Tax Planning
Our Forecast for Bush Tax Cuts in 2011: A Hit on the Wealthy
Tax rates for low- and middle-income earners will likely stay the same. But the rich won't be so lucky.
By The Kiplinger Washington Editors
August 10, 2010
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
Lawmakers are caught between a rock and a hard place on taxes. The decision whether to extend the Bush tax cuts -- passed in 2001 and 2003 and due to expire at year-end -- is fraught with danger.
Our current judgment: a one-year extension of the Bush tax cuts, but not for upper incomers, individuals with taxable incomes over $200,000 a year and for couples with annual incomes of more than $250,000. Their rates would return to 39.6% from 35% now, and on dividends and capital gains, they’d pay 20%, up from 15% now.
Here’s why that’s the most likely option -- or at least why other options have even less appeal.
• Letting all rates rise hurts the economy, shaving at least six-tenths of a percentage point off GDP gains in 2011 and crimping job creation. Considering the still-wobbly state of the economy, that’s a hit Obama and Congress won’t want to take. Because wealthier taxpayers spend a smaller share of their income, the economic sting is much less if they alone lose the benefit of today’s lower rates.
• Extending all the cuts drives up the deficit. Letting all taxpayers hold on to the Bush rate cuts would add $3 trillion to Uncle Sam’s annual budget deficits by 2020. Total public debt would hit a whopping 82% of GDP by then, up from 60% now. The fact is, even Obama’s more-modest proposal would be costly. Permanently keeping the lower rates -- for all but the highest earners -- would pile an additional $2.3 trillion onto the national debt.
• Plus, a short-term, partial extension plays out better for the Democrats. In fact, that’s what that party’s leaders in the House and Senate hope to arrange as the only option voted on. Republicans, who want to extend the cuts to all taxpayers, would be put in an awkward position: Vote yes on holding down the tax rates only for middle and lower incomers or be painted as favoring higher taxes for all.
But here’s why that option is no slam dunk. Even a temporary partial extension costs. Deficit hawks will balk, pointing to Europe’s recent woes as an object lesson in the need for U.S. policymakers to impose fiscal austerity sooner, rather than later. And Republicans may hold out for an extension for all taxpayers. Among their arguments: Raising taxes on high incomers punishes small businesses.
Lawmakers may duck, putting off the tough decision until next year and keeping the lower Bush-era tax rates in force at least through 2011.
There’s no such punt possible on estate taxes, though. Even liberals don’t want to see the top rate soar to 55%, with the $1-million exemption returning, which is what will happen at the end of this year if lawmakers don’t intervene.
The odds of resurrecting 2009 rules for 2010 estates get shakier as time passes. Those estates may get a choice: Use 2009’s $3.5-million exemption and 45% top rate or enjoy no estate tax this year but be stuck with carryover basis rules. Then, starting in 2011 -- a phase-in of lower rates and higher exemptions.
Topics:
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy
Reader Comments (6)
Posted by: Dixon at 08/11/2010 10:46:20 AM
According to BNA Tax and Accounting, On July 27, Max Baucus D, the most powerful voice on the estate tax as Chairman of the Senate's Finance Committee stated: Practically speaking, the later that we take up and pass the estate tax law or provision, the more difficult it is to make it retroactive. However, it's possible there could be an election for the executor which would, in effect, make that question moot, Baucus said.
Posted by: Michael Schmidt at 08/11/2010 12:19:50 PM
So letting the tax rates revert to their previous levels is a "hit on the wealthy"? I don't remember reading that this tax cut for the rich was actually a hit on the poor and middle classed!
Posted by: Jeff at 08/11/2010 12:36:02 PM
Extending all the cuts drives up the deficit. Umm, doesn't spending drive up the deficit? Private citizens have to cut spending when their income decreases (or when their budget is in the red), why shouldn't the government?
Posted by: Dan at 08/11/2010 03:37:37 PM
"Because wealthier taxpayers spend a smaller share of their income, the economic sting is much less if they alone lose the benefit of todays lower rates." -- And you've just made the case for a higher federal income tax rate for the wealthiest amongst us. This is why the graduated income tax is the only really fair tax. Our economic system is structured to enable a small percentage of us to make a fortune from the rest of us -- far more money than they need to live comfortably for the rest of their lives. It is only fair that they repay this economic system through higher income tax rates and that they pay a higher proportion of their income for taxes. Naturally the most wealthy amongst us will object -- selfishness and self-centeredness keep them from playing fair, whether in business or in taxes. We keep an economic system going that enables them to get wealthy -- and they darned well owe it to all of us to carry a much higher tax burden than the rest of the population that makes them wealthy.
Posted by: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell at 08/12/2010 10:15:13 AM
"Because wealthier taxpayers spend a smaller share of their income, the economic sting is much less if they alone lose the benefit of todays lower rates." Wrong. All taxes remove money from the economy. A $100 tax on a rich person removes exactly the same amount as a $100 tax on a poor person. "Deficit hawks will balk, pointing to Europes recent woes as an object lesson in the need for U.S. policymakers to impose fiscal austerity sooner, rather than later." Deficit hawks don't understand that the EU nations are not monetarily sovereign. The U.S. is. So any comparisons are false. "Letting all rates rise hurts the economy . . . " Letting any rates rise will hurt the economy. All taxes remove money from the economy, which hurts economic growth. You can't drain only the north half of a bathtub. Taxing Bill Gates hurts the economy exactly as much as taxing Joe the Plumber. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Posted by: Gail at 08/26/2010 11:30:02 AM
As discussed in this article, www.savingtoinvest.com/2010/08/housing-market-predictions-and-forecast-for-home-prices-in-2010-and-2011.html , home prices are likely to be flat till 2015. So take a conservativ approach to buying a home and your tax situation.