How does this help us get out of the recession? It seems like the rich pay less while the middle class pays more with the reduction of deductions that they use. Oh, and I'm sure Corporarte America will save a lot of $$ from not paying taxes on foreign income. Am I missing something? http://news.yahoo.com/bipartisan-tax-plan-trims-mortgage-deduction-191345875.html ..WASHINGTON (AP) — A new bipartisan plan to reduce government borrowing would target some of the most cherished tax breaks enjoyed by millions of families — those promoting health insurance, home ownership, charitable giving and retirement savings — in exchange for lowering overall tax rates for everyone. Many taxpayers would face higher taxes — a total of at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade, and perhaps more. The details and impact of the plan, released this week by the bipartisan "Gang of Six" senators, emerged as President Barack Obama called congressional leaders to the White House on Wednesday to determine, in separate meetings, their bottom line for extending the nation's debt limit while also cutting spending at the greatest amount possible. The role of additional tax revenue remained a sticking point. With the default deadline of Aug. 2 approaching, the White House signaled for the first time that Obama would be willing to sign off on a short-term extension of the debt limit if a grander deal were in the works and needed only a few days' worth of extra time to wind its way through the legislative process. For its part, the Gang of Six plan punts on many of the most difficult issues, leaving it to congressional committees to fill in the details later. But supporters say it provides a framework to simplify the tax code, making it easier for businesses and individuals to comply while eliminating incentives to game the system. "I think this is an attempt to find a middle ground on taxes that emphasizes keeping rates low and broadening the base as much as possible, and I think that's a very positive aspect of it," said Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury official who worked on the last tax reform package that passed Congress, in 1986. Coupled with spending cuts, the plan would reduce deficits by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade. While Obama and senators from both parties lauded the plan as a possible breakthrough in their negotiations, some congressional leaders said the plan lacks details and could produce much bigger tax increases than advertised. The Republican staff of the House Budget Committee issued a critique saying the revenue increase could exceed $2 trillion over the next decade, when compared with current tax policy. "A tax increase is the wrong policy to pursue with so many Americans out of work," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va. The plan would simplify the tax code by reducing the number of tax brackets from six to three, lowering the top rate from 35 percent to somewhere between 23 percent and 29 percent. That could provide a windfall for wealthy taxpayers because the 35 percent tax bracket currently applies to taxable income above $379,150. To help pay for lower rates, the plan would reduce popular tax breaks for mortgage interest, health insurance, charitable giving and retirement savings. Other tax breaks would be spared, including the $1,000-per-child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, which helps the working poor stay out of poverty. The alternative minimum tax, which was enacted in 1969 to make sure that high-income families pay at least some income tax, would be repealed. The tax was never indexed for inflation, so Congress routinely patches it each year — at an annual cost of about $70 billion — to prevent it from hitting more than 20 million middle-income families. About 35 million households claimed the mortgage interest deduction in 2009, and about 36 million households claimed deductions for charitable contributions, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the congressional scorekeeper on taxes. The Gang of Six plan does not specify how the tax breaks would be trimmed. Democrats have several proposals that would restrict wealthy families' use of the breaks, while preserving them for most low- and middle-income taxpayers. Such a plan would offset rate cuts for high-income families by limiting their ability to take advantage of various tax breaks. For example, current law allows homeowners to deduct the interest they pay on home mortgages of up to $1 million. One proposal would lower the limit to $500,000 and exclude mortgage interest on second homes. Starting in 2018, the new health care law would tax high-priced health insurance plans. There are several proposals to adjust the tax to include more health plans while sparing lower-income families with more modest coverage. The Gang of Six plan is silent about taxes on capital gains and dividends, but tax experts said it would be difficult to generate more than $1 trillion in additional revenue without increasing taxes on investments. The current top rate on capital gains and dividends is 15 percent — well below the top rate for ordinary income. "No matter what they do on the revenue side, by some measure they are going to be taking something away from somebody," Steuerle said. "The whole budget package is about asking a lot of people to give up something they think they have." On the business side, the plan would lower the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to somewhere between 23 percent and 29 percent, all of which would be funded by eliminating unspecified tax breaks for businesses. Under current law, the U.S. taxes overseas profits of American corporations but only after they return those profits to the U.S. The proposal calls for a territorial tax system, which would tax only profits made in the U.S. The proposal could be a huge windfall for U.S.-based multinational corporations, though it would supposedly be financed by eliminating many of the tax breaks those same companies enjoy. Business groups have already been lobbying Congress to keep their tax breaks and to create new ones, an effort that will only intensify if lawmakers dive into the details of overhauling the tax code. "The bookshelves of policy analysts in Washington are loaded with statements of principle on tax reform that all sound good," said William Gale, an adviser to President George H. W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and now co-director of the Tax Policy Center. "And then they all die when you try to specify the details." The Gang of Six senators is made up of Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Mark Warner of Virginia and Dick Durbin of Illinois.
"simplify the tax code" always equals "give the wealthiest more tax breaks." It's like secret code or something.
So they want to eliminate tax loopholes to increase revenues, and then decrease the marginal tax rate in the highest bracket by at least 6%? If the plan is to continue to be in debt, then it will be a rousing success.
We have been bought and sold again. All the tax cuts are specified, all the spending cuts are as yet unspecified. The #1 creator of wealth in this country for the most average people are the housing and housing credit markets so they pull the government rug out from under that.
Another biggie is not taxing corporations on worldwide income. That's one of the basics of the US tax code (we tax you no matter where you make your $$).
someone needs to seriously drill it in their minds that tax increases and spending decreases are two sides of the same ugly coin of economic stagnation.
Actually a tax increase could help the economy if the money is spent wisely. An example I made up. You are over your head in debt so you decided to cut back on expenses. Sounds wise. So you don't go to your last semester of nursing school so you can put the tuition toward your debt.
Obama may gain some political points short term. Regardless of what the Gang of Six does, as Krugman says, if the Repubs sweep the two houses or get the presidency they will soon cut even more taxes for their benefactors which will surpass any spending cuts to balloon the deficit again. With Obama and the moderate Dems not challenging the narrative, why shouldn't the GOP keep playing the winning game?
Excluding mortgage interest on 2nd homes does not sound that radical to me. Middle America (or the middle America we should worry about) does not need two houses. You're welcome to have multiple homes, but policy shouldn't hand you that option on a plate. I'm so stupid (or poor) that I assumed you could only deduct mortgage interest on your primary residence. LOL
Agreed. However, can someone help me with the proposed mortgage limit rule being reduced from 1 mil to 500k? Does this mean if you take out a home loan that is $501k you wouldn't be able to deduct the mortgage interest, but if your loan is $499k you would be able to? Or is there basically a percent calculation done based on how high over 500k your mortgage is (100% if you're under 500k), and you can only deduct that percentage of your interest payments every year. The latter seems most likely.
More like the 2nd case. If you take out the $501k loan, you can't deduct the interest you pay on the last $1k, so no big deal. But if you have a mortgage of $1M, you can't deduct half of your interest payments. And so on. Let me add something though: talking about whether people fret over a $600k or $500k mortgage on their primary residence (particularly if they live in major cities) is kind of criminal when paired with major new tax breaks for companies making money overseas.
you brought it up anyway, yes the overseas profits tax is becoming a huge issue, but as long as money can be kept offshore and not taxed, then there has to be some compromise on this issue
I agree. But when so many people are out of work or underemployed and suffering, really wondering where their next meal is coming from, even people that were at one time among the middle class, I have ZERO sympathy for a 500K homeowner, in any city, who is worried about their taxes going up. I'm getting along just fine and I could never afford a 500K house. There are people who are going to see checks they rely upon for food and medicine cut significantly in any of these plans. If they're being asked to sacrifice, those people who have nothing or next to nothing, the 500K homeowner damn well should too.
I'm going to be with Batman on this, except I'd lower it even further to like $350,000. Then again, I'm in favor of a hybrid tax system that incorporates an income tax and a national sales tax.
Self-righteous steam noted, and I agree with you, to an extent. But I would argue big picture. You can draw your class warfare line very close to your own toes, and you're falling *exactly* into the trap the top 1% will chuckle over. Instead of talking about someone who wants to own their primary dwelling in the city where they work, (and where the median home price is ridiculous by your standards), maybe we should focus on those that will sacrifice absolutely nothing in this plan, as they accumulate even more wealth. <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/woIkIph5xcU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> We're not headed for 1900 (as I have posted far too often, incorrectly.) We're already there.
i had a co-worker in my office complaining that he had to pay, to PAY, $175k in taxes last year. i said, if i had to pay ~3 times in taxes what you made a year and came to you b****ing about it, that means i'm a whiny ****ing b****.
How much money can one person want to acquire?!? Does life really get that much better by increasing your wealth from 50 million to 60 million? 10 billion to 11 billion? How f***ing greedy can one get?