A Bipartisan Plan for Tax Fairness by Sens. Ron Wyden and Judd Gregg

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789//vp/35559303#35559303

There is an important issue looming on the congressional horizon: how to address the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of this year. We believe there is a consensus way forward, which is why we are introducing the Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2010.

By streamlining and modernizing the outdated tax code, our proposal would eliminate many of the specialized tax breaks that currently benefit one group of Americans over another. The changes we propose will create policies that benefit everyone. They include: fiscally responsible middle-class tax cuts, business tax breaks to help American companies compete globally and create jobs, and a fairer and simpler tax system for all Americans.

The IRS estimates that each year Americans spend nearly $194 billion and 6.6 billion hours on tax compliance. Under our simplified approach, most taxpayers will be able to use a straightforward and shortened one-page 1040 IRS form to file their federal income taxes. In an effort to make paying taxes even simpler, taxpayers will be able to request that the IRS prepare a tax return for them to review, edit and sign.

We reduce the number of tax brackets from six to three—15%, 25% and 35%—and simplify the tax code for individuals and families by eliminating the alternative minimum tax. By nearly tripling the standard tax deduction, creating new opportunities for tax-free saving, and eliminating restrictions on personal exemptions and itemized deductions, under our proposal most Americans with an annual income of up to $200,000 will fare as well or better than they do under the current system. Furthermore, they won't have to worry about maintaining the records and receipts necessary to document itemized deductions.

In order to encourage investment, our legislation would exempt taxpayers from paying taxes on the first 35% of their long-term capital gains income. To qualify as a long-term gain, investments would have to be held for at least six months for the first $500,000 of capital gains, and for at least one year for capital gains after the first $500,000. This will give smaller investors more flexibility than they have now to respond to a volatile investment climate.

Another key element of our proposal is a flat corporate tax rate. Currently, U.S. corporations are at a competitive disadvantage internationally. They pay the second highest tax rate in the industrialized world. Our legislation would reduce the top corporate tax rate, which can exceed 35%, and replace the existing six corporate rates and eight brackets with a single flat rate of 24%. This will cut the U.S. corporate rate by nearly 30% and, for the first time in nearly a decade, give American corporations a competitive tax advantage over foreign competitors in Canada, Germany, France and many other countries.

As our economy continues to recover from one of the most significant economic downturns in history, our tax policy should be a tool for encouraging growth and stability, rather than an incentive for individuals and businesses to invest in more favorable tax climates.

We make fiscally responsible tax reform possible by eliminating many of the specialized tax breaks strewn throughout the tax code. Our legislation maintains the most popular tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction and the health-care tax exclusion, while eliminating specialized exemptions such as a company's ability to deduct as a business expense punitive damages resulting from lawsuits.

Our legislation also eliminates tax incentives that encourage American businesses to keep more of their foreign earnings overseas and export jobs by repealing the rule that allows U.S. companies to defer taxes on foreign income. And we take a hard line on corporate welfare by directing the Congressional Budget Office to examine the roughly $90 billion that the federal government spends to subsidize businesses directly and indirectly each year. These steps not only make the tax code simpler and fairer for everyone, they reduce opportunities for individuals and businesses to cheat the system and avoid paying their fair share.

This legislation represents a bipartisan compromise on major policy reform, something that doesn't happen much in Congress anymore even though a majority of Americans want such compromises. Of course, working together from different sides of the aisle means that neither of us got everything we wanted, but we are proud of what we did get: a comprehensive approach to tax reform that will give all Americans an opportunity to get ahead.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704454304575081322884457424.html
A breath of fresh air from the Healthcare debate.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Can't run video. Cliffs?

Simplifies income tax code to give only 3 rates. Provides a large standard deduction for the middle class which is an across the board middle class tax cut. Tax rate for the weathy I think stays the same. Pays for the tax cut by ending lots of exemptions, credits, breaks, loopholes etc which "benefit special interests." Lowers the corporate tax rate to 24% to stimulate business and curb outsourcing.

- wolf
 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
Sounds ok, but still seems complicated. Just get rid of income tax and implement a VAT.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
OP updated with article.
Watch the video also. If you must install IE to view the video(you shouldn't have to), make sure you do so.
 
Last edited:

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
OP updated with cliffs.
Watch the video also. If you must install IE to view the video(you shouldn't have to), make sure you do so.

I don't see cliffs or any substantial commentary for that matter.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
From the Cliff's it sounds reasonable.

Which of course means it is doomed to failure.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
I don't see cliffs or any substantial commentary for that matter.

Should read "OP updated with article". Oops.
I only had a video link before with my comment.

The article is your cliffs unless you want to watch an 8-9 minute video.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
I haven't seen a proposal like this before, I think I like it at first glance, still a progressive tax rate and it cuts a lot of exemptions (no idea which ones though). It sounds like the exemption on the first 35% of capital gains is really just a way to disguise a lower capital gains tax rate though. Did I miss something, or are they just not taxing a portion of the income, in effect taxing it at a lower rate?
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
This looks promising, but i'd like to see more details.

EDIT: Found the actual bill text here: http://gregg.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/S3018.pdf

EDIT 2: How do they read this? The font they use is completely obnoxious.


From the text, it looks as if this is significantly more regressive than the current tax system, for unmarried people. 35% starts at 70k per year? Fuck that.

I also think they will have a hard time selling the public on getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction (which I believe is an itemized deduction).
 
