ReportWire

Tag: tax reform

  • Colorado Gov. Jared Polis’ chief of staff to leave for job at UCHealth

    Colorado Gov. Jared Polis’ chief of staff to leave for job at UCHealth

    [ad_1]

    Colorado Gov. Jared Polis’ chief of staff will leave the administration next week to take a job as a lobbyist at UCHealth.

    Then-Speaker Alec Garnett of the Colorado House of Representatives during a committee hearing on fentanyl at the Colorado State Capitol on Tuesday, April 12, 2022. (Photo by AAron Ontiveroz/The Denver Post)

    Alec Garnett, a former Democratic lawmaker from Denver, joined the governor’s office at the start of 2023 after serving as speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives. He used those close ties to lawmakers as he worked to pass Polis’ agenda and weigh in on legislation, including during a special legislative session last week that was aimed at averting property tax reform ballot initiatives as part of a deal with conservative and business advocacy groups.

    Polis’ office announced Tuesday morning that he will step down as chief of staff on Sept. 13. UCHealth, in an internal announcement, says Garnett will join the health system as vice president of government and regulatory affairs.

    Polis’ new chief of staff will be David Oppenheim, who served as the deputy to Garnett, handling legislative and policy affairs. Before that, he was director of operations and cabinet affairs. He joined the governor’s office as legislative director in 2019.

    [ad_2]

    Jon Murray

    Source link

  • Colorado legislature: Same-sex marriage amendment to go to voters; Senate passes oil and gas measures

    Colorado legislature: Same-sex marriage amendment to go to voters; Senate passes oil and gas measures

    [ad_1]

    The Colorado legislature convened Saturday for a final weekend of work in its 2024 session, which is set to end Wednesday. Major pieces of legislation are still pending, with lawmakers expected to debate gun regulations, housing, land-use policy, transportation, property tax reform and other priorities in the final days.

    This story will be updated throughout the day.

    Updated at 1:30 p.m.: A proposed Constitutional amendment to remove defunct language banning same-sex marriage will go to voters this November after a referred measure passed the Colorado House on Saturday.

    The proposed amendment would remove a ban approved by voters in 2006. It has been unenforceable since 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide with its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. A majority of voters will need to approve the proposal this November for it to take effect.

    Senate Concurrent Resolution 3 needed at least two-thirds support in each chamber to pass. It passed with bipartisan support in the Senate but near party lines in the House, where Democrats hold a supermajority.

    The Senate formally passed Saturday a bill to limit minimum parking requirements near transit areas. House Bill 1304 was substantially amended from its more expansive introduced version to overcome filibuster threats from Democrats and Republicans. The House and Senate will need to agree on changes before it goes to the governor’s desk. It is one of the suite of bills aimed at increasing density and public transit working its way through the legislature. Advocates argue this bill will remove costly parking spots and increase affordable housing construction.

    The Senate also formally passed a pair of bills to reduce emissions from oil and gas production and levy a per-barrel fee to pay for transit and wildlife habitat. The bills were introduced this week, with the aim of easing simmering tensions between environmental groups, legislators and the industry and dueling legislation and ballot initiatives affecting the industry. They will now go to the House for consideration. The proposals will need to pass by Wednesday, when the legislature will adjourn.

    [ad_2]

    Nick Coltrain

    Source link

  • Income Tax Deadline Fast Facts | CNN

    Income Tax Deadline Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the annual income tax filing deadline in the United States. April 15, 2024, is the deadline to file 2023 income tax returns.

    In fiscal year 2022, the IRS amassed more than $4.9 trillion in gross tax collections.

    (Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, FY 2023)
    Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, marketplace subsidies 24%
    Social Security 21%
    National Defense 13%
    Economic security programs 8%
    Benefits for veterans & federal retirees 8%
    Interest on debt 10%
    Education 4%
    Transportation 2%
    Natural resources and agricultrue 1%
    Science and medical research 1%
    Law enforcement 1%
    International 1%
    All other 4%

    1862 – During the Civil War, the IRS is born when President Abraham Lincoln and Congress create the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enact an income tax to pay war expenses. The first income tax levies 3% on incomes between $600 and $10,000 and 5% on anything over $10,000. This income tax lasts until 1872.

    1895 – The Supreme Court rules in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. that taxing incomes uniformly throughout the United States is unconstitutional.

    1913 – The 16th Amendment is ratified by the states, giving Congress the authority to enact an income tax. Congress also introduces the first 1040 form and levies a 1% tax on personal incomes over $3,000 with 6% surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.

    1954 – The tax filing deadline is moved from March 15 to April 15, to give taxpayers more time to prepare their returns.

    January 3, 1996 – Congress enacts the Taxpayer Bill of Rights to ensure relief from overzealous collection efforts on the part of IRS personnel.

    March 20, 2020 – Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin tweets that tax day is moving from April 15 to July 15 due to the coronavirus pandemic.

    March 17, 2021 – The IRS announces the filing deadline has been moved from April 15 to May 17, to allow filers more time to navigate tax situations complicated by the coronavirus pandemic.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Do you use PayPal or Venmo? The IRS is giving you a break.

    Do you use PayPal or Venmo? The IRS is giving you a break.

    [ad_1]

    The IRS is giving a break to People who received more than $600 via Venmo, PayPal or other payment apps this year.

    The agency on Tuesday said it is again delaying the implementation of a 2021 law that requires payment platforms such as Venmo, Paypal or Cash App to send tax forms called 1099-Ks to anyone who received more than $600 in the current tax year. 

    It’s the second consecutive year the IRS has delayed enacting the new regulation, after the tax agency last year pushed off the new law until 2023. On Tuesday, the agency said it will push the regulation back another year “to reduce taxpayer confusion” after hearing from taxpayers, tax professionals and payment processors.

    Without that delay, an estimated 44 million 1099-K forms would have been sent to millions of taxpayers for the current tax year, even though they may not have owed taxes on the payments and wouldn’t have been expecting such a form, the IRS said. 

    Instead, the IRS will rely on a preexisting threshold — more than 200 transactions that exceed $20,000 in income — for sending 1099-Ks in early 2024 for completing the current tax year’s returns.

    The rule change is likely to impact “a significant portion of taxpayers” given that it would have affected anyone receiving more than $600 via a payment app this year, noted Eric Bronnenkant, a CPA and head of tax at Betterment, in an email. 

    Still, he noted that despite this change all taxable income must still be reported to the IRS. “[T]here need to be guideposts in place so taxpayers can navigate what should/shouldn’t be reported,” he said.

    Reporting threshold raised to $5,000 next year

    In a key revision to the law, the IRS said that starting in tax year 2024 it will transition toward the new rule by increasing the reporting threshold from $600 to $5,000. That means people who receive more than $5,000 in payments via PayPal and other apps in 2024 would receive the 1099-K tax form in early 2025 to complete their 2024 tax returns.

    For the 2025 tax year, the threshold would step down to $600, unless the IRS makes additional changes. 

    “The IRS’s decision to delay implementation of the new Form 1099-K reporting requirements is good news for taxpayers, tax professionals and payment processors,” said Erin Collins, the National Taxpayer Advocate, an arm of the IRS focused on the interests of taxpayers. 

    She added, “Equally important is the IRS’s announcement today that it will adopt a phased-in approach and only require reporting of transactions totaling more than $5,000 next year. Taxpayers and tax professionals need certainty and clarity about what is expected of them.”

    Some Republican lawmakers said the IRS’ second consecutive delay is a sign that the $600 rule has generated confusion and is “unworkable.”

    “Given that even Democrats now admit that this law is unworkable and are trying to rewrite a key provision, it’s time to scrap it and start over,” said Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.

    A provision in 2021 American Rescue Plan requires users to report transactions through payment apps including Venmo, Cash App and others for goods and services meeting or exceeding $600 in a calendar year. Before the ARP provision — and now for this year — the reporting requirement applied only to the sale of goods and services to taxpayers who receive over $20,000 and have over 200 transactions.

    Pushback from online sellers

    The rule had sparked significant pushback from online selling platforms such as eBay and Etsy, with some of the companies arguing that the reporting requirement would create confusion and difficulties for sellers who rely on these platforms to make a living. 

    At the same time, Republican lawmakers had decried the plan as government overreach and argued that it could hurt people who rely on payment apps to reimburse friends and family members. 


    IRS announces new tax brackets for 2024

    00:26

    IRS officials said one reason for the delay is taxpayer confusion over what sorts of transaction are reportable under the new law. For instance, transactions between friends and families, like selling a couch or car or repaying a friend for pizza, would not be reportable. Likewise, selling used items such as clothing or furniture for a loss through a service like eBay could also generate a 1099-K, even though those sales would create no tax liability. 

    Yet other sales could be taxable, such as a small business that is selling goods or services for a profit. 

    “Taking this phased-in approach is the right thing to do for the purposes of tax administration, and it prevents unnecessary confusion,” IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said in a statement. “It’s clear that an additional delay for tax year 2023 will avoid problems for taxpayers, tax professionals and others in this area.”

    —With reporting by the Associated Press.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Biden makes false and misleading claims in economic speech | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Biden makes false and misleading claims in economic speech | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden delivered a Thursday speech to hail economic progress during his administration and to attack congressional Republicans for their proposals on the economy and the social safety net.

    Some of Biden’s claims in the speech were false, misleading or lacking critical context, though others were correct. Here’s a breakdown of the 14 claims CNN fact-checked.

    Touting the bipartisan infrastructure law he signed in 2021, Biden said, “Last year, we funded 700,000 major construction projects – 700,000 all across America. From highways to airports to bridges to tunnels to broadband.”

    Facts First: Biden’s “700,000” figure is wildly inaccurate; it adds an extra two zeros to the correct figure Biden used in a speech last week and the White House has also used before: 7,000 projects. The White House acknowledged his misstatement later on Thursday by correcting the official transcript to say 7,000 rather than 700,000.

    Biden said, “Well, here’s the deal: I put a – we put a cap, and it’s now in effect – now in effect, as of January 1 – of $2,000 a year on prescription drug costs for seniors.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claims that this cap is now in effect and that it came into effect on January 1 are false. The $2,000 annual cap contained in the Inflation Reduction Act that Biden signed last year – on Medicare Part D enrollees’ out-of-pocket spending on covered prescription drugs – takes effect in 2025. The maximum may be higher than $2,000 in subsequent years, since it is tied to Medicare Part D’s per capita costs.

    Asked for comment, a White House official noted that other Inflation Reduction Act health care provisions that will save Americans money did indeed come into effect on January 1, 2023.

    – CNN’s Tami Luhby contributed to this item.

    Criticizing former President Donald Trump over his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, Biden said, “Back then, only 3.5 million people had been – even had their first vaccination, because the other guy and the other team didn’t think it mattered a whole lot.”

    Facts First: Biden is free to criticize Trump’s vaccine rollout, but his “only 3.5 million” figure is misleading at best. As of the day Trump left office in January 2021, about 19 million people had received a first shot of a Covid-19 vaccine, according to figures published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The “3.5 million” figure Biden cited is, in reality, the number of people at the time who had received two shots to complete their primary vaccination series.

    Someone could perhaps try to argue that completing a primary series is what Biden meant by “had their first vaccination” – but he used a different term, “fully vaccinated,” to refer to the roughly 230 million people in that very same group today. His contrasting language made it sound like there are 230 million people with at least two shots today versus 3.5 million people with just one shot when he took office. That isn’t true.

    Biden said Republicans want to cut taxes for billionaires, “who pay virtually only 3% of their income now – 3%, they pay.”

    Facts First: Biden’s “3%” claim is incorrect. For the second time in less than a week, Biden inaccurately described a 2021 finding from economists in his administration that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families paid an average of 8.2% of their income in federal individual income taxes between 2010 and 2018; after CNN inquired about Biden’s “3%” claim on Thursday, the White House published a corrected official transcript that uses “8%” instead. Also, it’s important to note that even that 8% number is contested, since it is an alternative calculation that includes unrealized capital gains that are not treated as taxable income under federal law.

    “Biden’s numbers are way too low,” said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute think tank, though Gleckman also said we don’t know precisely what tax rates billionaires do pay. Gleckman wrote in an email: “In 2019, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabe Zucman estimated the top 400 households paid an average effective tax rate of about 23 percent in 2018. They got a lot of attention at the time because that rate was lower than the average rate of 24 percent for the bottom half of the income distribution. But it still was way more than 2 or 3, or even 8 percent.”

    Biden has cited the 8% statistic in various other speeches, but unlike the administration economists who came up with it, he tends not to explain that it doesn’t describe tax rates in a conventional way. And regardless, he said “3%” in this speech and “2%” in a speech last week.

    Biden cited a 2021 report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy think tank that found that 55 of the country’s largest corporations had made $40 billion in profit in their previous fiscal year but not paid any federal corporate income taxes. Before touting the 15% alternative corporate minimum tax he signed into law in last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, Biden said, “The days are over when corporations are paying zero in federal taxes.”

    Facts First: Biden exaggerated. The new minimum tax will reduce the number of companies that don’t pay any federal taxes, but it’s not true that the days of companies paying zero are “over.” That’s because the minimum tax, on the “book income” companies report to investors, only applies to companies with at least $1 billion in average annual income. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, only 14 of the companies on its 2021 list of 55 non-payers reported having US pre-tax income of at least $1 billion.

    In other words, there will clearly still be some large and profitable corporations paying no federal income tax even after the minimum tax takes effect this year. The exact number is not yet known.

    Matthew Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, told CNN in the fall that the new tax is “an important step forward from the status quo” and that it will raise substantial revenue, but he also said: “I wouldn’t want to assert that the minimum tax will end the phenomenon of zero-tax profitable corporations. A more accurate phrasing would be to say that the minimum tax will *help* ensure that *the most profitable* corporations pay at least some federal income tax.”

    There are lots of nuances to the tax; you can read more specifics here. Asked for comment on Thursday, a White House official told CNN: “The Inflation Reduction Act ensures the wealthiest corporations pay a 15% minimum tax, precisely the corporations the President focused on during the campaign and in office. The President’s full Made in America tax plan would ensure all corporations pay a 15% minimum tax, and the President has called on Congress to pass that plan.”

    Noting the big increase in the federal debt under Trump, Biden said that his administration has taken a “different path” and boasted: “As a result, the last two years – my administration – we cut the deficit by $1.7 trillion, the largest reduction in debt in American history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s boast leaves out important context. It is true that the federal deficit fell by a total of $1.7 trillion under Biden in the 2021 and 2022 fiscal years, including a record $1.4 trillion drop in 2022 – but it is highly questionable how much credit Biden deserves for this reduction. Biden did not mention that the primary reason the deficit fell so substantially was that it had skyrocketed to a record high under Trump in 2020 because of bipartisan emergency pandemic relief spending, then fell as expected as the spending expired as planned. Independent analysts say Biden’s own actions, including his laws and executive orders, have had the overall effect of adding to current and projected future deficits, not reducing those deficits.

    Dan White, senior director of economic research at Moody’s Analytics – an economics firm whose assessments Biden has repeatedly cited during his presidency – told CNN’s Matt Egan in October: “On net, the policies of the administration have increased the deficit, not reduced it.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group, wrote in September that Biden’s actions will add more than $4.8 trillion to deficits from 2021 through 2031, or $2.5 trillion if you don’t count the American Rescue Plan pandemic relief bill of 2021.

    National Economic Council director Brian Deese wrote on the White House website last week that the American Rescue Plan pandemic relief bill “facilitated a strong economic recovery and enabled the responsible wind-down of emergency spending programs,” thereby reducing the deficit; David Kelly, chief global strategist at J.P. Morgan Funds, told Egan in October that the Biden administration does deserve credit for the recovery that has pushed the deficit downward. And Deese correctly noted that Biden’s signature legislation, last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, is expected to bring down deficits by more than $200 billion over the next decade.

    Still, the deficit-reducing impact of that one bill is expected to be swamped by the deficit-increasing impact of various additional bills and policies Biden has approved.

    Biden said, “Wages are up, and they’re growing faster than inflation. Over the past six months, inflation has gone down every month and, God willing, will continue to do that.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim that wages are up and growing faster than inflation is true if you start the calculation seven months ago; “real” wages, which take inflation into account, started rising in mid-2022 as inflation slowed. (Biden is right that inflation has declined, on an annual basis, every month for the last six months.) However, real wages are lower today than they were both a full year ago and at the beginning of Biden’s presidency in January 2021. That’s because inflation was so high in 2021 and the beginning of 2022.

    There are various ways to measure real wages. Real average hourly earnings declined 1.7% between December 2021 and December 2022, while real average weekly earnings (which factors in the number of hours people worked) declined 3.1% over that period.

    Biden said he was disappointed that the first bill passed by the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives “added $114 billion to the deficit.”

    Facts First: Biden is correct about how the bill would affect the deficit if it became law. He accurately cited an estimate from the government’s nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    The bill would eliminate more than $71 billion of the $80 billion in additional funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that Biden signed into law in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Congressional Budget Office found that taking away this funding – some of which the Biden administration said will go toward increased audits of high-income individuals and large corporations – would result in a loss of nearly $186 billion in government revenue between 2023 and 2032, for a net increase to the deficit of about $114 billion.

    The Republican bill has no chance of becoming law under Biden, who has vowed to veto it in the highly unlikely event it got through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

    Biden said that “MAGA Republicans” in the House “want to impose a 30 percent national sales tax on everything from food, clothing, school supplies, housing, cars – a whole deal.” He said they want to do that because “they want to eliminate the income tax system.”

    Facts First: This is a fair description of the Republicans’ “FairTax” bill. The bill would eliminate federal income taxes, plus the payroll tax, capital gains tax and estate tax, and replace it with a national sales tax. The bill describes a rate of 23% on the “gross payments” on a product or service, but when the tax rate is described in the way consumers are used to sales taxes being described, it’s actually right around 30%, as a pro-FairTax website acknowledges.

    It is not clear how much support the bill currently has among the House Republican caucus. Notably, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told CNN’s Manu Raju this week that he opposes the bill – though, while seeking right-wing votes for his bid for speaker in early January, he promised its supporters that it would be considered in committee. Biden wryly said in his speech, “The Republican speaker says he’s not so sure he’s for it.”

    Biden claimed the unemployment rate “is the lowest it’s been in 50 years.”

    Facts First: This is true. The unemployment rate was just below 3.5% in December, the lowest figure since 1969.

    The headline monthly rate, which is rounded to a single decimal place, was reported as 3.5% in December and also reported as 3.5% in three months of President Donald Trump’s tenure, in late 2019 and in early 2020. But if you look at more precise figures, December was indeed the lowest since 1969 – 3.47% – just below the figures for February 2020, January 2020 and September 2019.

    Biden said that the unemployment rates for Black and Hispanic Americans are “near record lows” and that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is “the lowest ever recorded” and the “lowest ever in history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claims are accurate, though it’s worth noting that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities has only been released by the government since 2008.

    The Black or African American unemployment rate was 5.7% in December, not far from the record low of 5.3% that was set in August 2019. (This data series goes back to 1972.) The rate was 9.2% in January 2021, the month Biden became president. The Hispanic or Latino unemployment rate was 4.1% in December, just above the record low of 4.0% that was set in September 2019. (This data series goes back to 1973.) The rate was 8.5% in January 2021.

    The unemployment rate for people with disabilities was 5.0% in December, the lowest since the beginning of the data series in 2008. The rate was 12.0% in January 2021.

    Biden said that fewer families are facing foreclosure than before the pandemic.

    Facts First: Biden is correct. According to a report published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, about 28,500 people had new foreclosure notations on their credit reports in the third quarter of 2022, the most recent quarter for which data is available; that was down from about 71,420 people with new foreclosure notations in the fourth quarter of 2019 and 74,860 people in the first quarter of 2020.

    Foreclosures plummeted in the second quarter of 2020 because of government moratoriums put in place because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Foreclosures spiked in 2022, relative to 2020-2021 levels, after the expiry of these moratoriums, but they remained very low by historical standards.

    Biden said, “More American families have health insurance today than any time in American history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim is accurate. An analysis provided to CNN by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies US health care, found that about 295 million US residents had health insurance in 2021, the highest on record – and Jennifer Tolbert, the foundation’s director for state health reform, told CNN this week that “I expect the number of people with insurance continued to increase in 2022.”

    Tolbert noted that the number of insured residents generally rises over time because of population growth, but she added that “it is not a given” that there will be an increase in the number of insured residents every year – the number declined slightly under Trump from 2018 to 2019, for example – and that “policy changes as well as economic factors also affect these numbers.”

    As CNN’s Tami Luhby has reported, sign-ups on the federal insurance exchange created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, have spiked nearly 50% under Biden. Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan pandemic relief law and then the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act temporarily boosted federal premium subsidies for exchange enrollees, and the Biden administration has also taken various other steps to get people to sign up on the exchanges. In addition, enrollment in Medicaid health insurance has increased significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic, in part because of a bipartisan 2020 law that temporarily prevented people from being disenrolled from the program.

    The percentage of residents without health insurance fell to an all-time low of 8.0% in the first quarter of 2022, according to an analysis published last summer by the federal government’s Department of Health and Human Services. That meant there were 26.4 million people without health insurance, down from 48.3 million in 2010, the year Obamacare was signed into law.

    Biden said, “And over the last two years, more than 10 million people have applied to start a small business. That’s more than any two years in all of recorded American history.”

    Facts First: This is true. There were about 5.4 million business applications in 2021, the highest since 2005 (the first year for which the federal government released this data for a full year), and about 5.1 million business applications in 2022. Not every application turns into a real business, but the number of “high-propensity” business applications – those deemed to have a high likelihood of turning into a business with a payroll – also hit a record in 2021 and saw its second-highest total in 2022.

    Trump’s last full year in office, 2020, also set a then-record for total and high-propensity applications. There are various reasons for the pandemic-era boom in entrepreneurship, which began after millions of Americans lost their jobs in early 2020. Among them: some newly unemployed workers seized the moment to start their own enterprises; Americans had extra money from stimulus bills signed by Trump and Biden; interest rates were particularly low until a series of rate hikes that began in the spring of 2022.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A group of Republicans are pushing a so-called Fair Tax Act – here’s how it works

    A group of Republicans are pushing a so-called Fair Tax Act – here’s how it works

    [ad_1]

    A group of House Republicans are pushing to eliminate most federal taxes and replace them with a federal sales tax in a plan that would also abolish the Internal Revenue Service. But tax experts warn the so-called Fair Tax Act is not so fair to working families while giving the wealthiest Americans a break. 

    The bill, HR25, would eliminate all individual and corporate income taxes, capital gains, payroll taxes and estate taxes while imposing a 23% sales tax on goods and services. However, tax experts point out that the way the tax is calculated, Americans would pay closer to 30% more for everyday purchases.

    John Buhl, a researcher at the Tax Policy Center, said this would hit the middle class the hardest. Currently, there are deductions, both standard and itemized deductions, that help offset the income tax, but those would be eliminated.

    “Those people will see tax increases and they could be quite sizable,” Buhl said of the middle three income quintiles under the plan.

    While the bill would likely lead to a hike for middle-income Americans, it does include a monthly “prebate” for families depending on size and income, so lower-income families would likely not feel as big an impact  — but the greatest benefits would go to those with the highest incomes.

    “The wealthiest of the wealthy would actually see the biggest tax cuts from this switch,” Buhl said. 

    Like middle-income Americans, older Americans would likely also face a greater tax burden if moved to a regressive tax system, tax experts said. The move would shift when many retirees pay taxes from when they are currently taken — upon withdrawal from retirement accounts — to purchases. Current rates are typically less than 30%, so the change in how much they pay in taxes would depend on consumption, but it could add up. For people with Roth IRA retirement accounts, there is also a threat of their money being taxed twice — since people paid taxes on the money when it was earned, and will pay again when it is spent. Students could also face a greater tax burden as they are charged at a higher rate when they buy something rather than on how much they make

    The Fair Tax Act was introduced earlier this month by Rep. Buddy Carter of Georgia along with a group of conservative Republican co-sponsors, who claim the bill would simplify the tax code and make it more fair. 

    According to Garrett Watson of the Tax Foundation, the shift might be a simplification for an individual taxpayer because it removes having to deal with income taxation rules, but would make it more complicated for businesses.

    “Some of this is just shifting where the complexity is dealt with,” Watson said.

    Similar proposals have been regularly introduced by a group of Republicans since 1999, but have never been given a floor vote. Some conservative Republicans have been pressuring House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to change that, given the slim GOP majority in the House.

    Republicans have also been fighting to reverse billions of dollars in new funding for IRS enforcement included in the Inflation Reduction Act. But the Fair Tax Act would abolish the IRS altogether, instead outsourcing the work to states, which would be responsible for collecting the national sales taxes for the Treasury.

    With the collections being transferred to states, the Fair Tax Act allows for states to keep .25% of what they collect to pay for administrative costs. The Tax Policy Center estimates this would wipe out any savings the federal government gets from the elimination of the IRS budget. 

    Congress is facing a looming battle over the debt ceiling as Republican lawmakers call for the U.S. to rein in spending. But tax experts believe a move to a national 30% sales tax could deepen the deficit. 

    As Garrett pointed out, the proposed rate was determined years ago, and so it is outdated. Some analyses over the years suggest it would take closer to a 40% sales tax for such a plan to break even. The proposal is currently broad in what goods and services Americans would pay taxes on, so any exemptions would put a further dent in collections.

    Democrats Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries lambasted the Republican proposal Wednesday, claiming it would further burden families who are already being crushed by soaring inflation. Schumer said the proposal would be dead on arrival in the Senate.

    “I love their 30% sales tax,” President Joe Biden said sarcastically on Tuesday – also taking a crack at the Fair Tax Act during a meeting with congressional Democrats at the White House. “We want to talk a lot about that.”

