January 29, 2012

Why is investment income taxed less than wages?

Filed under: induce — Tags: , , — @ 12:49 am

House Speaker John Boehner listens as President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address in front of a joint session of Congress Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2012, at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Saul Loeb, Pool)

House Speaker John Boehner listens as President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address in front of a joint session of Congress Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2012, at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Saul Loeb, Pool)

(AP) ? Why do Mitt Romney and other wealthy investors pay lower taxes on the income they make from investments than they would if they earned their millions from wages? Because Congress, through the tax code, has long treated investment more favorably than labor, seeing it as an engine for economic growth that benefits everyone.

President Barack Obama and the Occupy Wall Street movement are challenging that value system, raising volatile election-year issues of equity, fairness ? and Romney’s tax returns.

Romney, who released his 2010 and 2011 tax returns this week, has been forced to defend the fact that he paid a tax rate of about 15 percent on an annual income of $21 million. His tax rate is comparable to the one paid by most middle-income families. His income, however, is 420 times higher than the typical U.S. household.

The Republican presidential candidate’s taxes were so low because the vast majority of his income came from investments. The U.S. has long had a progressive income tax, in which people who make more money pay taxes at a higher rate than those who make less. But for almost as long, the U.S. has taxed capital gains ? the profit from selling an investment ? at a lower rate than wages.

“There are two ways to look at: There is a moral argument and an economic growth argument, and they both point to lower taxes on capital gains,” said William McBride, an economist at the conservative Tax Foundation.

McBride says it is unfair to tax income more than once, and capital gains are taxed multiple times. If you got the original investment from wages, that money was taxed. If the stock you own gains value because the company you invested in makes a profit, those profits are taxed through the corporate tax. And if that company issues dividends, those are taxed as well.

Lots of people are double taxed, says Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy for the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Check out your last pay stub: There’s income tax and payroll tax, so you’re double taxed, too,” Marr said.

And, he noted, when you buy something, you probably pay a sales tax.

Under current law, the top tax rate is 15 percent on qualified dividend and long-term capital gains ? the profits from selling assets that have been held for at least a year. The top income tax rate on wages is 35 percent, though that applies only to taxable income above $388,350.

Congress started taxing capital gains at a lower rate than wages following World War I. The concern then was that high taxes on capital gains actually reduced revenue because people would simply hold onto their investments and restrict the flow of capital, according to the Encyclopedia of Taxation and Tax Policy.

At the time, however, the top tax rate on wages was a whopping 73 percent. In 1922, Congress lowered the top capital gains rate to 12.5 percent, a rate that lasted until 1934.

For much of the next 70 years, the top tax rate on long-term capital gains hovered between 20 percent and 30 percent, going as high as 39.9 percent in the 1970s but never falling below 20 percent until 2003, when Congress passed a gradual reduction to the current rate.

The 2003 law also started taxing qualified dividends at the same rate as capital gains.

Liberals and some moderates argue that lower taxes on investments are a giveaway to the rich because they are the ones who get the most benefit. Last year, two-thirds of all capital gains went to people making more than $1 million, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper for Congress.

Only 5 percent of capital gains went to people making less than $100,000, and only 13 percent went to people making less than $200,000.

“I’m a liberal person and I believe strongly that the wealthy should pay more than the working poor,” Marr said, regardless of whether the income is from investments or labor.

Obama has taken up this argument, though his budget proposals have called for only small tax increases on capital gains and dividends, to a top rate of 20 percent.

Instead, Obama has developed the “Buffet Rule,” named after billionaire investor Warren Buffet, which says rich people shouldn’t pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. To impose this rule, Obama said at his State of The Union address Tuesday that people making more than $1 million should pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

“Now, you can call this class warfare all you want,” Obama said. “But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”

The proposal has little chance of passing a divided Congress this year, and the Obama administration has released few details on how the tax would work.

Conservatives argue that increasing investment taxes would make it harder to for businesses to raise capital, restricting job growth and hurting financial markets, reducing income for people who rely on pension funds and 401(k) accounts as well as billionaires and millionaires.

“In my view the rationale for taxing capital gains and dividends at a lower rate has nothing to do with what an individual pays versus another individual,” said Jim McCrery, who was a senior Republican member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee when the 2003 tax cuts were enacted. “It has everything to do with the creation of jobs in this country.”

McCrery now works for the Alliance for Savings and Investment, a coalition of companies and business groups that want to keep the current tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2012-01-26-US-Taxing-Investments/id-a9404a68b1a34e44a3f35a583e54feee

khloe kardashian biggest loser finale kym johnson cnbc chicago weather detroit tigers mega millions winning numbers

December 23, 2011

House GOP leaders want new payroll tax cut bill (AP)

Filed under: induce — Tags: , — @ 2:46 am

WASHINGTON ? Top House Republicans rebelled Sunday against a bipartisan, Senate-approved bill extending payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits for two months.

The House GOP defiance cast uncertainty over how quickly Congress would forestall a tax increase otherwise heading straight at 160 million workers beginning New Year’s Day. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said it could be finished within two weeks, which suggested that lawmakers might have to spend much of their usual holiday break battling each other in the Capitol.

A day after rank-and-file House GOP lawmakers used a conference call to spew venom against the Senate-passed bill, Boehner said he opposed the legislation and wanted congressional bargainers to craft a new, yearlong version.

“The president said we shouldn’t be going anywhere without getting our work done,” Boehner said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” referring to President Barack Obama’s oft-repeated promise to postpone his Christmastime trip to Hawaii if the legislation was not finished. “Let’s get our work done, let’s do this for a year.”

A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said the House would vote Monday to either request formal bargaining with the Senate or to make the legislation “responsible and in line with the needs of hard-working taxpayers and middle-class families.”

Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon did not specify what those changes might be, beyond a longer-lasting bill. Boehner, though, expressed support for “reasonable reductions in spending” in a House-approved payroll tax bill and for provisions that blocked some Obama administration anti-pollution rules.

Democrats leaped at what they saw as a chance to champion lower- and middle-income Americans by accusing Republicans of threatening a wide tax increase unless their demands are met. If Congress doesn’t act, workers would see their take-home checks cut by 2 percentage points beginning Jan. 1, when this year’s 4.2 percent payroll tax reverts to its normal 6.2 percent.

“They should pass the two month extension now to avoid a devastating tax hike from hitting the middle class in just 13 days,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “It’s time House Republicans stop playing politics and get the job done for the American people.

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the Senate’s No. 3 Democratic leader, said “it’s a make-or-break moment for John Boehner’s speakership.”

“You cannot let a small group at the extreme resort to brinksmanship every time there is a major national issue and try to dictate every move this nation makes,” Schumer said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said by opposing the Senate bill, “Tea party House Republicans are walking away once again, showing their extremism and clearly demonstrating that they never intended to give the middle class a tax cut,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Adam Jentleson, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said the Nevada Democrat would be “happy to continue negotiating a yearlong extension as soon as the House passes the Senate’s short-term, bipartisan compromise to make sure middle-class families will not be hit by a thousand-dollar tax hike on January 1.”

Keeping this year’s 2 percentage point payroll tax cut in effect through 2012 would produce $1,000 in savings for a family earning $50,000 a year. The two-month version would be worth about $170 for the same household.

On Saturday, the Senate voted 89-10 for its legislation, which was negotiated by Senate Republican and Democratic leaders and backed by solid majorities of senators from both parties. It would provide a two-month extension of the payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits and prevent scheduled 27 percent cuts to doctors’ Medicare reimbursements during that period, reductions that could convince physicians to stop treating elderly patients covered by the program.

That measure was praised by Obama, and even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., expressed optimism that the measure would become law. Initial bills produced by both sides lasted for a year, but negotiators working on the final product could not agree to savings that would finance such a measure, likely to cost roughly $200 billion.

Reid and Schumer said Boehner had asked McConnell and Reid to negotiate a compromise, seemingly suggesting that Boehner had walked away from a deal. Republicans said that is untrue and said the House GOP played no role in last week’s bargaining between the Senate leaders.

Boehner won support Sunday from McConnell. His spokesman, Donald Stewart, said the best way to craft a new bill “and provide certainty for job creators, employees and the long-term unemployed is through regular order” ? a term used to describe the normal process of negotiations between the House and Senate.

The Senate bill included language cherished by Republicans giving Obama 60 days to approve an oil pipeline stretching from western Canada’s tar sands to Texas Gulf Coast refineries, unless he declared the project hurt the national interest. GOP leaders had thought that provision would assure enough votes to pass the overall legislation.

Obama had previously said he was delaying a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until 2013, allowing him to wait until after next November’s elections to choose between unions favoring the project’s thousands of jobs and environmentalists opposed to its potential pollution and massive energy use. Obama initially threatened to kill the payroll tax bill if it included the pipeline language but eventually retreated.

Despite the Keystone provision, House Republicans used a Saturday conference call to express anger about the Senate bill and frustration that their leaders seemed willing to agree to the compromise, participants said. Many demanded a return to some of the House bill’s spending cuts, including reductions in Obama’s health care overhaul law of last year, and several expressed a willingness to work through the holidays to revamp the legislation, Republicans said.

Though GOP leaders support extending the payroll tax and jobless benefits, some House Republicans question doing that, arguing it won’t produce jobs and could weaken Social Security. The payroll tax, subtracted from workers’ paychecks, is used to finance Social Security.

The Senate adjourned Saturday and is not scheduled to conduct legislative work until late January. That could potentially complicate quick work on a revised payroll tax bill because all 100 senators would have to agree to let the Senate hold any votes before then.

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/uscongress/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111219/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_rdp

morrissey supercross obsessed 7 deadly sins elvis costello pittsburgh steelers denver broncos