Tax Reform

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Tax reform panel offers two proposals
Simplification of the federal tax code, and a consumption tax are the focus.

The first plan is a simplified and heavily modified version of the current income tax code, while the second plan introduces a consumption tax into the system, according to reports from Reuters and DowJones Newswires.

The simplified plan the bipartisan panel discussed will be a modified version of the current, income-based federal tax code.

It would, among other things:

* Cut the number of income tax brackets from six to four ? 15 percent, 25 percent, 30 percent and 33 percent.

* Eliminate the marriage penalty.

* Revamp capital gains taxes so that stocks and dividends would only be taxed at the individual level, not the corporate one, too.

* Eliminate deductions for state and local taxes.

* Limit the home mortgage deduction

* Expand the capital gains exclusion on home sales from $500,000 to $600,000 for couples.

* Cap the amount of tax-free money an employer could pay for a workers' health insurance plan to $11,500 for families. Anything paid above that threshold would be treated as taxable income to the worker.

* Reduce the variety of tax-advantaged retirement and health savings plans to just three types: "save for retirement" accounts, which would replace IRAs and deferred compensation plans; "save for work" accounts, which would replace employer-provided retirement savings plans like 401(k)s; "save for family" accounts, which would replace health savings, medical savings and flex-spending accounts.

The simplified plan would also abolish the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a move estimated to cost the federal government $1.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years. The AMT was designed to prevent the wealthy from taking so many deductions that they didn't pay their fair share of taxes. But increasingly it has begun to ensnare middle-income taxpayers.

The panel's recommendations must be revenue-neutral ? meaning they must generate the same amount of revenue as the existing code. So what revenue the AMT elimination taketh away, the other recommendations must replenish.

On balance, though, according to the Dow Jones report, taxpayers would pay no more or no less than they do under the current system. "The bottom line, the amount of tax that is actually paid, will be distributed essentially the same way it is now," said former IRS Commissioner and panel member Charles Rossotti. "Taxpayers with very high incomes, middle and upper incomes, lower incomes will pay about the same burdens ... but with a lot less hassle."

The panel's second proposed plan would add to the system a progressive consumption tax.

It would, among other things:

* Impose a flat tax of 15 percent for individuals on capital gains, interest and dividends

* Reduced the number of income tax brackets from six to four ? 15 percent, 25 percent, 30 percent and 33 percent

* Allow for a limited mortgage interest deduction; and

* Eliminate the AMT

The panel's recommendations will be the first, rather than the last word on tax reform.

The panel will present its report on Nov. 1 to Treasury Secretary John Snow, who will review their recommendations and decide which ones to send to President Bush for consideration. The president will then consider which ones he wishes to propose to Congress.

...

Source: CNN

I went to a lecture on this last night. One thing the article leaves out is the idea of deducting losses in revenue from the next year's revenue. I personally like the idea because it makes sense to credit someone for a loss if you are going to punish them for being more successful. I don't quite recall which plan that one was under because Mr. Lazear kept switching between the two plans.

Neither of these plans will lower taxes overall, the point is either to simplify the current tax code (the income tax one) or promote savings (consumption tax one). Considering that savings is below 0%, we might want to implement a few of the ideas in consumption tax plan.

So what does everyone think of these proposals? They're going to publish the complete plans on November 1 so there might be a few tweaks to these plans.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Tax cuts in a deficit situation doesn't make too much sense...
Perhaps you can export some tax reform our way, overtaxed and a government who is rich as hell.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Tax cuts in a deficit situation doesn't make too much sense...
Perhaps you can export some tax reform our way, overtaxed and a government who is rich as hell.

I suppose that beats having a government who's debt is owned by the Chinese.
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
"Taxpayers with very high incomes, middle and upper incomes, lower incomes will pay about the same burdens."

Bahahahahaha :laugh:

Yeah right, a Bridge comes with the proposal reform too eh???

Mr. Lazear said that the top tax bracket will kick in at a lower income so you could even say this is more progressive than the current tax structure.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Stunt
Tax cuts in a deficit situation doesn't make too much sense...
Perhaps you can export some tax reform our way, overtaxed and a government who is rich as hell.
I suppose that beats having a government who's debt is owned by the Chinese.
Most of your debt is owned by the first world, itself...and the US owns a lot of our debt, it all balances itself out.

I don't see the US sinking deeper into deficit at this point, of course deeper tax cuts is a different story.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,188
34,520
136
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
"Taxpayers with very high incomes, middle and upper incomes, lower incomes will pay about the same burdens."

Bahahahahaha :laugh:

Yeah right, a Bridge comes with the proposal reform too eh???

Mr. Lazear said that the top tax bracket will kick in at a lower income so you could even say this is more progressive than the current tax structure.