    In a recent op-ed, the Wall Street Journal editorial board also lampooned the effort – calling the Fair Tax Act a “gift to Democratic campaigns to retake the House.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House GOP keeps up attacks on IRS with bill to abolish the agency | CNN Politics

    House GOP keeps up attacks on IRS with bill to abolish the agency | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Republican-controlled House has made the Internal Revenue Service a political target after Democrats bolstered the agency with new funding last year.

    Within the first week of the new Congress, a dozen GOP lawmakers introduced a bill that would abolish the IRS altogether and replace the entire federal tax code with a national sales tax.

    Separately, the House voted to rescind nearly $80 billion in funding for the agency that Democrats approved last year – with many top Republicans repeating the misleading claim that the money will be used to hire 87,000 auditors.

    “Instead of adding 87,000 new agents to weaponize the IRS against small business owners and middle America, this bill will eliminate the need for the department entirely by simplifying the tax code with provisions that work for the American people and encourage growth and innovation,” said Rep. Earl “Buddy” Carter, a Republican from Georgia who introduced the Fair Tax Act earlier this month.

    It’s highly unlikely that either bill will become law, given that Democrats still control the Senate. But the measures highlight how America’s two major political parties have very different strategies when it comes to addressing the embattled tax collection agency – which has seen its budget shrink by more than 15% over the past decade and has struggled to not only process returns on time but also answer taxpayers’ questions. Just 13% of phone calls were answered last year.

    Democrats have taken a different approach, making funding the IRS a priority. The Inflation Reduction Act, which passed along party lines last year, approved $80 billion for the IRS over 10 years. By using the money to crack down on tax cheats, it’s estimated that the agency could boost federal revenue by more than $124 billion over that time period.

    The Republicans’ Fair Tax Act is not a new idea. A version was first introduced in Congress in 1999. It’s never had enough support to become law, but it puts forth an appealing message to those Americans who love to hate the federal tax agency.

    It would get rid of the complicated federal tax system, doing away with the annual task of filing tax returns. Instead, the bill would replace federal taxes on individual and corporate income with a national 23% sales tax in 2025, allowing for adjustments to the rate in later years. Americans would pay Uncle Sam whenever they bought a new good or service for personal consumption.

    The bill calls for abolishing the IRS and directing states to collect the new federal tax.

    While every consumer would pay the same tax at the cash register, the bill provides for a monthly tax rebate payment, based on the poverty rate and family size. It’s meant to help offset the tax levy on low-income Americans who tend to spend a higher share of their paycheck on goods and services.

    A national sales tax appears very simple: one rate all Americans pay on new goods and services they buy.

    But some policy experts say the Fair Tax Act is more complicated than it looks.

    “Moving away from taxing income and toward taxing consumption is a step in the right direction for a pro-growth and simpler tax code,” said Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit.

    But there could still be complications. First, the tax rate would likely have to be higher than 23% in order for the federal government to pull in the same amount of tax revenue that it does now. One estimate found that a tax rate of about 30% would more likely be able to generate the same amount of revenue – or 44%, if measured the way state sales taxes are typically presented.

    Second, a nationwide sales tax could leave low- and middle-income people worse off. The current tax system is progressive, meaning it takes a larger percentage of income from high-earners than low-income groups. Even with the monthly tax rebate, a national sales tax would still be less progressive.

    A 2011 independent analysis of a similar national sales tax found that, on average, most income groups would pay more tax than they did under the federal tax system at the time – except the top 5% of earners who would see a tax cut.

    Additionally, it’s hard to imagine that lawmakers would pass a bill that does not exclude some things from the sales tax, like health care costs, for example.

    “The basic income tax is simple too,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

    It’s the deductions, credits and exclusions – like for retirement savings and charitable giving – that make it complicated.

    Plus, Americans would likely have to file some paperwork to some tax collection entity in order to receive the rebate, Gleckman said. The administration cost may be less than it is now, but it wouldn’t be zero.

    Tax filing season opens Monday and National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins expects IRS services for taxpayers to improve this year – in part due to the funding increase provided by Congress.

    Since the Inflation Reduction Act was passed in August, the IRS has hired 5,000 new customer service agents. The agency has also worked to improve its technology so that taxpayers can ask questions via an automated service online, said Treasury Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo on a call with reporters last week.

    The IRS started the year with about 400,000 unprocessed paper individual returns and about 1 million unprocessed business returns. But it’s in much better shape than the prior year, when it had a backlog of 4.7 million unprocessed individual returns and 3.2 million unprocessed business returns, according to the taxpayer advocate’s annual report to Congress.

    Taxpayer service, like answering the phones and processing returns in a timely manner, has suffered as the IRS’ budget has shrunk.

    The Covid-19 pandemic brought even more challenges for the IRS. It was tasked with administering several rounds of stimulus payments to millions of Americans with a lot of its staff working from home. This caused long delays for many taxpayers who filed a paper return. The IRS is starting to implement a scanning system so that returns filed by paper can quickly be made digital. Previously, paper returns had to be entered manually into the agency’s computer system.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here’s how the House GOP majority will try to curb federal spending and taxes | CNN Politics

    Here’s how the House GOP majority will try to curb federal spending and taxes | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In adopting their rules package Monday, the new House Republican majority has made it clear that they want to rein in federal government spending and keep a lid on taxes.