Last edited:

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
From the text, it looks as if this is significantly more regressive than the current tax system, for unmarried people. 35% starts at 70k per year? Fuck that.

I also think they will have a hard time selling the public on getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction (which I believe is an itemized deduction).

I don't think that will ever make it into a rewritten tax code. IMO if it did it would devastate the housing industry.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
From the text, it looks as if this is significantly more regressive than the current tax system, for unmarried people. 35% starts at 70k per year? Fuck that.

I also think they will have a hard time selling the public on getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction (which I believe is an itemized deduction).

It does not remove the mortgage interest deduction, the first part says it increases it. I am reading it more now, I don't think the tax rate on 70k is as bad as you seem to assume.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
This looks promising! I really like them eliminating AMT. Which if it isnt dealt with will hurt middle class America in a big way within 10 years.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,167
12,620
136
just out of curiosity, how do the project revenues compare with the current system?

taxing people less will free up investment money, but at the same time, we have a shitton of debt and federal programs that people and/or congress want to enact, and they cost money.

based on the article, it seems pretty reasonable, though.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,837
2,622
136
Great proposal for those who live off their capital (stock traders and the like) versus people who work for a living. A road we have gone down far too much already. I mean, what possible benefit does society gain from counting as LONG term capital gains something held six months? That's going to achieve the purported goal of investing in business-who could possibly utter that nonsense with a straight face?

The corporate tax rate statement is highly misleading, as the US gives far more exemptions and discounts to corporations than nearly all other developed countries. Look up what percentage of income taxes (or their equivalent) are actually paid by our largest corporations before crying crocidile tears for them.

Same old, same old. I'm surprised Judd was able to bamboozle a nominal Democrat into this.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Great proposal for those who live off their capital (stock traders and the like) versus people who work for a living. A road we have gone down far too much already. I mean, what possible benefit does society gain from counting as LONG term capital gains something held six months? That's going to achieve the purported goal of investing in business-who could possibly utter that nonsense with a straight face?

The corporate tax rate statement is highly misleading, as the US gives far more exemptions and discounts to corporations than nearly all other developed countries. Look up what percentage of income taxes (or their equivalent) are actually paid by our largest corporations before crying crocidile tears for them.

Same old, same old. I'm surprised Judd was able to bamboozle a nominal Democrat into this.

It appears they rip out a lot of the expemptions the rich use, then lower their taxes a bit. They seem to really lower the lowest tax brackets from what I understand, but I am still trying to get a good picture.

The only thing I don't like is the exemption of taxes on 35% of investment returns, I would prefer a progressive tax on investments as well, but I am trying to determine if they might be taxing investments at a higher rate, which might make up for the 35%. But without the details, the 35% reduction on investment income that is considered taxable seems like a trick to lower the capital gains tax rate.

And of course, I could be completely wrong, there is a lot of stuff in here.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,594
6,715
126
I am reading a book right now on tax policy and will post back here as soon as I become a real world authority on the subject in the next couple of days. But then again, maybe I won't because at the moment I can't think of a way to distinguish my real authority from all the amateur opinions posted here.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Sounds almost like Reagan's tax cuts from the Cliff's. I'd still prefer the FairTax, but almost anything that simplifying the tax codes is a good idea.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
Making the first 35% of capital gains tax free is BS and is a non starter in my book, that immediately tilts the playing field and effectively lowers the rate to 22.75% for the highest earners that have their income structured as LT captial gains. If you eliminate that obvious loophole for the wealthy it looks like a reasonable comprimise overall. The key is how effectively they can limit or remove the loopholes for the top earners.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
So it is revenue neutral... corporate taxes will be lowered to just under the average of other industrialized nations.... where will the difference be made up?
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Making the first 35% of capital gains tax free is BS and is a non starter in my book, that immediately tilts the playing field and effectively lowers the rate to 22.75% for the highest earners that have their income structured as LT captial gains. If you eliminate that obvious loophole for the wealthy it looks like a reasonable comprimise overall. The key is how effectively they can limit or remove the loopholes for the top earners.

Well I thought the tax rate on CG was 15% now, so this would be in effect a tax hike for them. Not really bringing it to a fair tax rate like I would prefer, but would you prefer no tax hike, or a less than fair tax hike?

And I haven't found that this actually raises the CG tax rate, I am really not clear on that at all, it might actually be a tax cut for CG.
 

DietDrThunder

Platinum Member
Apr 6, 2001
2,262
326
126
Making the first 35% of capital gains tax free is BS and is a non starter in my book, that immediately tilts the playing field and effectively lowers the rate to 22.75% for the highest earners that have their income structured as LT captial gains. If you eliminate that obvious loophole for the wealthy it looks like a reasonable comprimise overall. The key is how effectively they can limit or remove the loopholes for the top earners.

To me it only makes sense to make the first 35% of capital gains tax free if the period of long term capital gains is expanded to 18 months to two years instead of 6 months. This way you have more investment in business and those that are the highest earners that live off their investments will actually pay a higher effective rate if withdrawn early.

I would also think that if you expanded LTCGs to 18 or more months, the stock/securities markets wouldn't fluctuate as rapidly and be a bit more stable. Investors would hesitate on bad economic news, therefore not dumping stocks/securities into the market because of the potential tax hit they would incur. Just my opinion though, I could be wrong.
 
Last edited: