Citizens for Tax Justice has calculated that President Obama’s “Buffett Rule” would, if in effect this year, raise $50 billion in a single year and affect only the richest 0.08 percent of taxpayers — that’s just eight percent of the richest one percent of taxpayers.

During his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed that Congress enact his Buffett Rule, inspired by billionaire Warren Buffett’s complaint that he has a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

CTJ has long argued that the most straightforward way to fix this problem is to end the special low tax rate for capital gains and stock dividends.

A document released from the White House on Wednesday suggests the President would take a different approach. It explains that

the President is now specifically calling for measures to ensure everyone making over a million dollars a year pays a minimum effective tax rate of at least 30%. The Administration will work to ensure that this rule is implemented in a way that is equitable, including not disadvantaging individuals who make large charitable contributions.

The last sentence apparently means that charitable deductions for millionaires would not be affected.

To calculate the $50 billion figure, we assumed that there would be a minimum tax that applies to adjusted gross income (AGI) minus charitable deductions. (We’ll call this modified AGI.)

We assumed that a taxpayer with modified AGI greater than $1 million would face a minimum tax of 30 percent of modified AGI. The taxpayer would pay whichever is greater, their personal income tax under the existing rules or this minimum tax.

Revenue Impact Would Depend on Details

Of course, taxes always have to be a little more complicated than that. We had to assume that this minimum tax is phased in over a certain income range rather than allow it to kick in fully for everyone with exactly $1 million or more in modified AGI. Otherwise, a person with modified AGI of $999,999 might have an effective rate of 15 percent, and if they make $2 more their effective tax rate will shoot up to 30 percent. Congress generally avoids enacting any tax rules that have this sort of “cliff” effect.

So we assumed that the minimum tax would be phased in for taxpayers with income between $1 million and $2 million. That means that only half of the minimum tax applies if you make $1.5 million, and the entire minimum tax applies if you make $2 million or more. This means that the Buffett Rule could raise less revenue or more revenue if Congress chose different rules to phase it in.

CTJ Report Explains Need for Buffett Rule

A report from Citizens for Tax Justice explains how multi-millionaires like Romney and Buffett who live on investment income can pay a lower effective tax rate than working class people.

As the report explains, there are two reasons for this. First, the personal income tax has lower rates for two key types of investment income, capital gains and stock dividends. Second, investment income is exempt from payroll taxes (which will change to a small degree when the health care reform law takes effect).

The report compares two groups of taxpayers, those with income in the $60,000 to $65,000 range (around what Buffett’s famous secretary makes), and those with income exceeding $10 million.

For the first group, about 90 percent have very little investment income (less than a tenth of their income is from investments) and consequently have an average effective tax rate of 21.3 percent. For the second group (the Buffett and Romney group) about a third get the majority of their income from investments and consequently have an average effective tax rate of 15.2 percent. This is the problem that the Buffett Rule would solve.

Photo of Warren Buffett via Track Record Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

During his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed that Congress enact his “Buffett Rule,” inspired by billionaire Warren Buffett’s complaint that he has a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

President Obama said, “Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.”

This might mean that Congress would enact a new minimum tax of 30 percent for those with incomes over $1 million. But a simpler way to implement the Buffett Rule would be to simply end the tax preference for capital gains and stock dividends, which is the reason people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett can pay such low tax rates.

CTJ Report Explains Why Romney and Buffett Pay Such Low Tax Rates

A report from Citizens for Tax Justice explains how multi-millionaires like Romney and Buffett who live on investment income can pay a lower effective tax rate than working class people.

As the report explains, there are two reasons for this. First, the personal income tax has lower rates for two key types of investment income, capital gains and stock dividends. Second, investment income is exempt from payroll taxes (which will change to a small degree when the health care reform law takes effect).

The report compares two groups of taxpayers, those with income in the $60,000 to $65,000 range (around what Buffett’s famous secretary makes), and those with income exceeding $10 million.

For the first group, about 90 percent have very little investment income (less than a tenth of their income is from investments) and consequently have an average effective tax rate of 21.3 percent. For the second group (the Buffett and Romney group) about a third get the majority of their income from investments and consequently have an average effective tax rate of 15.2 percent.

This problem could be largely solved by doing what President Reagan did with the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which taxed all income at the same rates.

Three months ago, CTJ's Bob McIntyre told TIME that GOP candidate Mitt Romney likely has an effective federal tax rate of around 14 percent because of the tax break for investment income that Romney enjoys. Today, the candidate said, “What’s the effective rate I've been paying? It's probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything.”

Romney went on to say, “Because my last 10 years, I've ... my income comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past, rather than ordinary income or rather than earned annual.”

In other words, a wealthy person like Romney can receive most of his income in the form of capital gains and stock dividends, which are subject to a top rate of just 15 percent under the personal income tax and not subject to payroll taxes.

A CTJ report from last year explains that about one third of people with income in excess of $10 million annually get the majority of their income from investments and, because of these tax preferences, pay a lower effective tax rate than many middle-income taxpayers, who typically get their income from work. Romney is a member of this lucky group of wealthy individuals.

Ending the tax preference for capital gains and stock dividends is therefore the primary way to implement President Obama’s Buffett Rule, the principle that tax reform should reduce or eliminate those situations in which millionaires pay lower effective tax rates than middle-income people.

In Romney’s case, there is actually a very specific loophole that probably allows his income to be taxed as capital gains (taxed at the 15 percent rate) even when it is actually compensation for work. We call this the Romney Loophole, which allows wealthy fund managers to treat their “carried interest” (profits that they receive as compensation for their work) as capital gains and thus subject to the low 15 percent tax rate.

President Obama’s budget plans all contain a proposal to close the Romney Loophole, which would at least end the very worst abuse of the tax preference for capital gains and stock dividends. But to truly implement the Buffett Rule, the tax preference for investment income must be eliminated entirely.

As the presidential campaigns rev up, taxes are emerging as the defining issue of the election. Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation and myths about taxes are spreading as candidates and commentators look to push their different economic agendas.

To start the election season off, here is a breakdown of the five biggest tax whoppers being told by the candidates and commentators alike.

1) Myth: 47 Percent of Americans Do Not Pay Taxes

Fact: All Americans Pay Taxes

Pundits and politicians will continue to rile up audiences this election season by claiming that half of Americans in the U.S. do not pay any taxes. This talking point is used to deflect questions about why the rich should pay their fair share.

The basis of this claim is data showing that 47 percent of Americans did not owe federal income taxes in 2009, which the recession was at it's peak. The claim ignores the much more regressive federal payroll taxes or state and local sales, income, and property taxes that all Americans pay. The reality is that three-quarters of American households actually pay more in payroll taxes than federal income taxes.

Adding to this, the very reason many low income Americans do not pay federal income taxes is because they benefit from highly effective tax credits like the earned income tax credit (EITC), which incentivize work while providing much needed support to working low and middle class family budgets.

2) Myth: The American People and Corporations Pay High Taxes

Fact: The US Has the Third Lowest Taxes of Any Developed Country in the World

Total US taxes are actually at the lowest level they’ve been since 1958. The US has the third lowest level of total taxes of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, with the exception of only Chile and Mexico. President Obama, who is often falsely accused of raising taxes, actually cut taxes for 98 percent of the country on top of temporarily extending the entirety of the Bush tax cuts.

A related claim is that the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. This is misleading because it’s based on the on-paper (statutory) corporate rate rather than the actual (effective) rate that corporations pay. Because of the plethora of corporate tax breaks and loopholes, the US actually has the second lowest coporate taxes as a share of GDP in the OECD. In fact, 30 major corporations, including Verizon, Boeing and General Electric, paid nothing in corporate taxes over the last 3 years.  Rather than cutting corporate taxes, the sensible solution is to pass revenue-positive corporate tax reform.

3) Myth: Cutting Taxes Creates Jobs and Raises Revenue

Fact: Tax Cuts Reduce Revenue And Are Not Associated with Economic Growth

Since the rise of supply-side economics, tax cuts for the rich have been regarded as a magic elixir that could unleash economic growth, while simultaneously increasing government revenue.

