Hidden Taxes in the Camp Proposal

By :: February 27th, 2014

House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp (R-MI) has produced an impressive tax reform plan that eliminates most loopholes, deductions, and credits. But the plan also introduces a number of hidden taxes that push marginal rates—mostly for higher-income taxpayers—well above the advertised levels.

For some taxpayers, the effective tax rate under Camp’s plan could be as high as 67 percent, based on my analysis of the section-by-section description of the proposal.

On its face, the new tax schedule appears straightforward: three tax rates—10 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent. The 25 percent rate starts at taxable income of $71,200 for couples ($35,600 for singles) and the 35 percent rate starts at “modified adjusted gross income” (MAGI) of $450,000 ($400,000 for singles). (MAGI is a broader definition of income than the more common AGI.)

The proposal would end both the individual and corporate AMTs and the phaseouts of itemized deductions and personal exemptions (by abolishing the latter entirely). Most tax policy experts would cheer their demise.

But the plan also introduces a whole raft of new phaseouts and hidden tax rates. First, the 35 percent rate is marketed as a 25 percent base rate plus a 10 percent surtax that applies to a broader base of income (MAGI). This turns out to be important.

The plan resurrects the 1960s era add-on minimum tax—the granddaddy of today’s uber-complex Alternative Minimum Tax. Effectively, the surtax can be thought of as an additional tax on certain preference items such as the value of employer-sponsored health insurance, interest on municipal bonds, deductible mortgage interest, the standard deduction, itemized deductions (except charitable contributions), and untaxed Social Security benefits. Although the list of preference items differs from the old add-on minimum tax, the idea is eerily similar.

Then there are the phaseouts, which all amount to hidden surtaxes. They include:

Return of the TRA86 bubble tax rate. One of the least impressive provisions of the 1986 tax reform was its bubble tax rate of 33 percent on  taxpayers with moderately high incomes (higher income taxpayers paid just 28 percent). Camp would do the same thing by phasing out the benefit of the 10 percent bracket—that is, the difference between tax at the 10 percent and 25 percent rates—for higher-income taxpayers. He’d do it via a 5 percentage point surtax for MAGI between $300,000 and $513,600 for couples ($250,000 to $356,800 for singles). The result: effective tax rates as high as 40 percent (the 35 percent top rate plus the 5 percent surtax).

Bubble #2. The standard deduction phaseout equals a surtax as high as 7 percent. The plan phases out the  value of the standard deduction for singles and couples at a 20 percent rate between $517,500 and $627,500 of MAGI ($358,750 to$413,750 single returns). In these ranges, $1.00 of additional income translates into $1.20 of additional taxable income, so Camp increases the 35 percent rate to a 42 percent effective rate (35 percent of 120 percent).

Bubble #3. Child credit phaseout. As under present law, the child credit phases out at a 5 percent rate, but Camp would start to reduce the benefit of the credit at the end of the standard deduction phaseout. The size of the phaseout range is $30,000 per kid ($1,500 divided by 5 percent).

Double trouble for heads of household. The plan eliminates head of household status, which benefits single people with children. Camp would add  a $5,500 extra standard deduction for single filers with children but then phase it out dollar for dollar between $30,000 and $35,500 of AGI. This effectively doubles these families’ tax rates from 10 percent to 20 percent over that income range (since $1 of additional income raises taxable income by $2).

Giant surtax for higher-income home sellers. Today, home sellers can exclude from their taxable income up to $500,000 of capital gain on the sale of a principle residence ($250,000 for singles). Camp would phase out this exclusion dollar for dollar, starting at $500,000 of MAGI for couples ($250,000 for singles). Since 40 percent of long-term capital gains would be excluded from AGI, an additional dollar of income would increase taxable income by $1.60 ($1 of regular income plus 60 percent of $1 of capital gain that would no longer be excluded). When this provision interacts with the other phaseouts, effective rates for some high-income households would be very high: 64 percent for those in the 40 percent brackets (bubble #1 and #3), 67 percent for those in the 42 percent bracket (bubble #2), and 56 percent for those in the plain old 35 percent bracket.

All those surtaxes also apply to capital gains and dividends. Camp would exclude 40 percent of long-term capital gains and qualifying dividends from taxable income, creating effective tax rates of 6 percent, 15 percent, and 21 percent for those in the 10, 25, and 35 percent brackets. But the phaseouts would  add 5 percentage points for those in bubbles #1 and #3 and 7 percentage points in bubble #2 (creating effective capital gains rates of 26 percent or 28 percent for high-income taxpayers).

