Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New “fiscal cliff” compromise idea: Let’s raise taxes on the rich without raising their tax rates
Hotair ^ | 11/23/2012 | AllahPundit

Posted on 11/23/2012 7:08:48 PM PST by SeekAndFind

I don't understand why either side would want to do this. Actually, wait, that's not true: I kind of understand why Democrats would want to do it. If it happens, it'll be a heavy bludgeon to use against Republicans in the next election cycle.

One possible change would tax the entire salary earned by those making more than a certain level — $400,000 or so — at the top rate of 35 percent rather than allowing them to pay lower rates before they reach the target, as is the standard formula. That plan would allow Republicans to say they did not back down in their opposition to raising marginal tax rates and Democrats to say they prevailed by increasing effective tax rates on the rich. At the same time, it would provide an initial effort to reduce the deficit, which the negotiators call a down payment, as Congressional tax-writing committees hash out a broad overhaul of the tax code.

That idea could be combined with the reinstatement tax code provisions that once prevented the rich from taking personal exemptions or itemizing deductions. Those rules were eliminated by the tax cut of 2001. Reinstating them would tack an additional one to two percentage points onto the effective tax rates of high-income households without raising the 35 percent rate, but which households would be affected has not been decided. In all, tax experts say, families in the top tax bracket would find their effective tax rate jump to 41 percent, even though the top statutory rate would remain 35 percent...

Under the existing tax code, the first $17,400 of adjusted gross income for a couple filing jointly is taxed at 10 percent. Above that level, up to $70,700, income is taxed at 15 percent. Income between $70,701 and $142,700 is taxed at 25 percent. Gross incomes up to $217,450 are taxed at 28 percent. The next bracket, 33 percent, ends at $388,350 for couples. The top bracket hits adjusted gross incomes only above $388,350.

In other words, instead of jacking up the top bracket from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the way it was in the Clinton years, they’re going to essentially eliminate all of the lower brackets for taxpayers who earn beyond a certain amount (e.g., $400,000) and tax their entire earnings at 35 percent. No more marginal rates for high earners as described in the last paragraph of the excerpt. If you’re sitting on $399,999 in income and then you cross the magic threshold by earning another two bucks, boom — the marginal rates you used to calculate the taxes on your first $17,400, $70,700, $142,700, etc, instantly disappear and all the money you’ve made gets taxed at the top rate. In practice, then, this operates like a surtax of a fixed amount on top earners; if you look at the IRS’s tax tables, you can figure out the difference between $400,000 taxed entirely at 35 percent versus $400,000 taxed progressively at the current marginal rates. Unless I missed something, it’s upwards of $23,000. Whether you make $400K, $4 million, or $400 million, then, you’d be paying the same effective surtax under the “compromise” plan: An extra $23,000, on top of the 35 percent tax you’re paying as part of the top bracket.

Tom Maguire spots the problem:

Taking those tax brackets as Gospel, and relying on Excel and Keurig, I infer that if the effective average rate on income of $435,800 is 35%, the marginal rate from $388,350 to 435,600 must be 100%. Ouch. If all the phase-outs are spread out from $388,350 to $1,000,000 then the marginal rate over that bracket is 40%. In that scenario, everyone with income over $1 million will have an average rate of 35%; all income over $1 million will be taxes at a marginal rate of 35%…

And the politics of this intermediate high bracket are ludicrous for the Republicans. Obama wants to raise the top marginal rate on everyone above some threshold to 39.6% (Let’s round that to 40% for purposes of this mini-tirade). The Republican counter will be to raise the top marginal rate to 40% on incomes from $400K to $1 million and then cut the rate back to 35%? That may protect large small-business owners, but only by throwing the smaller successful ones overboard.

Paying an extra $23,000 is small potatoes if you’re making $10 million a year, but to a small business owner who’s pulling down $400,000 or a bit more, it’s a big deal. Note Maguire’s point about the 100 percent effective rate for incomes just above the magic $400K threshold. Imagine a business owner doing an earnings projection in November and determining that he’s on pace to pull down $410,000 this year. Once he’s hit with the surtax, his income will fall to $387,000. In other words, he’s … better off working less, to try to finish the year just under $400,000 in earnings so that he can keep his lower marginal rates intact. That would be less of a concern if you raised the threshold amount from $400,000 to, say, $1 million or $2 million, but I assume Democrats won’t go along with that. The amount they can raise from a $23,000 surtax aimed only at the very rich is nothing compared to the amount they could raise by restoring the top Clinton-era rate of 39.6 percent instead. (See The Monkey Cage for some back-of-the-envelope math.) To raise any real revenue this way, presumably, they’ll need to keep the threshold fairly low and target a broader taxpayer base. Right in the butter zone for small business owners.