The reality is that the tax cuts that have been tried for over 30 years have proven to be a stunning failure in all regards. In fact, history has shown that the tax rate on the wealthy simply has nothing to do with economic growth. Just consider the strong growth that occurred after President Clinton increased taxes versus the dismal growth following the Bush tax cuts.

Not surprisingly, tax cuts have been definitely proven to reduce revenue. Even President Bush's own Treasury Department concluded that tax cuts do not create enough economic growth to to come close to offsetting their costs or raising revenue. The Bush tax cuts cost $2.5 trillion in their first decade and the Reagan tax cuts cost $582 billion.

4) Myth: The US tax system is very progressive because wealthy individuals already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes.

Fact: At a Time of Growing Income Inequality, the US Tax System is Basically Flat.

Conservative commentators and politicians claim that it would be unfair to raise taxes on wealthy individuals because they already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes, usually citing the fact that the top one percent of income earners pay 38 percent of federal income taxes. Once again, such claims ignore the fact that the federal income tax is just one of many taxes that individuals pay.

When you take into account all of the taxes that individuals pay, the truth is that our tax system is relatively flat. The top one percent of income earners receives 20.3 percent of total income while paying 21.5 percent of total taxes and the lowest 20 percent of income earners receive 3.5 percent of total income while still paying out two percent of total taxes.

In other words, wealthy individuals pay a high percentage of taxes because they earn a highly disproportionate amount of income. This is, of course, a consequence of growing income inequality in the United States, which is at a level not seen since before the Great Depression. 

5) Myth : The “Fair Tax” or a flat tax would be more “fair”

Fact: The “Fair Tax” or a Flat Tax Would Make Our Tax System Even More Regressive

Whether it’s Steve Forbes promoting his flat tax proposal in 1996 and 2000 or Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich in the 2012 presidential race today, the idea to sweep away our current tax system and replace it with a single rate, flat income or national sales tax (called the “Fair Tax”) has become a perennial campaign issue for Republican presidential candidates.

The simplicity of these proposals has much appeal for many Americans, who believe they would make filing taxes less complex and, at the same time, stop wealthy individuals from being able to game the tax system.

A deeper look, however, reveals that both the “fair” and flat tax are very regressive compared to our current system. One recent analysis of a typical flat tax proposal from last year shows that it would result in an average tax increase of $2,887 for the bottom 95 percent of Americans, while those in the top one percent would receive an average tax cut of over $209,562. Furthermore, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s analysis of the Fair Tax points out the under this system, the sales tax rate would have to be set at a politically and administratively unfeasible rate of at least 45 percent, and, the result would be the bottom 80 percent of American’s paying an average of 51 percent more in taxes compared to our current system.

It’s also important to note that “complexity in the tax code,” which a flat tax system purports to fix, is not caused by our progressive rate structure; rather, it’s the multitude of loopholes and tax breaks, all of which could easily be eliminated while keeping a progressive tax rate structure in place. 

Massachusetts Democratic Representative Barney Frank made waves on Monday with the announcement that he will not seek reelection in 2012. During his 30 years serving in the House of Representative, Rep. Frank has become well known for being the most prominent gay politician in the United States, his leadership role on the House Financial Service Committee during the height of the financial crisis, and his infamously cheeky remarks on a wide variety of different issues.

Rep. Frank is less known for his many years of service standing up for good tax policy. During the George W. Bush years for example, his record on working against the irresponsible Bush tax cuts earned him a straight A’s on our Congressional Report Card. In fact, just last year Rep. Frank stood up against pressure from Republicans and the White House to become one of the strongest Democratic voices opposing the deal that extended the Bush tax cuts for two more years.

Because of his strong advocacy over the years, we were proud to have Rep. Frank as an honorary chairman of our 30^th Anniversary Celebration a couple years back. We could not think of any better way to honor Rep. Frank than to share two of our favorite quotes of his on tax policy:

• “Tax cuts are fun, but I never saw a tax cut put out a fire. I never saw a tax cut make a bridge” Barney Frank, MSNBC, August 1, 2011
  
• “Remember that our debt crisis began when someone decided to get the joint prize, Nobel Prize, for economics and fiction by putting forward the theory that you could finance two wars with five tax cuts. That's what put us in the hole.” Barney Frank, CNBC, January 29, 2011

Photo of Barney Frank via  World Economic Forum Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Coburn Report on Hand-Outs for Millionaires Misses the Worst of All

Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who made news earlier this year when he broke with right-wing ideologues by suggesting that Congress could raise some amount of revenue greater than zero dollars, has issued a report this week claiming to lay bare the various spending subsidies and tax subsidies benefiting millionaires. There are many problems with this report but the most enormous is that it ignores the biggest and most unfair tax subsidy for the rich — the lower tax rates that apply to investment income like capital gains and stock dividends.