Finally, add the 2010 Affordable Care Act  surtaxes of 0.9 percent on compensation and 3.8 percent on investment income, which the plan would retain.

Congressman Camp’s tax reform proposal includes many simplifications, like the consolidation of education tax incentives. But its effect on rates would be far from simple.

Follow me on twitter.



  1. AMTbuff  ::  11:31 pm on February 27th, 2014:

    Wow, Len. You saw several more of those sneaky tax rate kickers than I did. The novel phaseout of the home sale exclusion is particularly pernicious.

    The home sale exclusion is already regressive: It targets people who can’t afford NOT to sell their homes because they don’t have enough other assets. Camp’s proposal makes this unjust provision even worse, hitting those same people even harder. The wealthy will simply delay sale of their homes until death, avoiding any taxation on the gain.

    The bulk of capital gains on home sales are due to past and projected depreciation of the currency. High inflation plus high capital gains taxes result in partial confiscation of assets, but only from those people who cannot delay selling. If asset price inflation continues to run wild and the federal government attempts to confiscate 30% of the value of people’s homes when they are forced by circumstances to sell, we will see a nationwide tax revolt similar to California’s Proposition 13.

    Len, like you I don’t picture anything worthy of the name Tax Reform containing such a plethora of stealth add-on taxes. I also have serious doubts about the horizontal equity of a tax based largely on gross income, which is what you get when you deny adjustments for costly life events like medical expenses and casualty losses. To me, this plan appears to have had as its top priority hiding the ball (high marginal tax rates). Camp should be ashamed.

  2. Michael Bindner  ::  2:10 am on February 28th, 2014:

    I don’t mind taxes targeted to the rich, but changing what income is seems a lot slimier that simply charging a higher rate. I especially dislike the concept of making health insurance paid by employers taxable – as doing that for anyone erodes the basis of the Affordable Care Act – which is to essentially give everyone quality insurance through tax benefits. Any attack on that starts a slippery slope to the failure of the ACA – one that could lead either to no insurance coverage for some or the need to swich to single-payer (which eliminates the revenue from any taxation of employer provided premiums since there won’t be any and you can’t tax a tax). Again, this whole proposal is not nearly as comprehensive as such a change should be – the biggest changes being employer rather than employee filing and a much larger tax credit for children paid by employers as part of payroll. My change would put tax preparers mostly out of business. Camp’s would be a bonanza for preparers – especially those with high end clients who probably use these services anyway.

  3. Ralph H  ::  8:48 am on February 28th, 2014:

    Funny but I initially applauded this effort based on the “sound bite” analysis and finally attacking “carried interest”. Between your analysis and previous AMT comments it really looks like this is a sneaky way to increase taxes while pretending to lower rates. The marginal rate bubbles and changing of what’s income are really sneaky.

  4. Kyle  ::  9:44 am on February 28th, 2014:

    Regarding bubble 2: Does the phase-out rate really mean a 7 percent marginal rate?

    Itemized deductions and the standard deduction only ever applies against the 25 percent rate (1.20 * .25). Once you get to a point where your itemized deductions phase out and you are taxed at an additional 10 percent on MAGI it would look something like this: 25% tax on the new dollar of AGI, 25% on the 20 new cents of AGI due to the phase-out (additional 5% marginal rate), plus .10 on the next dollar of MAGI for a total of 40%

    Is there something I am missing?

  5. Tax Roundup, 2/28/14: Somber reasoning and copious citation edition. « Roth & Company, P.C  ::  9:49 am on February 28th, 2014:

    […] Burman, Hidden Taxes in the Camp Proposal […]

  6. Help the middle  ::  11:26 am on February 28th, 2014:

    It just another shell game. tax every dollar the same way, eliminate the foreign tax credit, remove the 10% medical and 2% misc deduction haircut. reverse the rental deductions vs personal home deduction and watch the middle class buy more homes and spend all their tax savings to boost the economy. Until all the hookers of DC are thrown out the rich(billionaires)and multi-national corporations will always buy/hide their way to lower taxes while the poor escape them and the middle-class sucks it up.