If you don’t see already how the left will use this against the GOP in 2014 or 2016, check the title of the Monkey Cage post or read Kevin Drum. Agreeing to the compromise won’t help Republicans escape “party of the rich” demagoguery; on the contrary, the attacks will escalate on grounds that the GOP is willing to soak small business owners with a surtax in order to spare the extremely wealthy a rate hike that might really take a bite. Maybe that’s a political price worth paying for the economic benefits Republicans perceive in keeping taxes on the very rich as low as possible, but it is a price. Via Mediaite, in case you missed it yesterday, here’s Saxby Chambliss weighing his pledge not to raise taxes against the country’s need to close its deficit black hole.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fiscalcliff; tax; taxes

1 posted on 11/23/2012 7:08:58 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I knew that they could come up with a solution to our massive debt. < / sarc>


2 posted on 11/23/2012 7:12:53 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

and the rich will pay their taxes without really paying them


3 posted on 11/23/2012 7:13:14 PM PST by molson209
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
With the lack of meaningful leadership in the District of Corruption and a Chicago Mobster running the WH/Administration it is all over but the shouting. These clown haven't a clue beyond "I Got to get me reelected in 2014".
4 posted on 11/23/2012 7:19:33 PM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As I figured, tax big Hollywood would be a good idea. However, knowing our president, he wouldn’t take too big a deal out of the luxury any given actor/actress lives in, unless it’s payback to Clint Eastwood and Dwayne Johnson.


5 posted on 11/23/2012 7:22:30 PM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
When they say rich they are not talking about the wealthy like the Kennedys and John Kerry's wife, et al.? Right? Except for what the wealthy may have collected as a salary -- like John Kerry or a Kennedy as a member of Congress.

When the Rats say that "the rich" should pay their fair share they mean people with high salaries (W-2, 1099); to wit, the earnings from labor.

They don't mean their Party's wealthy elites' earnings from their wealth; and the same for the earnings from the wealth of others -- except for maybe some wealthy Republicans.

6 posted on 11/23/2012 7:26:42 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

ANY Tax capitulation by republicans is akin to Israelis honoring a peace treaty while palees lob hourly rockets. Either way, it’s creating a new status quo with the built-in excesses of the enemy.


7 posted on 11/23/2012 7:31:48 PM PST by C210N (In favor of private rights and public happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N
Any Republican in Congress who imagines we can't see through euphemistic subtrefuge probably needs a brain scan immediately.

The internet puts us in the driver's seat when it comes to figuring out what these pukes are up to although it doesn't keep them from voting.

8 posted on 11/23/2012 7:38:01 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The arrogant crooks and slimeballs in Washington already take too much from the economy, regardless of who they take from.


9 posted on 11/23/2012 7:57:38 PM PST by Iron Munro (Michelle and Barack: Robbing From The Hood and Boy Blunder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Well, there is one Fantastic thing about removing “tax deductions”, It allows people to focus on making good economic choices rather than pleasing the Federal politics to get their tax loopholes..

So By all means kill all tax deductions their costs outweigh their benefits.


10 posted on 11/23/2012 8:13:12 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

Indeed they do, unfortunately we don’t seem to have the ability to defend ourselves from this injustice.

Leftist claim they care about fairness but there is nothing fair charging different people different rates for the same service.

The big leftist presumption is that we are all united together as part of one gigantic & discussing homosexual blob. Well I don’t care what they say I don’t want to be part of their blob!

I am an individual born upon this earth with my own merts, dreams, and thoughts and I expect to be treated as such.

I am not apart of them! I did not consent their parasitical union! I will not play along, I will not yield, and I will not be somebody’s puppet!


11 posted on 11/23/2012 8:42:02 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Fails the “equal protection” clause.


12 posted on 11/23/2012 8:50:49 PM PST by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sounds like way too much work.

Better to arrest the Evil Rich and put them in a Gulag.

Just take everything they own and pile it on the steps of Capitol Building thus eliminating the Middle Man IRS.