    The package, which governs how the chamber will operate for the next two years, lays out several measures aimed at making it harder to hike spending and to increase taxes to pay for it. Some of the provisions have been in effect previously when the GOP has controlled the House.

    The measures, several of which raised concerns even among cost-conscious Republican lawmakers, are sure to lead to battles later this year with the Democratic-led Senate and President Joe Biden that could have severe consequences for the nation.

    If the two parties can’t work out an agreement to fund the government for fiscal year 2024, which starts October 1, it could result in a shutdown. And if a war over spending cuts prevents Congress from raising the $31 trillion debt limit this summer or fall, it would risk a default on US debt that would roil the national and global economies.

    “I’m worried about the types of fiscal goals that they’re setting, that they’re not going to be achievable, and they’re setting themselves up for failure,” said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “I’m also worried that instead of both parties negotiating in good faith, we’ll be stuck in one of these dangerous standoffs.”

    The package swaps the pay-as-you-go rule for a cut-as-you-go requirement, as existed the last time the GOP ran the House.

    The former mandates that any new spending or tax cuts have to be paid for by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere. But the latter requires only new spending be paid for, making it easier to cut taxes, said Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

    Another provision would restore the requirement that tax rate increases be approved by a 60% supermajority vote, making such efforts harder to pass and limiting lawmakers’ options to reduce the deficit or raise spending.

    Plus, the package makes it harder for House members to game the system by proposing legislation that would not raise spending in the first decade, the typical time frame Congress considers, but would in subsequent years. It does so by establishing a point of order, or an objection, against consideration of such a bill.

    What may prompt even more chaos on Capitol Hill are the side deals that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy made with conservative members of his party last week to secure their support for his leadership. The details of those agreements have yet to be made public, which has annoyed more than a few GOP lawmakers.

    McCarthy signed off on a pledge that the Republican-led House would pair any debt ceiling increase to spending cuts, which would add even more complexity to what’s expected to be difficult negotiations within the GOP and between the two parties.

    What’s more, McCarthy agreed to approve a fiscal year 2024 budget capping discretionary spending at fiscal year 2022 levels. That would require cutting all domestic discretionary spending by roughly 25% in inflation-adjusted dollars if defense funding is protected, Akabas said.

    Just how wed to these measures conservative Republicans are will determine the depth of the dysfunction in Congress this year. McCarthy’s slim majority in the House means he needs the support of nearly everyone in the party to pass any legislation.

    “It has yet to be seen whether these are immovable policy positions or policy preferences that are the starting point for negotiations,” Akabas said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump tax returns to be released by House panel on Friday | CNN Politics

    Trump tax returns to be released by House panel on Friday | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The House Ways and Means Committee will release former President Donald Trump’s tax returns Friday morning, a source familiar confirmed to CNN.

    The returns will be placed into the congressional record on Friday morning during a House pro forma session. That pro forma session will occur around 9 a.m. ET on Friday. There will also be a formal announcement Friday from the committee.

    The highly anticipated release comes after the panel last week asserted that the IRS failed to properly audit the former president’s taxes while he was in office.

    The committee released a report that detailed six years’ worth of the former president’s tax returns, including his claims of massive annual losses that significantly reduced his tax burden.

    Chairman Richard Neal and fellow Democrats have said that the records they obtained showed that the presidential audit program failed to work as intended. Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat, charged that the complete required audit of Trump’s taxes “did not occur,” as his returns were only subjected to the mandatory audit once, in 2019, after Democrats inquired.

    The committee also released a supplemental report from the Joint Committee on Taxation that included details on Trump’s tax returns from 2015 to 2020, ahead of the planned release of the returns themselves.

    The release of Trump’s tax returns marks the conclusion of a nearly four-year legal battle House Democrats waged against the former president after they took control of the House in 2019.

    The audit program was important to Democrats because it was the justification they used to obtain the returns in the first place – but the Democratic pursuit was also tied in part to long-held suspicions about Trump’s taxes after he bucked the norm and refused to release his returns as a candidate and while in office.

    This story is breaking and has been updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss backpedals on tax cuts amid recession fears

    U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss backpedals on tax cuts amid recession fears

    [ad_1]

    U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss backpedals on tax cuts amid recession fears – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Experts say public confidence in United Kingdom Prime Minister Liz Truss is steadily falling after she reversed course on her proposed tax reforms. Ian Lee has the latest.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fixing Social Security involves hard choices | CNN Politics

    Fixing Social Security involves hard choices | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    There’s a reason why politicians have long shied away from addressing Social Security’s massive financial problems. The commonly proposed solutions involve cutting benefits or raising taxes, which would spark an outcry from a range of powerful constituents, including senior citizens and the business community.

    The situation, however, is only growing more critical. The combined Social Security trust funds are projected to run dry in 2034, according to the latest annual report from the entitlement program’s trustees that was released last week. At that time, the funds’ reserves will be depleted, and the program’s continuing income will only cover 80% of benefits owed.

    The estimate is one year earlier than the trustees projected last year.

    About 66 million Americans received Social Security benefits in 2022. It’s a vital lifeline for many of them. Some 42% of elderly women and 37% of elderly men rely on the monthly payments for at least half their income, according to the Social Security Administration.

    Though congressional Republicans’ drive to cut spending amid debt ceiling negotiations this year has prompted renewed interest in the entitlement’s finances, little is likely to happen, experts say. The insolvency date is still too far in the future.

    The last time Congress enacted a major overhaul, in 1983, Social Security was only months away from being able to pay full benefits. At that time, Democratic lawmakers who controlled the House agreed with Senate Republicans and then-GOP President Ronald Reagan to increase payroll taxes and gradually raise the full retirement age from 65 to 67, among other reforms.

    While President Joe Biden has promised to strengthen Social Security and defend it from any cuts by Republicans, he has yet to lay out a concrete vision for protecting the program. It was not included in his annual budget proposal this year, though he did suggest a financial fix for Medicare, which is facing its own solvency issues.

    Asked about the president’s plan, the White House said that the budget “clearly states his principles for strengthening Social Security.”

    “He looks forward to working with Congress to responsibly strengthen Social Security by ensuring that high-income individuals pay their fair share, without increasing taxes on anyone making less than $400,000,” said Robyn Patterson, assistant press secretary at the White House.

    A multitude of proposals have been floated over the years to address Social Security’s shortfall, many of which have multiple measures.

    Several options focus on saving the entitlement program money, though left-leaning advocates and senior citizen groups are quick to point out that these moves are actually benefit cuts that they would strenuously oppose.

    One common proposal is raising the retirement age. Currently, Americans can start collecting Social Security benefits at 62, though doing so would reduce their lifetime payments by as much as 30%.

    The full retirement age, which had been 65 for much of the program’s existence, is slowly rising to 67 for Americans born in 1960 or later.

    Some policymakers advocate for raising the full retirement age to 70 for future retirees, bringing it more in line with changes in life expectancy. That would mean those retiring earlier than that would get smaller monthly checks than under current law.

    Doing so could wipe out about a third of the Social Security trust fund’s 75-year deficit.

    Last year, the conservative Republican Study Committee released a budget plan that called for raising the full retirement age for future retirees at a rate of three months per year until it is increased to 70 for those born in 1978. It would then link the retirement age to future increases in life expectancy, as well as adjust the number of working years included in benefit calculations to 40 years, up from 35 years.

    Other options include reducing benefits for higher-income Americans, which was also included in the Republican Study Committee’s budget plan.

    New retirees’ Social Security benefits are one-third higher today than they were for folks who retired 20 years ago, even after accounting for inflation, according to Andrew Biggs, senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. Plus, the maximum Social Security benefit in the US is two to three times higher than the maximum retirement benefit in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

    Biggs supports placing a cap on the maximum benefit that the highest-earning retirees can receive. The maximum benefit this year is about $43,000 and will rise to $59,000 by 2050, he said. Though such a cap would only solve about 10% to 15% of the long-term solvency gap, Biggs argues it’s one step, and it only affects those who he says don’t depend on the benefits.

    “We’re going way, way beyond a pure safety net program,” Biggs said at a recent webinar hosted by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a government watchdog group. “Here we’re looking at a retirement program for middle income and upper income people.”

    Other suggestions that have been floated include changing the formulas that determine the benefits Americans get upon retirement or the annual cost-of-living adjustment retirees receive to slow the growth of payments.

    The main way to bring more money into the Social Security system is to increase the amount of payroll taxes collected.

    A proposal popular among Democrats and left-leaning experts is to lift the wage cap so that higher-income earners have to shell out more in payroll taxes.

    The Social Security tax rate of 6.2% is levied on both employers and employees, for a total rate of 12.4%. However, in 2023, it’s only applied to annual wages of up to $160,200. (By contrast, Medicare’s 2.9% total payroll tax rate is applied to all wages, and higher-income Americans are subject to an additional 0.9% Medicare tax.)

    When payroll taxes for Social Security were first collected in 1937, about 92% of earnings from jobs covered by the program were subject to the payroll tax, according to the Congressional Budget Office. By 2020, that figure had fallen to about 83% as income inequality has increased.

    Several congressional Democrats have floated proposals to raise the amount of wages subject to the payroll tax. Rep. John Larson of Connecticut wants to apply the payroll tax to wages above $400,000, which he says would extend the program’s solvency by nine years.

    Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, introduced a bill earlier this year that would make multiple changes to Social Security, including subjecting all income above $250,000 to the payroll tax and applying it to investment and business income. They say their reforms would extend the entitlement’s solvency for 75 years.

    But changing the wage cap could also alter the fundamental design of Social Security, in which retirees’ benefits are tied to the amount of taxes they paid into the system while working.

    For instance, the proposal from Sanders and Warren would not credit the additional taxed earnings toward benefits. That would increase the beneficial impact on solvency but would also raise resistance among some advocates who believe the link between taxes and benefits should be maintained.

    Another option is raising the payroll tax rate. Increasing it to a total of 16% would just about assure 75 years of solvency, said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

    Most lawmakers, however, would not find that type of tax hike very palatable, particularly not Republicans who control the House.

    While experts disagree on the best way to address Social Security’s shortfall, one thing they are generally united on is that waiting will only result in having to employ harsher solutions. But that isn’t spurring elected officials to action.

    “Nobody’s acting as if that’s something they’ve got to take seriously,” Biggs said. “So I’ll just be honest and say I’m worried about how this thing plays out.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link