_indexes_cost_of_living_index.html http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/prices/consumer_... The data is from 2010, so a bit outdated, but it puts Manhattan at 2.1x the national average and SF at 1.64x the national average. The high cost of housing also pushes more people to renting instead of buying, eliminating any tax deductions for mortgage interest that people in low-cost areas are more likely to take.
  - zaroth 12y ago
    A rent deduction, up to a maximum amount determined by that index. Now that would be a pro middle-class policy that I would support.
forrestthewoods 12y ago
The San Fran couple chose to live there. Why should th government give monetary reward to those who wish to live in high cost of living areas? If anything I feel like I'd rather encourage folks spread out more. Although I'd be open to hearing arguments as to whether fewer larger cities is better than more smaller hubs.
- zaroth 12y ago
  The economic benefits of having that many people that close together are absolutely massive. It's absolutely true that costs are enormously higher in certain areas, the value of a dollar significantly lower. Due to the progressive nature of the code, lower-value areas are overly penalized. It's just another flaw in the system.

zaroth 12y ago

"Capital gains at 28 percent" That's one way to kill venture capital! Title could just as easily read "Obama will seek to raise taxes on Startups to finance ...". Thankfully startups have at least the QSBS Section 1202 100% exclusion on the first $10m of capital gains through 2014. It helps smaller funds and founders, but there are enough gotchas (e.g. 5 year holding period) that VCs would still be looking at that 28 percent pretty seriously. I wish they would make the 100% exclusion permanent to eliminate the uncertainty, it's hard making decent planning decisions when all the tax rates are changed retroactively at the end of the year. "The administration’s proposal on capital gains at death would exempt the first $200,000 in capital gains per couple plus $500,000 for a home, along with all personal property except for valuable art and collectibles. The rest would be treated for income-tax purposes as if it had been sold." -- Bloomberg. That is absolutely terrifying. It would be bad enough to eliminate the step-up in basis and make heirs pay tax on the full nut when selling... but to actually treat the property as if it were sold, that means you actually have to sell it in order to pay the tax! This is actually extremely hostile to middle-class taxpayers. Imposing taxes in the absence of an actual sale is brain dead. If your parents spend their lives accumulating a couple million dollars in assets they want to pass onto the children, you should not have to liquidate their entire estate just to give nearly half in taxes the day after they die. Maybe all of this is after the estate tax exemption, in which case it wouldn't be nearly as catastrophic. But it doesn't sound like it from what I can find.

yuhong 12y ago
How about making the capital gain and normal income tax equal?
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
  That's called short-term capital gains.
- zaroth 12y ago
  A lot of capital gain, particularly for the middle class, is actually inflation. You buy a house, pay your mortgage for 30 years, and perform regular maintenance. After 30 years your basis is nearly $0 and the market price has gone up 4x-10x what you paid. Now you've paid for the house once, plus all the local taxes year after year. Trivia, how much more should you have to pay? Currently the basis of the house would step-up to market value when you bequeath it to an heir, so no taxes are due. If you take that away, there's 30% of the value of the house in federal and possibly more in state taxes that would have to be paid. A $500k exclusion is grossly insufficient. Home ownership is the golden road to middle-class. A tax policy like this is akin to saying you have to be able to buy the house all over again. E.g. If you can't afford to pay a 20% down payment (to the IRS) on the house you just inherited then you can't keep it. To put some hard numbers in an example, your parents buy a $120k house with a 30 year mortgage in 1970. Due to nothing but inflation the house is now worth over $700k. That is not current income, and should not be taxed as current income. That's (one reason) why long term capital gain is taxed at a lower rate. In many cases it's just double taxation on the same dollars over time.

EGreg 12y ago

How exactly will Obama achieve this with a republican House and Senate?

zaroth 12y ago
I think the point is he can say whatever he wants without any downside since it doesn't matter anyway. I think as we see here, showing the 'grand vision' however is not without its risks.

glomph 12y ago

Predictably the top comment here says that this is unjust. No idea why....

chrisbennet 12y ago

I think it is shortsighted to increase taxes on the .1%. Everyone knows that if they (those that have managed to capture most of the fruits of production) have less money, the less likely they are to leave crumbs for the rest of us. /sarcasm "Those darn native Americans. Once we destroyed their food supply (the buffalo) and took all the good land for ourselves, now they want a handout. The nerve!"

dctoedt 12y ago

As @EGreg says downthread, this package has zero chance of enactment any time in the next two years (or longer). It sounds to me like "highball" negotiating [1] --- ask for the world so that you can make "concessions" and still end up with what you really want. [1] E.g., http://changingminds.org/disciplines/negotiation/tactics/highball.htm http://changingminds.org/disciplines/negotiation/tactics/hig...

cpursley 12y ago

The top 10% already pay 65% of the federal tax burden. I'd prefer to see a less "punishment" motivated approach and make up the difference needed with strategic budget cuts. I'd also prefer to see a move away from the divisive progressive income tax towards a tiered national sales tax. We should be taxing luxury items the way Singapore taxes automobiles. This would allow low income earners to keep their entire paycheck, encourage thrift for the middle income earners and destroy the tax evasion mechanisms high income earners employ.

cpursley 12y ago
BMW at $260,000 as Singapore Tax Keeps Cars for Rich: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-16/bmw-3-series-costs-260-000-as-singapore-tax-keeps-cars-for-rich.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-16/bmw-3-series-costs-...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Tyrehernandez 12y ago

I think it will be fair if the government will review tax codes not just for the wealthy but across all sectors.They need to review it for everyone and not just for a specific class

blutgens 12y ago

Lol, that's hilarious. Too bad the middle class doesn't have billions of dollars worth of lobbyists to make this happen. The 1%'ers do have those lobbyists though, so yeah; good luck with that!