Huh? There are only two federal taxes that make any difference to the ultra rich: the capital gains tax and the estate tax. For the ultra rich the income tax is chump change as most of their income is in the form of capital gains. Setting the capital gains rate at 15% creates a regressive system at the high end, taxing wage earners at a higher rate than those who derive their income from un-earned sources. Setting the 33% bracket to kick in lower simply dings the upper, upper middle class for the benefit of the rich who pay a lower rate.
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
"Taxpayers with very high incomes, middle and upper incomes, lower incomes will pay about the same burdens."

Bahahahahaha :laugh:

Yeah right, a Bridge comes with the proposal reform too eh???

Mr. Lazear said that the top tax bracket will kick in at a lower income so you could even say this is more progressive than the current tax structure.

Huh? There are only two federal taxes that make any difference to the ultra rich: the capital gains tax and the estate tax. For the ultra rich the income tax is chump change as most of their income is in the form of capital gains. Setting the capital gains rate at 15% creates a regressive system at the high end, taxing wage earners at a higher rate than those who derive their income from un-earned sources. Setting the 33% bracket to kick in lower simply dings the upper, upper middle class for the benefit of the rich who pay a lower rate.

Rich people generally do still make a wage even if they get tons of stock options to go along with it. I wish I could find a better article going over some of the provisions of it but I guess we'll have to wait until Nov. 1st. To be honest, I don't even recall Mr. Lazear saying anything about taxing capital gains at 15%; I only remember him talking about taxing capital gains at 31-32% and eliminating the tax on dividends (again, I forget which plan that is). I would agree that setting the capital gains tax at 15% would shift the towards the middle class but again all of these are just proposals and can be implemented one by one instead of not being able to modify them. That being said, I can't see them even attempting to come up with a tax plan that would move the burden onto the middle class.

One thing that is nice about this reform is the elimination of most deductions. Instead of having over 1000 possible deductions, the reform panel thinks it should be limited to just a few. Also lowering the mortgage interest deduction seems to be a good idea. You don't really need a deduction if you are buying a half million dollar house. Also it would probably help the housing bubble ease off.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Tax reform panel offers two proposals
Simplification of the federal tax code, and a consumption tax are the focus.

The first plan is a simplified and heavily modified version of the current income tax code, while the second plan introduces a consumption tax into the system, according to reports from Reuters and DowJones Newswires.

The simplified plan the bipartisan panel discussed will be a modified version of the current, income-based federal tax code.

It would, among other things:

* Cut the number of income tax brackets from six to four ? 15 percent, 25 percent, 30 percent and 33 percent.

* Eliminate the marriage penalty.

* Revamp capital gains taxes so that stocks and dividends would only be taxed at the individual level, not the corporate one, too.

* Eliminate deductions for state and local taxes.

* Limit the home mortgage deduction

* Expand the capital gains exclusion on home sales from $500,000 to $600,000 for couples.

* Cap the amount of tax-free money an employer could pay for a workers' health insurance plan to $11,500 for families. Anything paid above that threshold would be treated as taxable income to the worker.

* Reduce the variety of tax-advantaged retirement and health savings plans to just three types: "save for retirement" accounts, which would replace IRAs and deferred compensation plans; "save for work" accounts, which would replace employer-provided retirement savings plans like 401(k)s; "save for family" accounts, which would replace health savings, medical savings and flex-spending accounts.

The simplified plan would also abolish the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a move estimated to cost the federal government $1.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years. The AMT was designed to prevent the wealthy from taking so many deductions that they didn't pay their fair share of taxes. But increasingly it has begun to ensnare middle-income taxpayers.

The panel's recommendations must be revenue-neutral ? meaning they must generate the same amount of revenue as the existing code. So what revenue the AMT elimination taketh away, the other recommendations must replenish.

On balance, though, according to the Dow Jones report, taxpayers would pay no more or no less than they do under the current system. "The bottom line, the amount of tax that is actually paid, will be distributed essentially the same way it is now," said former IRS Commissioner and panel member Charles Rossotti. "Taxpayers with very high incomes, middle and upper incomes, lower incomes will pay about the same burdens ... but with a lot less hassle."

The panel's second proposed plan would add to the system a progressive consumption tax.

It would, among other things:

* Impose a flat tax of 15 percent for individuals on capital gains, interest and dividends

* Reduced the number of income tax brackets from six to four ? 15 percent, 25 percent, 30 percent and 33 percent

* Allow for a limited mortgage interest deduction; and

* Eliminate the AMT

The panel's recommendations will be the first, rather than the last word on tax reform.