Remember, the entire reason why Warren Buffett complains that he pays a lower effective federal tax rate than his secretary, and the inspiration for President Obama’s Buffett Rule, is this tax subsidy for investment income.

It is quite a feat to write a 37-page report about various government hand-outs for millionaires and yet fail to mention the one that the Buffett Rule is designed to address. But Senator Coburn’s staff has done exactly that.

Investment income is taxed less than other types of income in two ways. First, the personal income tax has special, low rates for two key types of investment income (long-term capital gains and qualified stock dividends), including a top rate of 15 percent. The majority of this income goes to the richest one percent of taxpayers. Second, the payroll taxes that apply to wages do not apply to investment income.

A previous report from CTJ explained how these tax breaks for investment income allow millionaires in some situations to pay lower effective federal tax rates than many middle-income people. Another CTJ report compared taxpayers making between $60,000 and $65,000 with taxpayers who make over ten million annually. In the first group, only about 2 percent receive most of their income from investments, while in the second group, about a third receive most of their income from investments and consequently have a lower average effective federal tax rate than most of the $60,000-$65,000 taxpayers.

This is an outrageous situation and the Buffett Rule is the principle that tax reform should reduce or eliminate this unfairness. Any plan to end hand-outs for millionaires that fails to implement the Buffett Rule is not worth the paper it’s written on.

Writing for Tax Notes, CTJ director Bob McIntyre recalls “my story of CTJ’s role in the process that led to the monumental Tax Reform Act of 1986. It’s a lightly edited version of notes I took in the fall of 1986, after the bill was enacted, to remind me later of what we had done to help cause that miracle. The piece has remained unpublished until now. Of course, many others played key roles in producing TRA 1986. This is mainly just CTJ’s story, as written in the exuberance of that stars-were aligned moment.”

Read the article.

Some commentators have suggested that, because people with incomes exceeding $1 million, on average, pay higher effective tax rates than middle-income people, the problem targeted by President Obama’s “Buffett Rule” does not exist. As demonstrated in a new report from CTJ, the problem is not the effective tax rates of millionaires across the board but a particular class of millionaires whose income is mostly from investments. Investment income is taxed less than other types of income, allowing millionaire investors to pay a smaller percentage of their income in federal taxes than do many working-class people.

The report demonstrates that this problem is not isolated to rare cases. In fact, almost one third of taxpayers with income exceeding $10 million fall into this category (of taxpayers who rely on investment income for over half of their total income). Over 90 percent of taxpayers making between $60,000 and $65,000 (which includes Mr. Buffett’s famous secretary) rely on investment income for less than a tenth of their income — and pay a higher federal tax rate as a result.

The report also explains what Congress can do to implement the Buffett Rule and solve this problem. The first step, perhaps surprisingly, is to prevent repeal of health care reform, which includes a change in the Medicare tax that will take a limited first step in addressing this unfairness. Additional reforms are needed, which may include eliminating tax preferences for investment income or a surcharge on income exceeding $1 million as recently proposed by Senate Democrats.

Photo of Warren Buffett and Barack Obama via The White House Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

If the following actions were taken, some of the inequity that is driving the Occupy Wall Street and other affiliated protests would be eliminated. Suggestions include making corporations pay their fair share in taxes, ending the tax break for corporations that shift jobs and profits overseas, implementing the "Buffett Rule," and imposing a tax on the "too-big-to-fail" banks...

Read the fact sheet.

Photo of Occupy Wall Street via Eye Wash Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Obama’s Plan a Massive Tax CUT Despite GOP Claims of “Largest Tax Hike in Modern History”

While House Republican Leader Eric Cantor’s staff and others have called President Obama’s jobs and deficit plan the “largest tax hike in modern history,” the unfortunate truth is that it actually cuts taxes overall and increases the deficit.

There is much to like about the plan, as explained below. Citizens for Tax Justice applauds President Obama’s vow yesterday to, in his words, “veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share.”

Unfortunately, however, President Obama’s proposals would ultimately reduce taxes far more than raise them, compared to current law.

The tables in the back of the President’s 80-page plan quietly remind us that the total cost of making permanent the Bush tax cuts would be $3.867 trillion over the next ten years, but the President says he will “raise revenue” by making permanent “only” $3.001 trillion of these tax cuts. We certainly applaud the President for refusing to extend the $866 billion of these tax cuts that would go exclusively to those with adjusted gross incomes in excess of $250,000, but it’s difficult to call this deficit reduction.

The President’s claims that he is raising revenue are based on the common, but misleading, practice of comparing a given proposal to an alternative “baseline” that assumes Congress has already increased the deficit enormously by making permanent the Bush tax cuts. By this logic, we do not see what stops the President from comparing his plan to a baseline that assumes Congress repealed the federal income tax, in which case his plan would “raise revenue” even more successfully.

Setting aside the $866 billion that the President proposes to “raise” by not extending that part of the Bush tax cuts, the net effect of the other tax provisions in the plan (excluding the parts used to help pay for his proposed new jobs provisions) is to raise only $259 billion over the next decade. That means that, overall, the President is proposing more than $2.7 trillion in deficit-increasing tax cuts through fiscal 2021!

The cost of these tax cuts is even greater when accounting for the additional interest payments on the national debt that will result.

Revenue could be raised by closing corporate tax loopholes, but unfortunately the President’s plan calls for a reform of the corporate income tax that is “deficit-neutral.” We believe that most, if not all, of the revenue-savings resulting from closing corporate tax loopholes should go towards deficit-reduction or job creation and public investments, rather than paying for more breaks for corporations. ( See one-page fact sheet on why corporate tax reform can be “revenue-positive.”)

There are some good ideas in the President’s tax proposals that would raise revenue compared to current law and that would ask those whose incomes have grown the most in recent years to pay something closer to their fair share. This includes his proposal to limit deductions and exclusions for the wealthy, which we estimate would affect only 2.3 percent of taxpayers. ( See related report.) Certainly Congress should pursue these types of tax provisions and loophole-closing measures.

But ultimately, our nation is going to need significantly increased revenues to pay for essential public programs and services. Starting off with a gigantic tax cut that makes 80 percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as Obama proposes, only digs our deficit hole deeper — and makes big reductions in Social Security and Medicare even more likely.

This week's release of Census data showing that a growing number of families are officially poor prompted CTJ to examine claims that too many Americans are paying "no" taxes and calls to raise taxes on low-income families.

Aside from recipients of Social Security benefits (which are largely untaxed), all but the poorest Americans do pay federal income taxes or federal payroll taxes or both. We estimate that in 2010, only 15 percent of non-Social Security taxpayers paid zero dollars or less in combined federal income and payroll taxes.  These families and individuals pay other types of taxes, as this report explains.

Fifty-seven percent of those who paid zero or less in combined federal income and payroll taxes had incomes below $15,000, and 76 percent had incomes below $20,000. This tells us that the vast majority of these taxpayers were quite poor because the average poverty threshold for 2010 was $14,218 for a household of two individuals and $22,314 for a household of four individuals.

Our 3-page report is here.

Our contempt for Grover Norquist’s no-new-taxes pledge is no secret, and it seems that at least one member of Congress is willing to come out and admit he shares the feeling. Nebraska Rep. Jeff Fortenberry signed the no-new-taxes pledge in 2004, but now says he regret s the move.

He says, “A while back, I had notified the organization that I had taken that pledge when I ran for office and upheld that my first term in office but realized that this type of pledge can constrain creative policy thinking, so I asked not to be associated with it any longer."

Ouch.  Poor Grover!

Responding to Fortenberry’s snub, a spokesperson from Norquist’s group bristled, “One does not promise to be pro-life for two years, or pro-Second Amendment for one year. One is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment or pro-taxpayer as long as one is in office. Or not.”

