McCain, Obama offer competing tax plans

According to this article on income taxes, Presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barrack Obama are offering competing tax plans:

Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain offer voters a stark if orthodox choice on the economy. Democrat Obama would sharply skew tax cuts and spending toward lower-income people and social programs. Republican McCain would just as sharply tilt policy toward upper-income classes and business investment.

With gas prices, food prices and home foreclosures all headed skyward, the current economic slowdown is tailor-made for a presidential election, hitting middle-class pocketbooks in ways not seen since Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980. The economy has displaced the Iraq war as the central focus of the election.

The economic situation of the government, however, may leave orthodox economic remedies outdated. Intense new budget pressures, from the enormous cost of the Iraq war to escalating health care spending for an aging population, will pitch the next president into choices not nearly as palatable as either candidate's campaign promises imply.

Tax fights promise to engulf the next administration almost immediately. In 2010, President Bush's $3.6 trillion tax cuts expire, meaning the next president will have to propose new tax laws upon taking office in 2009.

As much as Obama blasts the Bush tax cuts, he would expand large portions of them, promising even more tax cuts for middle- and lower-income groups. Taxes would fall most sharply for lower-income groups while rising sharply for top earners, according to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint think tank of the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. Obama's campaign contends that no one earning less than $250,000 a year would see any tax increase.

For those earning more than $250,000, however, taxes could rise to levels not seen in decades. If Obama imposes, as he has suggested, higher Social Security payroll taxes on top income earners, they could see an effective tax rate of more than 55 percent of their income, not counting state income taxes, the Tax Policy Center analysis showed.

McCain goes in the opposite direction.
Seeking to bolster his standing with the Republican right, he moved quickly to embrace the Bush tax cuts that he had voted against, aligning squarely with GOP tax orthodoxy.

He would make the Bush tax cuts permanent, leaving in place all the middle-and lower-income tax cuts Obama wants to expand, but keeping the lower Bush rates on top income earners and the reduction in capital gains and dividends taxes to 15 percent. McCain would also slash the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, and phase out the alternative minimum tax, which hits upper-income groups.

That skews the tax cuts heavily toward business income and high-earning groups. Most people would see little change in their taxes, but the top 0.1 percent of income earners would see taxes fall by more than $190,000, the Tax Center analysis showed.

The plan would reduce revenue by $600 billion over 10 years.

That ignores the government's voracious need for taxes to pay for government health care programs and the Iraq war. McCain's plans to cut spending by eliminating earmarks and "corporate welfare" would not come anywhere near to closing the budget gaps left by his tax cuts.

McCain also supports a continuation of the Iraq war, which last year cost $170 billion.
"I think it's just unrealistic to propose the kinds of things McCain is proposing, because I just think the fiscal pressure is just too great, and I think it's delusional to think you can not only keep all of the Bush tax cuts but expand them," said Bruce Bartlett, a former supply-side advocate and official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. "Anyway, he's not going to be able to do that because he's going to have a Democratic Congress to deal with."

Furor after Italian gov't posts each taxpayer's income online

If you're not glad you're an American, you will be after reading this income-tax-related story from Italy that was all over the news this week:

How do you say privacy in Italian?

We find ourselves asking that question after reading reports that say Italian officials posted the income of every taxpayer on the Internet as part of efforts to increase transparency.

"The tax authority's website was inundated by people curious to know how much their neighbors, celebrities or sports stars were making," BBC News reports. "The Italian treasury suspended the website after a formal complaint from the country's privacy watchdog."

Members of the outgoing government expressed shock that people were upset by the surprise disclosure of individual income data from 2005.

"This is a matter of transparency, of democracy,'' outgoing Deputy Finance Minister Vincenzo Visco tells Bloomberg News. "I don't see any problem. The whole world does this. Just watch any American TV show and you'll see." (We have no idea what he's talking about. Do you?)

By the way, a quick search suggests that the Italian word for privacy is privacy or segretezza.

McCain's 'No new taxes' redux

According to an article on income taxes on dallasnews.com, has made the same promise that George Bush 41 made in 1988: “No new taxes”…

As he received former President George H.W. Bush's endorsement in Houston, John McCain noted that they had two things in common: Both were naval pilots, and both were shot down.
A day earlier, however, the presumptive Republican nominee added a third similarity, when he echoed Mr. Bush's most ill-fated 1988 campaign promise: "No new taxes."

On ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Mr. McCain pledged that under "no" circumstances would he increase taxes. He reiterated his support to make permanent the 2001 Bush tax cuts he once opposed, adding that he'd also like to eliminate the Alternate Minimum Tax.

It's a multibillion-dollar promise that Mr. McCain could rue if he wins the White House – and one more example of how appeals to various groups in primary campaigns can create problems down the road for a winning candidate.

The problem is not confined to the Republicans. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have promised to increase federal programs beyond what they may be able to deliver. Mr. Obama also says he'd withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, making permanent both the Bush tax cuts and the AMT fix would cost the government $3.6 trillion in revenues over the next decade. Repealing the AMT would cost even more.

Upper-income taxpayers would be prime beneficiaries of both moves.

A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed those surveyed evenly split on the economic merit of tax cuts. In an Associated Press/Ipsos poll, respondents put tax cuts below pulling out of Iraq and increasing federal domestic spending when asked what would help fix the economy significantly.

Reciting the tax-cut mantra may help Mr. McCain overcome some GOP doubts about his fealty to conservative principles, but it could cause him grief if he wins.

Rebate checks floated as way to boost economy

According to an article on CNNPolitics.com on income taxes and the economy:

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson ended his third meeting of the day with House leaders Wednesday night with no indication of a deal on a $150 billion economic stimulus package.

But a GOP leader told reporters more public comments could be expected Thursday morning.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio -- who spent an hour and a half with Paulson and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, on Capitol Hill on Wednesday night -- would not say if leaders were close to a deal.

"We're hopeful," he said. "We'll have more to say tomorrow morning."

Pelosi would not answer questions about any announcement of a deal. "We're moving toward that," she said. "We're not at that place yet."

The late-night negotiations are a sign of the urgency of the talks as the United States slogs through an economic slowdown.

While the final details are still being negotiated, officials in both parties said the current outlines of the package would give individuals a tax rebate check in the neighborhood of $800, while families could receive up to $1,600.

The main sticking point in the negotiations is who the rebate checks should target. Bush has said he wants rebates for those who pay income taxes.

But Democrats say such an approach would mean tens of millions of households would get only a partial rebate or none at all -- about 65 million, the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates.

That group includes those whose tax bill is so low that their rebate would be much less than $800 or $1,600, as well as low-income households with no income tax liability because of credits and other tax breaks. It would also include households that do not have to file a tax return.

The current strategy is for Pelosi and Boehner to iron out the details with Paulson as soon as next week and then get the package passed in the House by the first week of February, according to officials in Congress and in the Bush administration. That will then pressure the Senate to pass the same version by mid-February before lawmakers leave town for the Presidents Day recess.

Even if that goal is reached, however, Bush administration officials acknowledge it may take several more weeks before the Treasury Department can actually cut the rebate checks and get them in the mail for consumers -- a task that will be more difficult because the Internal Revenue Service is very busy now dealing with 2007 tax returns.

One senior official noted the president signed a similar 2001 round of tax rebates around Memorial Day, after the IRS's busy season.

"We're working with the IRS right now to figure this out," the official noted.

Supreme Court Limits Trusts' Tax Deductions

The Supreme Court upheld limits Wednesday on income tax deductions for trusts and estates, ruling against the family that created Pepperidge Farm.

The court said trusts ordinarily may not deduct the full cost of investment advice on their income tax returns. Those expenses are deductible only when they exceed 2 percent of adjusted gross income, the same limits faced by individual filers, Chief Justice John Roberts said for a unanimous court.

The case arose over a relatively small tax dispute, $4,448, involving the income tax return filed by the trust established by the will of Henry A. Rudkin, former chairman and founder of the Pepperidge Farm company.

The trust was funded with the proceeds of the sale of Pepperidge Farm to the Campbell Soup Co. The trust had $2.9 million in assets and $625,000 in income in 2000, the year of the disputed return.

The trust reported that it spent $22,241 on investment advice and deducted all of it on its tax return. The Internal Revenue Service said the expenses could be deducted only to the extent they exceeded the 2 percent floor. The discrepancy was $4,448.

The trust sued in U.S. Tax Court, which ruled for the government. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.

The case is Knight v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 06-1286.

Ordinary Income and Capital Gains

According to an article on ordinary income and capital gains taxes, profit you make from your stock investments can be taxed in one of two ways, depending on the type of profit:

• Dividends - When you receive dividends from your stock (either in cash or stock), these dividends get taxed as ordinary income. This is also true if those dividends are in a dividend reinvestment plan. If, however, those dividends occur in a tax-sheltered plan, such as an IRA or 401(k) plan, then they’re exempt from taxes for as long as they’re in the plan. In January, investors receive a 1099-DIV statement from the issuer of the dividends that includes information on the amount of dividends earned the previous year. Check with your tax advisor because the latest tax laws offer tax advantages for dividends.

• Short-term capital gains - If you sell stock for a gain and you’ve owned the stock for just one year or less, the gain is considered ordinary income. If you buy a stock on August 1 and sell it on July 31 of the following year, that’s less than one year. To calculate the time, you use the trade date (or date of execution). This date is the date that you executed the order instead of the settlement date. However, if these gains occur in a tax-sheltered plan, such as a 401(k) or an IRA, no tax is triggered.

Long-term capital gains
Long-term capital gains are usually much better for you as far as taxes are concerned. The tax laws reward patient investors. After you have held the stock for at least a year and a day (what a difference a day makes!), your tax rate will be reduced. Get more information on capital gains in IRS Publication 550 “Investment Income and Expenses”. Because the tax on capital gains is the most relevant tax for stock investors.

Managing the tax burden from your investment profits is something that you can control. Gains are taxable only if a sale actually takes place. (In other words, only if the gain is “realized.”) If your stock in GazillionBucks, Inc., goes from $5 per share to $87, that $82 appreciation isn’t subject to taxation unless you actually sell the stock. Until you sell, that gain is “unrealized.” Time your stock sales carefully hold on to them at least a year to minimize the amount of taxes you have to pay on them.