The panel will present its report on Nov. 1 to Treasury Secretary John Snow, who will review their recommendations and decide which ones to send to President Bush for consideration. The president will then consider which ones he wishes to propose to Congress.

...

Source: CNN

I went to a lecture on this last night. One thing the article leaves out is the idea of deducting losses in revenue from the next year's revenue. I personally like the idea because it makes sense to credit someone for a loss if you are going to punish them for being more successful. I don't quite recall which plan that one was under because Mr. Lazear kept switching between the two plans.

Neither of these plans will lower taxes overall, the point is either to simplify the current tax code (the income tax one) or promote savings (consumption tax one). Considering that savings is below 0%, we might want to implement a few of the ideas in consumption tax plan.

So what does everyone think of these proposals? They're going to publish the complete plans on November 1 so there might be a few tweaks to these plans.

Sounds to me like the 10% bracket is being removed: taxes raised.

State and local income taxes deduction removed: taxes raised.

Limited mortgage interest deduction: taxes raised.

Removed AMT and introduce 1.2 trillion tax cuts. Not sure if the above raises in taxes would make up for lost revenues, but deficits don't matter so who cares.

Curious....Would the AMT combined with the above 3 effective tax raises swing more taxes to the middle classes while cutting taxes on the upper (AMT)? (real question..just curious).
 

JacobJ

Banned
Mar 20, 2003
1,140
0
0




it seems to me that implementing all of these 'simplifications' would be increcibly complex.


 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
"Taxpayers with very high incomes, middle and upper incomes, lower incomes will pay about the same burdens."

Bahahahahaha :laugh:

Yeah right, a Bridge comes with the proposal reform too eh???

Mr. Lazear said that the top tax bracket will kick in at a lower income so you could even say this is more progressive than the current tax structure.

Huh? There are only two federal taxes that make any difference to the ultra rich: the capital gains tax and the estate tax. For the ultra rich the income tax is chump change as most of their income is in the form of capital gains. Setting the capital gains rate at 15% creates a regressive system at the high end, taxing wage earners at a higher rate than those who derive their income from un-earned sources. Setting the 33% bracket to kick in lower simply dings the upper, upper middle class for the benefit of the rich who pay a lower rate.

Rich people generally do still make a wage even if they get tons of stock options to go along with it. I wish I could find a better article going over some of the provisions of it but I guess we'll have to wait until Nov. 1st. To be honest, I don't even recall Mr. Lazear saying anything about taxing capital gains at 15%; I only remember him talking about taxing capital gains at 31-32% and eliminating the tax on dividends (again, I forget which plan that is). I would agree that setting the capital gains tax at 15% would shift the towards the middle class but again all of these are just proposals and can be implemented one by one instead of not being able to modify them. That being said, I can't see them even attempting to come up with a tax plan that would move the burden onto the middle class.[/B[

One thing that is nice about this reform is the elimination of most deductions. Instead of having over 1000 possible deductions, the reform panel thinks it should be limited to just a few. Also lowering the mortgage interest deduction seems to be a good idea. You don't really need a deduction if you are buying a half million dollar house. Also it would probably help the housing bubble ease off.


Sounds like dave's got a buyer for not only one but maybe two bridges.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Yeh, having the top bracket extend to lower incomes makes a lot of sense- if you're one of the very few at the very, very top... just think, folks making $20K per month can now have the privilege of paying the same rates as those making $2M/month... that last figure being the average income of the top .01%... which, bet on it, this plan is designed to benefit at the expense of everybody else... It says "Bush Administration" all over it, right?

And then add some form of sales (consumption) tax onto that, just to shift the total tax burden further down the scale...

Which is not to say that I'm opposed to simplification of the tax code, at all, but rather that I'm opposed to letting the Repubs do it... How about treating all kinds of income equally? Earned income, dividends, capital gains, inheritance, you name it? Too easy... and way too expensive for those running the Repub party...
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
How does a consumption tax have tax brackets? I don't get it. And how could it be progressive? The bigger the purchase the higher the tax rate?

I'm all for a consumption tax but that doesn't make any sense to me.
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
"Taxpayers with very high incomes, middle and upper incomes, lower incomes will pay about the same burdens."

Bahahahahaha :laugh:

Yeah right, a Bridge comes with the proposal reform too eh???

Mr. Lazear said that the top tax bracket will kick in at a lower income so you could even say this is more progressive than the current tax structure.

Huh? There are only two federal taxes that make any difference to the ultra rich: the capital gains tax and the estate tax. For the ultra rich the income tax is chump change as most of their income is in the form of capital gains. Setting the capital gains rate at 15% creates a regressive system at the high end, taxing wage earners at a higher rate than those who derive their income from un-earned sources. Setting the 33% bracket to kick in lower simply dings the upper, upper middle class for the benefit of the rich who pay a lower rate.

