|
|
|||
|
by
Howard Gleckman
on Tue 27 Oct 2009 05:18 PM EDT
As House and Senate leaders struggle to design their health reform bills, they remain at loggerheads over how to pay for broader access to insurance. The Senate Finance Committee’s plan to tax insurance companies that sell high-cost medical policies would generate over $200 billion in revenue over the next decade. But the excise tax is hugely controversial, mostly because influential unions oppose it.
more »
by
Len Burman
on Fri 23 Oct 2009 02:56 AM EDT
President Obama is under attack for breaking his campaign promise to leave the middle class unscathed by future tax increases. The complaint: The requirement to purchase insurance is tantamount to a tax, because failure to buy incurs a fine. Since many families with incomes below $250,000 would be affected by the penalty, this appears to violate his campaign promise.
more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Thu 22 Oct 2009 05:45 PM EDT
The early returns are coming in on the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit. And it appears to be a bigger boondoggle than even I thought it would be.
At a House Ways & Means Oversight subcommittee hearing today, the Internal Revenue Service inspector general reported that the IRS is auditing more than 100,000 of the roughly 1.4 million returns that included a claim for the credit. This is a staggering audit rate for an agency that usually reviews only about 1 percent of returns.
more »
by
Bob Williams
on Thu 22 Oct 2009 08:00 AM EDT
The estate tax is only a faint shadow of its former self. In 2009, less than one-quarter of one percent of deaths—just 5,500 decedents—will leave taxable estates, the smallest percentage since at least the Great Depression. In part, that tiny fraction reflects the current recession’s devastation of assets—the Fed estimates that the total value of household and nonprofit assets fell by about one-sixth between 2007 and the first quarter of 2009. But changes in estate tax rules over the past decade have played a much larger role than economic swings. more »
by
Rosanne Altshuler
on Wed 21 Oct 2009 06:00 AM EDT
Suppose that a taxpayer earns an additional dollar of income. How much tax would she owe on that dollar? A natural way to answer this question would be to look up the taxpayer’s statutory tax rate – the rate corresponding to her tax bracket and filing status.
But that approach often gives the wrong answer and can mislead not only taxpayers but policymakers. Many tax preferences are phased in or out according to income, and as a result, those who earn extra income may face either a hidden tax or a subsidy as their tax benefits change in value. For example, for those in the phase-in range of the earned income credit earning an extra dollar increases the credit and reduces their tax liability, driving their actual rate below their statutory rate. But once they make enough so the EITC begins to phase out, the opposite happens and the rate they actually pay climbs. more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Tue 20 Oct 2009 03:47 PM EDT
Congress is absolutely right to end the decade-old fantasy that it wants to trim Medicare payments to doctors. This law has been on the books for 12 years and is annually ignored. Lawmakers should stop pretending. But I fear they will make this change without paying for it--adding $250 billion to the national debt over the next decade. more »
by
Bob Williams
on Mon 19 Oct 2009 06:11 PM EDT
Federal taxes in fiscal year 2009 claimed the smallest share of GDP since 1950—14.9 percent according to the Congressional Budget Office (see top figure). The revenue drop has many causes: tax reductions in this year’s economic stimulus, the collapse of the economy, and the Bush tax cuts from earlier in the decade. more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Fri 16 Oct 2009 02:36 PM EDT
If we may be permitted a small bit of self-indulgence, TaxVox would like to wish itself a happy second birthday. more »
by
Bob Williams
on Fri 16 Oct 2009 08:00 AM EDT
Last week the Congressional Budget Office quietly released its October Monthly Budget Review showing preliminary 2009 budget numbers. The $1.4 trillion deficit more than tripled the previous record of $459 billion set just last year (see top table). More than half of the increase was due to a $530 billion jump in outlays but 44 percent came from a 17 percent drop in revenues. That decline resulted in the federal government collecting a smaller share of taxes than at any time in the last half century. more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Thu 15 Oct 2009 03:28 PM EDT
The congressional fog is slowly parting and the fundamental issues of health reform are coming clear. And perhaps most controversial is the question of how Congress will pay for it all. Somebody’s taxes are going to be raised. But whose? And by how much?
Despite the whining about 1000-page bills, there are only a few big moving parts to health insurance reform. It will require insurance companies to sell to all, regardless of their health. It will mandate that everyone purchase coverage (a trade-off rightly insisted upon by the insurers). It will create exchanges to make it easier for people to buy in the non-employer market. And it will create subsidies to help make those policies affordable. Finally, Congress has to pay for those subsidies.
more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Tue 13 Oct 2009 10:00 AM EDT
Just abut every conversation I’ve had with a Democratic elected official or staffer in the past few weeks came around to the same urgent question. And, no, it was not about health reform. It was about jobs. When, they ask with more than a hint of panic in their voices, will the jobs come back? more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Thu 08 Oct 2009 05:24 PM EDT
Tax experts will argue about nearly anything. But on one issue, there is something approaching a consensus: Corporate tax rates in the U.S. are too high. Where all that harmony turns dissonant, however, is over the matter of what to do about it. Cutting the corporate rate, it turns out, raises all sorts of complex technical problems, to say nothing of being a political nightmare. more »
by
Larry Lokken
on Wed 07 Oct 2009 10:00 AM EDT
In a posting last week, I discussed the tools under existing law for curbing bad tax return preparers and suggested that these tools may not adequately address the problem. Too many returns are poorly done. Many taxpayers are victims, not only of incompetence, but fraud. The other victim is the government, which likely loses substantial tax revenue from those whose returns are poorly—or dishonestly—prepared. more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Tue 06 Oct 2009 04:39 PM EDT
I’ve just spent 90 minutes listening to five Washington hands discuss “the financial and economic consequences of an exploding debt.” The prognosis, they agree, is grim. The chances of policymakers acting any time soon to address the looming fiscal crisis are remote. As one audience member asked the panelists during the Urban Institute discussion, “Which anti-depressant should I take?” more »
by
Eric Toder
on Fri 02 Oct 2009 01:57 PM EDT
In a blog post earlier this week, I concluded that whether a payment to government service is classified as a tax or a user fee is sometimes arbitrary and that how the payment is labeled is of secondary importance. Mike Udell of Ernst and Young, a former staffer on the Joint Committee on Taxation, reminds me, however, that labeling could have real consequences. Mike raises another example from the health reform legislation – the proposed “fee” on sales of pharmaceutical and medical device products. If the fee were an excise tax, it would be deductible and not included in the gross revenue of manufacturers of these products. But as a fee, it is not deductible, so income tax collections from these firms are higher than if they could exclude the payments from taxable income. more »
|
Posts and comments are solely the opinion of the author and not that of the Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute, or Brookings Institution. Read the Terms of Participation Recent Entries
Login
Search
Month Archive
|
||
|
|
|||