The Politburo Members can come out of the building and take whatever they need to give to their Constituents, minus their cut of course.


13 posted on 11/23/2012 8:53:32 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (As the Chinese say, erections have consequences...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
One possible change would tax the entire salary earned by those making more than a certain level — $400,000 or so — at the top rate of 35 percent rather than allowing them to pay lower rates before they reach the target, as is the standard formula.

This makes so little sense it borders on flagrant stupidity. Who would work for a salary of between $399,999 and, say, $900,000? You would have to be a moron to work past $400,000 unless you knew you were heading into much, much higher territory, like a $million-plus. The proposal (if there truly is such an inane proposal) is sheer stupidity. It can't be serious.

14 posted on 11/23/2012 8:53:32 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; NFHale; Impy; ...
RE :”Paying an extra $23,000 is small potatoes if you’re making $10 million a year, but to a small business owner who’s pulling down $400,000 or a bit more, it’s a big deal. Note Maguire’s point about the 100 percent effective rate for incomes just above the magic $400K threshold. Imagine a business owner doing an earnings projection in November and determining that he’s on pace to pull down $410,000 this year. Once he’s hit with the surtax, his income will fall to $387,000. In other words, he’s … better off working less, to try to finish the year just under $400,000 in earnings so that he can keep his lower marginal rates intact. That would be less of a concern if you raised the threshold amount from $400,000 to, say, $1 million or $2 million, but I assume Democrats won’t go along with that. The amount they can raise from a $23,000 surtax aimed only at the very rich is nothing compared to the amount they could raise by restoring the top Clinton-era rate of 39.6 percent instead. (See The Monkey Cage for some back-of-the-envelope math.) To raise any real revenue this way, presumably, they’ll need to keep the threshold fairly low and target a broader taxpayer base. Right in the butter zone for small business owners.
If you don’t see already how the left will use this against the GOP in 2014 or 2016, check the title of the Monkey Cage post or read Kevin Drum. Agreeing to the compromise won’t help Republicans escape “party of the rich” demagoguery; on the contrary, the attacks will escalate on grounds that the GOP is willing to soak small business owners with a surtax in order to spare the extremely wealthy a rate hike that might really take a bite. Maybe that’s a political price worth paying for the economic benefits Republicans perceive in keeping taxes on the very rich as low as possible, but it is a price. “

Standard formula: Declare a bi-partision deal has been reached ‘just like the American people asked for’ that is historic and provides significant deficit reduction. Then give a moving speech on the floor in support of it and vote for it.
Lastly next year deny you played any part in it, say you opposed it and that it was Obama who ‘wanted it’.

Groundhog day.

15 posted on 11/23/2012 9:11:00 PM PST by sickoflibs (How long before cry-Bohner caves to O again? They took the House for what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I think Wages over $1 million should be taxed at 50% aimed at actors and atheletes.
16 posted on 11/23/2012 9:19:24 PM PST by Mike Darancette (I don't understand why the Boomers are so passive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

This has been the case with so called “republicans” for the better part of a century. Its all we can do to just keep from losing more liberty to government, and sometimes we cant even even do that.

We obviously need a carasmatic leader to appeal to the emotions of the mob whom we can feed good policy. The man has to cut down on government, and rebuild virtue.


17 posted on 11/23/2012 9:22:51 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Anyone who earned $350k in the first 9 months would stop working for that year to avoid going over the limit. This is the opposite of supply side. This will not raise much revenue.


18 posted on 11/23/2012 10:02:15 PM PST by freedomrings69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
We need a new party someday and wave at these guys in the mirror.

Let the republicans be democrats for crying out loud. They are showing what they are. The loss of this election has not showed them much only to do business as usual. Both parties are of one.

19 posted on 11/24/2012 1:19:13 AM PST by Christie at the beach (I like Newt. .Our nation's foundation is under attack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

what they are really saying ...lets punish success...


20 posted on 11/24/2012 3:13:29 AM PST by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Party of the Rich, and that’s a bad thing?

Party of the below average, and that is a good thing.

Party of the lazy, and that is a good thing?

The stupid will always be exploited and at this the democrats are the Ringling Bros!


21 posted on 11/24/2012 6:07:25 AM PST by urbanpovertylawcenter (where the law and poverty collide in an urban setting and sparks fly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson