• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Saverocity
  • Home
  • Contact
  • Support the Site
  • The Free-quent Flyer

Independently Financed

Independently Financed

Five questions about tax “reform”

November 9, 2017 by indyfinance 8 Comments

Back during the Affordable Care Act repeal debate I wrote pretty extensively about the threat repeal posed to entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship by preventing self-employed people from being able to sign up for affordable, comprehensive health insurance.

Instead of the doing the same thing for the House and Senate tax “reform” bills, I thought I’d take a different approach and throw out a few broad areas to keep an eye on as these bills are negotiated and debated.

How much will corporate tax reform add to the deficit?

There’s no doubt that America’s corporate tax system could be reformed by eliminating preferential treatment of certain expenses (“loopholes”) and using the resulting revenue to reduce the maximum statutory rate, if we were inclined to do so.

That is not, however, the Republican corporate tax reform plan. Instead, they plan to make modest changes to corporate tax law, radically reduce the top statutory rate, and exclude foreign earnings from taxation.

This accounts for the overwhelming majority of the cost of the GOP plan, so any changes or delays in this part of the bill will make a big difference. A 25% rate instead of the proposed 20% rate, for example, would reduce the impact on the deficit substantially, as would a decision to continuing to tax foreign earnings at the maximum statutory rate instead of a special lower rate on overseas or global activity.

How will repatriated profits be handled?

It’s often said that US corporations “can’t” repatriate their foreign earnings because of the taxes they would have to pay on them. It would be more correct to say that US corporations have been instructed by the Republican Party not to repatriate their foreign earnings and instead wait until Republicans are able to permanently exempt them from taxation.

If they’re able to do so again (there was an earlier repatriation holiday under George W. Bush), it will reinforce the conviction in US boardrooms that they should accrue, on an accounting basis, as much of their earnings as possible in overseas tax havens, until the next opportunity comes around to repatriate them tax-free.

How will passthrough income be handled?

Currently, passthrough business income is taxed at the recipient’s individual tax rate, and is fairly simple to handle on an IRS Form 1040 once you get the hang of it. Will a parallel tax system be created that taxes part of passthrough business income as earned income and part as capital income? If so, how hellishly complicated will that parallel system be, and what kinds of firms will be subject to it?

From a revenue standpoint this discussion has focused on large passthrough enterprises like real estate investors and hedge funds, but the overwhelming majority of US businesses are organized as passthroughs, so introducing unnecessary complexity here would be a massive penalty on small business formation and a direct attack on entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship.

How are deductions changed?

There are three moving parts to keep an eye on when it comes to income tax deductions:

  • the standard deduction and individual exemption;
  • non-itemized deductions;
  • itemized deductions.

Raising the standard deduction has two effects: it increases the amount of money low-income filers have completely exempted from federal income taxation (note as always that FICA taxation starts with your first dollar of earned income) and it reduces the value of itemized deductions since only itemized deductions in excess of the standard deduction reduce filer’s owed taxes.

Non-itemized deductions are available to everyone regardless of whether they itemize deductions, but that means they also complicate everyone’s tax filing process. For example, Line 26 on Form 1040 is simply labeled “Moving expenses. Attach Form 3903.” Since I move fairly frequently, almost every year I have to dig up Form 3903, then complete the “Distance Test Worksheet,” then check if I meet the “Time Test,” then find out I don’t qualify (I’ve never qualified). Eliminating these deductions is unpopular because they all have appealing-sounding names (although Line 24 “Certain business expenses of reservists, performing artists, and fee-basis government officials. Attach Form 2106 or 2106-EZ” needs a press agent) and you can always find a journalist willing to express outrage over eliminating them. I would personally encourage you to resist that temptation.

Itemized deductions, unlike non-itemized deductions, are only available if you don’t take the standard deduction. This means they’re only claimed by people with deductible expenses in excess of the standard deduction. Raising the standard deduction would mechanically reduce the number of people who find it worthwhile to file tax returns with itemized deductions, but focusing on the number of people who actually itemize deductions on their tax return misses the much larger number of people who are forced to calculate whether or not to itemize deductions. Eliminating itemized deductions entirely would be the best approach to tax simplification, but any deductions that are eliminated would constitute an improvement over the status quo by reducing the number of people who are forced to calculate their taxes twice.

How are credits changed?

Here are the Form 1040 tax credits I consider eligible for elimination (there are a few more that work as adjustments to payments made during the year that I’m not including here):

  • Credit for child and dependent care expenses;
  • Education credits from Form 8863;
  • Retirement savings contributions credit;
  • Child tax credit;
  • Residential energy credits;
  • Earned income credit (EIC);
  • Nontaxable combat pay election;
  • Additional child tax credit;
  • American opportunity credit;
  • Credit for federal tax on fuels.

If anything these credits have even more appealing names than the deductions I mentioned above, and they elicit even more passionate defenses from the journalists covering this debate.

Conclusion

You can come to your own conclusions about the proper way to go about reforming our tax code. The current proposals cut taxes on corporations by about $2.5 trillion and raises taxes on individuals by about $1 trillion over the next ten years. Another approach might be to make corporate tax reform deficit neutral and individual tax reform deficit-neutral, paying for corporate rate cuts with corporate loophole repeal, and paying for individual rate cuts or refundable credits with individual deduction and credit repeal. Yet another approach could raise taxes on corporations in order to reduce the taxes paid by individuals.

But whichever outcome you personally favor, hopefully these five questions give a sense of where the bodies are buried in the current tax reform debate.

Filed Under: taxes

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. mom says

    November 9, 2017 at 4:57 pm

    Well, now we know you don’ thave kids. Those kid deductions can be pretty huge, as can caring for you dependent adult.

    You hit my favorite soap box. FICA is a regressive tax. It should start after you earn X amount of money, like $20K, and go all the way to the top. I think miraculously a couple years of that and social security would be on sound financial footing.

    However, my biggest question about the proposed plan is the assumption that if the off-shore money comes home, will it boost the economy (which I might argue doesn’t need boosting, just equalizing, What happened after the Bush “amnesty?”

    Reply
    • indyfinance says

      November 9, 2017 at 5:09 pm

      mom,

      Excellent question! According to the stodgy National Bureau of Economic Research, “Repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, employment or R&D—even for the firms that lobbied for the tax holiday stating these intentions and for firms that appeared to be financially constrained. Instead, a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with an increase of almost $1 in payouts to shareholders.”

      One important factor in thinking about “off-shore” corporate assets is that while the funds are “owned” by overseas subsidiaries they’re virtually always deposited in US banks (after all, we’re the bankers to the world), and they’re available to lend out to US companies and individuals. They can’t be distributed to shareholders as dividends or share buybacks, but they’re available to lend and mechanically reduce the interest rate companies and individuals have to pay to borrow money and invest. Withdrawing those funds and distributing them to shareholders could at least conceivably produce an unexpected shock to domestic interest rates, although I don’t think economists treat that as particularly likely, at least with the bargain basement interest rates we have today.

      As for FICA, my understanding is that that lifting the cap on FICA wages would eliminate 70-80% of the projected Social Security funding shortfall over the next 100 years.

      —Indy

      Reply
      • El Ingeniero says

        November 10, 2017 at 1:24 pm

        Consistent with my expectation that all repatriated income would go to stock buybacks and dividends, yep.

        C-suite compensation is often tied to increases in stock prices instead of return on invested capital, and we can count on incentives to be acted upon.

        Reply
      • SumOfAll says

        November 11, 2017 at 11:16 pm

        If you raised the FICA tax then you would have to pay me more at my retirement age.. Plus the FICA tax is already a penalty. I dont want a subpar forced retirement vehicle. Why make it worse by forcing me to contribute 20k-30k into it? Taking 30k of my money for some crappy retirement program seems like taking a bad idea and making it worse. Unless your whole goal is to take money from me and redistribute it to someone else?

        Reply
        • indyfinance says

          November 13, 2017 at 10:55 pm

          SumOfAll,

          There are already two “bend points” in Social Security old age insurance benefits, there’s no reason we couldn’t add more in order to reduce the replacement income level for folks whose PIA is above the current maximum.

          Obviously what you want from a forced retirement savings vehicle is beside the point. The point is to provide retirement security to all Americans (including you).

          —Indy

          Reply
          • SumOfAll says

            November 14, 2017 at 11:07 pm

            Its shouldnt be the US Govt job to tax me an obscene unending amount to fund someone elses SocSec payments. So again I’ll state that raising my taxes for a substandard investment vehicle is a waste of my tax dollars and a bad idea on getting me to save money for retirement (both tax wise and investment wise)

  2. Maria says

    November 10, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    Not post.
    Appreciate the info.

    Reply
    • indyfinance says

      November 13, 2017 at 10:55 pm

      Maria,

      Thanks for reading!

      —Indy

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Two quirks to watch for when reporting 2020 unemployment compensation
  • Minimums, Anchors, and Thresholds
  • What’s the real story behind the zillionaire widow defrauded by her grandsons?
  • MEUC: the unemployment insurance top-up no one is talking about
  • How to apply to, enroll in, and attend college

Recent Comments

  • FinePrint on Two quirks to watch for when reporting 2020 unemployment compensation
  • Corey on The Robinhood free stock catch (and an easy workaround)
  • ArmyDoc on Minimums, Anchors, and Thresholds
  • Minimums, Anchors, and Thresholds - Independently Financed on The Social Security magic trick
  • Stephen Triesch on Distinguishing between falsifiable and non-falsifiable claims

Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017

Categories

  • affordable luxuries
  • better billionaire project
  • book review
  • cheap lessons
  • fire
  • free business idea
  • health insurance
  • higher education
  • investing
  • over there
  • personal finance
  • rant
  • real estate
  • self-employment
  • social security
  • student loans
  • taxes
  • Uncategorized

Newsletter

Copyright © 2021 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

This website uses cookies to personalize content and ads and to analyze traffic. Our ad partners may combine this information with other information you have provided them or that they've collected from your use of their services elsewhere. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.OkNoRead more