  7. S-CORP Testifies on Nexus Issues : The S Corporation Association  ::  4:11 pm on February 28th, 2014:

    […] Tax Policy Center has a number of posts up today on the Camp draft, including a nice analysis by Len Burman that adds detail to the chart we quickly put together on the draft’s marginal rate […]

  8. CHICAGO TAX RATE 2014  ::  8:23 am on March 1st, 2014:

    […] TaxVox » Blog Archive » Hidden Taxes in the Camp Proposal […]

  9. 2014 CORPORATE CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATE  ::  10:15 pm on March 1st, 2014:

    […] TaxVox » Blog Archive » Hidden Taxes in the Camp Proposal […]

  10. 2014 ESTATE TAX RATE  ::  10:20 pm on March 2nd, 2014:

    […] TaxVox » Blog Archive » Hidden Taxes in the Camp Proposal […]

  11. Best Home Loan Canada  ::  4:59 pm on March 3rd, 2014:

    Hi there to all, how is all, I think every one is getting more from this site, and your views are good
    designed for new people.

    My blog post Best Home Loan Canada

  12. The Macro Effects of Camp’s Tax Reform | Virtual Economy  ::  8:57 pm on March 6th, 2014:

    […] also works to offset the income effect from the tax rate cuts. On the other hand, a variety of phase-outs and bubbles raise effective marginal rates at some income levels. On net, the combination of all of these factors is […]

  13. The Macro Effects of Camp’s Tax Reform  ::  2:02 am on March 7th, 2014:

    […] It also works to offset the income effect from the tax rate cuts. On the other hand, a variety of phase-outs and bubbles raise effective marginal rates at some income levels. On net, the combination of all of these factors is […]

  14. Still Not Ready for Prime Time: Tax Reform and Dynamic Scoring | Official Socialist Webzine  ::  7:04 pm on March 14th, 2014:

    […] from 39.6 percent to 35 percent—a 12 percent reduction—but the rate reductions are far from simple to quantify), and eliminates many tax loopholes in order to reduce tax rates (all under the current Washington […]

  15. Thank You, Dave Camp  ::  2:01 am on April 4th, 2014:

    […] In a misguided effort to make it look as if it set a top individual tax rate of 25 percent, Camp relied on a pile of bubbles, phase-outs, and hidden rates. And while the plan would raise roughly the same […]

  16. Taxes, the Rich, and Our Known Universe  ::  2:39 pm on April 13th, 2014:

    […] the nation’s wealthy wouldn’t feel any significant new tax bite from the Camp plan at all. But some would. And that possibility terrified Camp’s GOP congressional leadership colleagues. They didn’t […]

  17. Taxes, the Rich, and Our Known Universe | Inequality.org  ::  7:41 pm on April 13th, 2014:

    […] the nation’s wealthy wouldn’t feel any significant new tax bite from the Camp plan at all. But some would. And that possibility terrified Camp’s GOP congressional leadership colleagues. They didn’t […]

  18. Heller Helps Sustain Another GOP Filibuster | Desert Beacon  ::  12:59 pm on July 31st, 2014:

    […] reductions.   The Camp proposal also comes with its own set of complexities, summarized in the Tax Policy Center’s analysis.  To mention just one, there’s the resurrected specter of the Alternative Minimum Tax […]

  19. Hawk  ::  2:36 am on August 20th, 2014:

    A prvivcatooe insight! Just what we need!

  20. So long to fantasy tax reform plans, please | AEIdeas  ::  11:40 am on August 22nd, 2014:

    […] but an actual statutory top rate of 35% thanks to a surtax, and an effective top rate of maybe 42%, according to the Tax Policy Center. I am a fan of Senator Mike Lee’s pro-family tax reform plan, which I find directionally […]

  21. laser hair growth hat  ::  1:21 pm on August 28th, 2014:

    It is an unfortunate irony that many “nutritional” products people take to
    improve their appearance have the side effect of causing them to go
    bald. The answer is what type of diet allows you as
    you age to produce enough hydrochloric acid to digest your
    food properly so the fermenting food in your stomach doesn’t cause other degenerative and inflammatory-related diseases.
    Are you in a situation where you cannot
    be among your friends and feel free because of your hair issues.

    Review my webpage … laser hair growth hat

  22. permanent life insurance  ::  10:42 am on February 14th, 2015:

    I read your post and wished I’d written it

  23. business insurance quotes  ::  10:50 pm on February 14th, 2015:

    I’m out of league here. Too much brain power on display!

  24. auto insurance  ::  3:14 pm on February 20th, 2015:

    That’s the perfect insight in a thread like this.

  25. Nobe  ::  10:10 pm on February 21st, 2015:

    I have come across that now, more and more plepoe are increasingly being attracted to camcorders and the subject of picture taking. However, to be a photographer, you should first invest so much time frame deciding which model of photographic camera to buy plus moving store to store just so you may buy the cheapest camera of the trademark you have decided to choose. But it does not end just there. You also have to consider whether you can purchase a digital digicam extended warranty. Thx for the good ideas I accumulated from your blog site.