This pathological inflexibility defines the pledge mentality and hurts our democracy. It’s chilling that even when legislators abandon the pledge after recognizing it for the ideological straightjacket it is, they are never fully released from it.  Isn’t that how cults work?

Completely taking tax increases off the table is no way to govern.  Pledges thwart the important debates and conversations that make our political system work, the current Washington gridlock offering a case in point. Rep. Fortenberry is setting an example for his GOP colleagues, going so far as to say Warren Buffett might even be right about taxing millionaires.  We’ll see if his stance helps open up our debates.

Pledging to spending cuts as the only budget balancing tool is like agreeing to eat a bowl of spaghetti with only a knife; it doesn’t work and it makes you look foolish.

Photos via Steve Rhodes & Republican Conference via Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, called for higher taxes for millionaires in a widely-noted op-ed this week. As expected, the Wall Street Journal reacted with a variety of misleading counter-arguments. We conclude that:

1. Buffett is correct that the tax breaks that benefit the wealthy investor class, like the capital gains and dividends preferences, are unfair.
   
   
2. The Wall Street Journal’s arguments that these types of investment income are double-taxed are incorrect.
   
   
3. Contrary to what the Journal claims, President Obama’s tax plan is in keeping with Buffett’s call for higher taxes on millionaires.

Billionaire Investor Is Right to Call for Higher Taxes for the Rich and End of Breaks for Investment Income

Buffett points out that middle-class Americans are being asked to “sacrifice” as Congress and the new twelve-member “super committee” search for ways to reduce the budget deficit, but millionaires have not been asked to sacrifice anything. He argues that the super committee should ask millionaires to pay at higher rates than they pay today and should also end or reduce special tax preferences for investment income, which makes up most of the income of millionaires.

Citizens for Tax Justice has long made the case that these tax preferences — the special low income tax rates for capital gains and stock dividends, should be repealed entirely.

CTJ offers the example of an heiress who owns so much stock and other assets that she does not have to work. She receives stock dividends, and when she sells assets (through her broker, of course) for more than their original purchase price, she enjoys the profit, which is called a capital gain. On these two types of income, she only pays a tax rate of 15 percent.

Now consider a receptionist who works at the brokerage firm that handles some of the heiress’s dealings. Let’s say this receptionist earns $50,000 a year. Unlike the heiress, his income comes in the form of wages, because, alas, he has to work for a living. His wages are taxed at progressive rates, and a portion of his income is actually taxed at 25 percent. (In other words, he faces a marginal rate of 25 percent, meaning each additional dollar he earns is taxed at that amount).

On top of that, he also pays the federal payroll tax of around 15 percent. (Technically he pays only half of the payroll tax and his employer pays the other half, but economists generally agree that it’s all ultimately borne by the employee.) So he pays taxes on his income at a higher rate than the heiress who lives off her wealth.

What make this situation even worse are the various loopholes that allow wealthy individuals to receive these tax breaks for income that is not really even capital gains or dividends. As Buffett explains, fund managers use the “carried interest” loophole to have their compensation treated as capital gains and taxed at the low 15 percent rate, while the “60/40 rule” benefits traders who “own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.”

CTJ has found that if Congress simply repealed the preference for capital gains entirely, three fourths of the tax increase would be borne by the richest one percent of taxpayers. (See page 19 of this report for estimates.) The tax preference for dividends expires at the end of 2012 if Congress does not extend it.

The Myth of Double-Taxed Investment Income

The Wall Street Journal starts with the following complaint about Buffett’s argument that his capital gains and dividend income is insufficiently taxed:

“What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%.”

Anti-tax ideologues often claim that corporate profits are taxed twice, once under the corporate income tax and then again under the personal income tax when the shareholders receive them in the form of capital gains and dividends. There are several fatal flaws in this argument:

First, many corporate profits are not taxed, as GE, Verizon, Boeing, and many other corporations have demonstrated.

Second, two thirds of those dividends are actually paid to tax-exempt entities like pension funds or university endowments.

Third, a capital gain from selling a corporate stock is not necessarily a form of corporate profit. If stock value rises based on some expectation of a future increase in profits (which a drug company might enjoy after the FDA approves a new product, for example) that does not have anything to do with profits that the company has already received or paid taxes on.

In any case, the capital gains earned outside of tax-exempt plans are not taxed until shareholders sell their corporate stock at a profit, meaning those gains can be deferred indefinitely. Even when shareholders do report capital gains they often offset them with capital losses.

If one applies the logic of the “double-tax” argument more broadly, one would have to conclude that the wage and salary income of ordinary Americans is subject to several forms of taxes that wealthy investors don’t worry much about. For most Americans, income consists entirely of wages and all of it is subject to Social Security taxes and much or most of it is subject to the federal income tax. Then when people spend their income, a great deal of their purchases are subject to sales taxes.

Somehow the Wall Street Journal and its devotees only express concern over taxing income multiple times when wealthy investors are involved.

Ending Tax Cuts for Income Over $250,000 Actually Targets Millionaires

The Wall Street Journal also complains that, “Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Buffett speaks about raising taxes only on the rich. But somehow he ignores that the President's tax increase starts at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.”

But President Obama’s plan does target millionaires. A recent report from Citizens for Tax Justice explains that if enacted in 2011, 84 percent of the revenue savings from Obama’s income tax plan would come from people who make more than $1 million annually.

What is often not understood is that Obama’s plan would leave in place the Bush income tax reductions for the first $250,000 of adjusted gross income (AGI) for all married couples (and the first $200,000 for all unmarried taxpayers).

A married couple with adjusted gross income of $250,001 would pay higher taxes on at most one dollar, and face a tax hike of only 3 cents at most. But even that tiny tax hike would be extremely rare, since almost all couples at that income level itemize deductions. Typically, couples would have to make more than $295,000 before they lost any of their Bush income tax cuts.

Married taxpayers with incomes between $250,000 and $300,000 would lose just one percent of their Bush income tax cuts, on average, under President Obama’s plan.

The Wall Street Journal calls taxpayers with AGI in excess of $250,000/$200,000 “middle-class.” CTJ estimates that in 2013, when the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire, only 2.6 percent of taxpayers will have adjusted gross income in excess of the $250,000/$200,000 threshold.

This shows that President Obama is asking too few, rather than too many, Americans to pay higher taxes than they do today. 

Photos via The White House Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Revenue Increase the Obvious Answer to Budget Deficits

Some members of Congress are threatening to allow the U.S. to default on its debt obligations — and send financial markets into a tailspin — unless the President agrees to large, sudden cuts in the budget deficit without any increase in tax revenue. But the most recent data reveal that the U.S. is already one of the least taxed countries in the developed world. Only two OECD countries have lower taxes as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) than the United States.

Read the report.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently released new data showing that the number of individuals paying zero US income taxes on an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $200,000 or more almost doubled between 2007 and 2008.

In 2008, the number of returns declaring an AGI of over $200,000 represented about 3.1 percent of the total returns filed to the IRS. Out of these returns, as many as 18,783 had no U.S. income tax liability whatsoever in 2008; that’s nearly double the 10,465 who owed nothing in 2007.

Although this may represent only 0.43 percent of taxpayers reporting an AGI of over $200,000, it is the biggest percentage of non-payers in this category since the IRS began reporting the data in 1977.

The IRS report also revealed that the much publicized top marginal rate of 35 percent exists primarily on paper: according to the data, only 0.007 percent of ALL taxpayers pay an effective tax rate of 35 percent or higher. Put differently, nine times as many high income taxpayers pay zero in taxes than pay an effective, actual 35 percent tax rate.

Much of the explanation for the low effective rates for higher income individuals can be explained by the over $1 trillion in special tax deductions and treatment often referred to as tax expenditures. Examples of expenditures that rich taxpayers exploit would be: special treatment of capital gains, tax-exempt interest and the mortgage interest deduction.

Reducing or eliminating tax expenditures for businesses and investors would not only help reduce the deficit, it would also make the system more fair by reducing the number of higher income taxpayers who are able to avoid paying a substantial part or all of the taxes they owe.

The IRS data proves once again what Citizens for Tax Justice has said all along, our tax system is not as progressive as you think.