During the 2008 presidential campaign, much was made of candidate Obama’s proposal to boost taxes on “high-income” taxpayers. Campaign attack ads warned those folks—couples with income over $250,000 and others with income over $200,000—that a big tax increase was on the way. Joe the Plumber complained that the tax increases would stifle his unborn entrepreneurial dreams.
Well, it turns out that many people with incomes well over a quarter million are not “rich” by Obama’s definition.
You see, it all depends on the definition of “income” which was unclear until last week. Does the $250,000 refer to adjusted gross income, taxable income, wages and salaries, or something else? The 2009 Treasury Green Book, a detailed guide to Obama’s tax proposals, finally answers the question. Obama has defined a whole new income concept.
The Green Book explains that the administration’s tax proposals will increase the top two rates from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent and raise the threshold to get into the new 36 percent bracket. For couples, that bracket would start at taxable income of $250,000 minus the standard deduction and two exemptions. For singles, the starting point for the new 36 percent bracket would start at taxable income of $200,000 minus the standard deduction and one exemption. The changes would not take effect until 2011, but for illustrative purposes, Bob Williams calculated the cut-offs for 2009. For married taxpayers the taxable income cutoff would be $231,300 ($250,000 minus the standard deduction of $11,400 and two exemptions of $3,650 each) and for a single taxpayer that cut-off would be $190,650 ($200,000 minus the standard deduction of $5,700 and one exemption). If your taxable income is below those limits, you will not be subject to the higher rates under Obama’s plan.
But most of us don’t consider our income in terms of what’s taxable. We calculate that value on our tax returns, starting with a broad measure of income and then subtracting various exclusions, exemptions, and deductions. We first total wage and salary income, taxable interest and dividends, business income (after expenses), capital gains, rents, royalties, taxable pension and individual retirement account distributions, unemployment compensation and some Social Security benefits. Already we’ve left out tax-exempt interest and some Social Security income. But then we subtract other items, including alimony payments, moving expenses, some retirement savings (IRA contributions, for example), and, if we’re self-employed, health insurance premiums and one-half of the self-employment tax.
What’s left is “adjusted gross income” (AGI), the basic measure of income on a tax return. But you’re not through yet—you next deduct one exemption per family member and larger of the standard deduction or itemized deductions to calculate taxable income. Most high-income people itemize, and their itemized deductions, which include income and property taxes, mortgage interest, charitable contributions, are usually far greater than the standard deduction. As a result, most people won’t be hit by Obama’s tax increases until their incomes are well over the advertised levels.
Our tax model shows that for 2009, average taxable income for married taxpayers with AGI between $250,000 and $300,000 is about $215,000, well below the $231,300 cutoff for Obama’s proposed tax increase. Average deductions and exemptions for this group of taxpayers is $58,000. A whopping 98 percent of taxpayers in this income range itemize their deductions. This means that a lot of married folks with adjusted gross income in excess of $250,000 (and singles with adjusted gross income in excess of $200,000) don’t need to worry about their taxes going up.
What’s more, many taxpayers in this income range are on the alternative minimum tax (AMT). They’re not affected by the new tax increases unless the rate increases push them off the AMT. (Indeed, many get a tax cut since Obama proposes substantial cuts in the AMT).
So, moderately rich people, relax. Obama doesn’t really want you. The only problem, of course, is that the expansive definition of income comes at the expense of even bigger deficits. The CBO projects they will be $9 trillion over the next decade. Somebody—likely our decidedly unrich children and grandchildren—will have to pay that back, with interest.
|
|
|||
|
Comments
Re: The $250,000 Question
by
Michael Bindner
on Tue 26 May 2009 12:12 PM EDT | Permanent Link
That's the Obama view - what do Rangel and Baucus say about it?
We will see how the deficit polls in 2010. If it becomes a political issue, expect to see Congress go one bracket lower in allowing tax rates to go up. Then the question becomes, what will Obama veto? Re: The $250,000 Question
by
James Bruggeman
on Tue 26 May 2009 01:27 PM EDT | Permanent Link
I think it is time for the Tax Policy Center (TPC) to develop a decent fix to the AMT. The January 19, 2007 TPC paper on this matter is pathetic. And, Mr. Obama picked the “Plan 2” fix from that paper. So, if you do not like the Obama AMT fix, you can thank the TPC.
Let’s take a quick look at the AMT for the 2009 tax year. A retired couple with no children and with no qualified dividends (QD) or long-term capital gains (LTCG) can be hit by the AMT. A married couple with no children and a very small amount of QD’s and/or LTCG’s can be hit by the AMT. Add children and/or QD’s/LTCG’s and the AMT exceeds the regular tax even more. This is not why the AMT was developed. The Obama/TPC fix does not fix these problems. Why has this AMT impact happened? Technically, it’s because the AMT exemption has only been partially indexed. The partial indexing is due to greed on the part of the government. To illustrate this greed, all we have to do is look at the increasing number of taxpayers hit by the AMT and the increase in AMT revenue received by the Treasury in the last few years. The TPC shows that the number of AMT taxpayers rose from 1.6 million in 2001 to 4.0 million in 2005. Over the same time period, the AMT revenue grew from $8.8 billion to $20.5 billion. In 2008, the revenue from AMT was $31.7 billion. These increases are astounding! The government has increased the AMT exemption over the years, yet the AMT has a bigger and bigger effect. I think you can see why the government does not want to be honest with us and fix the AMT. Each year they make big headlines that they have indexed the AMT exemption one more time to keep more taxpayers from being affected by the AMT. It is true that without this indexing that more taxpayers would be so affected, but what they don’t tell you is the AMT has not been indexed appropriately and more and more AMT revenue is being sucked into the “black hole”. Mr. Obama is calling for a fix of the AMT whereby the aforementioned exemption is indexed for inflation from 2009 and the AMT tax brackets and threshold are also indexed from 2009. This is an improvement, but falls far short of what is fair and appropriate. The AMT exemption has been increased over the years from what it was in 1993. The tax brackets and threshold have not been increased – which is both incredible and stupid. In order to make Mr. Obama’s plan for AMT fair, the exemption, tax brackets and threshold all need to be indexed from 1993. One could make a good argument that the indexing should begin in 1986. Again, Mr. Obama’s hodgepodge plan (index one thing from 1993 and others from 2009 – the TPC’s “Plan 2”) is an attempt to have the AMT affect more and more taxpayers over time. It is clear to me that this inconsistent indexing (proposed by the TPC and adopted by Mr. Obama) was developed by economists. Had engineers been involved to demand logic be imployed, such craziness would surely not be in a TPC proposal. I believe that it is time for the government and the TPC to get out of their parallel universes and come to the universe the taxpayers live in. Re: Re: The $250,000 Question
by
Michael Bindner
on Thu 28 May 2009 02:34 PM EDT | Permanent Link
The other option is to clip tax expenditures on the non-AMT side as a way to finance AMT reform. Many of these tax expenditures were put in with full knowledge that they could never really be taken. It was easier to rely on the AMT than to put in descent tax expenditure caps - thus preserving comity on the tax writing comities against interest group driven charges of "class warfare."
That being said, I am not sure there is a way out of this - since the action required would be capping tax expenditures and facing up to those charges. That would take political courage and I just don't see that in abundance. Trackbacks
TrackBack URL: |
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
|
||
|
|
|||