Rich people generally do still make a wage even if they get tons of stock options to go along with it. I wish I could find a better article going over some of the provisions of it but I guess we'll have to wait until Nov. 1st. To be honest, I don't even recall Mr. Lazear saying anything about taxing capital gains at 15%; I only remember him talking about taxing capital gains at 31-32% and eliminating the tax on dividends (again, I forget which plan that is). I would agree that setting the capital gains tax at 15% would shift the towards the middle class but again all of these are just proposals and can be implemented one by one instead of not being able to modify them. That being said, I can't see them even attempting to come up with a tax plan that would move the burden onto the middle class.

One thing that is nice about this reform is the elimination of most deductions. Instead of having over 1000 possible deductions, the reform panel thinks it should be limited to just a few. Also lowering the mortgage interest deduction seems to be a good idea. You don't really need a deduction if you are buying a half million dollar house. Also it would probably help the housing bubble ease off.

Sounds like dave's got a buyer for not only one but maybe two bridges.

You have to remember that they aren't going to spend hours upon hours of their time coming up with something that has no chance of getting passed. That would be a waste of time and resources. The people voting on these ideas won't even consider something that might hurt their chances of getting elected. I don't know about you but I sure wouldn't spend months of my life working on something that has no chance of even having any influence.

They were saying how this would reduce the paperwork for taxes by 75% but it seems kind of complex to me. Maybe that's because it's a change from what we have now (especially the "consumption" tax).
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Reduction of paperwork
Removal of loopholes.

Increase in the unemployment rate of CPA shysters.
Increase in the unemployment of the H&R block types that utilize the scare tactics of people that can not read instructions and will pay $60 to get a $40 refund.

Hopefully it will assist the small businesses that are creating jobs, 1-2 at a time.

 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Tax reform panel offers two proposals

...

Source: CNN

I went to a lecture on this last night. One thing the article leaves out is the idea of deducting losses in revenue from the next year's revenue. I personally like the idea because it makes sense to credit someone for a loss if you are going to punish them for being more successful. I don't quite recall which plan that one was under because Mr. Lazear kept switching between the two plans.

Neither of these plans will lower taxes overall, the point is either to simplify the current tax code (the income tax one) or promote savings (consumption tax one). Considering that savings is below 0%, we might want to implement a few of the ideas in consumption tax plan.

So what does everyone think of these proposals? They're going to publish the complete plans on November 1 so there might be a few tweaks to these plans.

Sounds to me like the 10% bracket is being removed: taxes raised.

State and local income taxes deduction removed: taxes raised.

Limited mortgage interest deduction: taxes raised.

Removed AMT and introduce 1.2 trillion tax cuts. Not sure if the above raises in taxes would make up for lost revenues, but deficits don't matter so who cares.

Curious....Would the AMT combined with the above 3 effective tax raises swing more taxes to the middle classes while cutting taxes on the upper (AMT)? (real question..just curious).

I also kind of wonder how they are going to come up with that extra $1.2 trillion. The proposed tax raises don't seem to be enough. The plan is revenue neutral so they must be getting the money from somewhere. I guess we'll just have to wait for the finalized report on Nov. 1.
 

ruffilb

Diamond Member
Feb 6, 2005
5,096
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
"Taxpayers with very high incomes, middle and upper incomes, lower incomes will pay about the same burdens."

Bahahahahaha :laugh:

Yeah right, a Bridge comes with the proposal reform too eh???

hahahahaha...

Ooooooooooooooooooookay
 

ruffilb

Diamond Member
Feb 6, 2005
5,096
1
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Tax cuts in a deficit situation doesn't make too much sense...
Perhaps you can export some tax reform our way, overtaxed and a government who is rich as hell.

Agreed.

We're like, what...

I don't even WANT to know how in debt we are.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ruffilb
Originally posted by: Stunt
Tax cuts in a deficit situation doesn't make too much sense...
Perhaps you can export some tax reform our way, overtaxed and a government who is rich as hell.

Agreed.

We're like, what...

I don't even WANT to know how in debt we are.

Turned over 8 Trillion a couple of days ago. Courtesy of George W Bush
 

ruffilb

Diamond Member
Feb 6, 2005
5,096
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ruffilb
Originally posted by: Stunt
Tax cuts in a deficit situation doesn't make too much sense...
Perhaps you can export some tax reform our way, overtaxed and a government who is rich as hell.

Agreed.

We're like, what...

I don't even WANT to know how in debt we are.

Turned over 8 Trillion a couple of days ago. Courtesy of George W Bush

I guess a few more million wouldn't hurt?

YGPM, G.W.B.!