Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
How to Blunt Rising Taxes - Barrons
Old 06-19-2010, 11:27 AM   #1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
How to Blunt Rising Taxes - Barrons

How to Blunt Rising Taxes - Barrons.com
How to Blunt Rising Taxes

AS IF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS and the weak economy weren't enough, a big setback of another kind is looming for the nation's top earners: major tax hikes in 2011 and 2013, on everything from wages and capital gains to royalties and rental income. In all, taxpayers—mostly those in the highest brackets—could be forking over an extra $1 trillion or more over the next decade. It isn't a done deal; Congress has yet to set the barrage of increases in motion, and Republicans have vowed to oppose tax increases on any segment of the population.
But lawmakers look ready to act this year, and the smart money says that hikes will be approved for the top two income brackets, or couples earning more than $250,000 a year—on top of tax increases already signed into law under the health-care overhaul bill.
It isn't hard to see what's happening: The national debt has become gargantuan, and is still growing—thanks to bailouts, wars and ambitious social programs. At $13 trillion, it's the equivalent of 89% of U.S. gross domestic product and is likely to exceed it in 2012. The last time the U.S. got that deeply in hock was during World War II—but back then, it was easier to dig out. Spending cuts came easily after the war, and the debt problem dissolved.
Things are different now. With almost 60% of national spending devoted to Medicare, Social Security and other mandatory programs, shrinking the deficit with budget cuts would require the elimination of virtually all entitlement outlays, according to Clint Stretch, director of legislative affairs at Deloitte & Touche.
"The political question is coming down to: What are the alternatives to solve this problem?" he says. "You can't solve the deficit problem with spending cuts alone. It's inevitable that we're going to have to raise taxes to do so."
For savvy taxpayers, that's a clarion call for action. There are any number of steps you can start taking in order to blunt the impact of the likely increases, from speeding the sale of a house, to selling and buying back some of your stocks (to reduce the cost basis and capital-gains bite), to overfunding your life-insurance policy and tapping it for cash.
FIRST, IT PAYS TO TAKE a good look at exactly what is happening in Washington.
With congressional elections approaching in November, many policy makers would be more comfortable sidestepping the politically charged issue of taxes. But if Congress takes no action, the tax cuts enacted by President Bush in 2001 and 2003 will expire at year's end, and tax rates could go up significantly for almost all taxpayers. The current 10% bracket will disappear. While income cutoffs haven't been specified, couples earning up to about $70,000 would probably pay a 15% rate. The 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% brackets would most likely pop up to 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%.

What's Ahead

Congress this year is slated to consider new tax rates for 2011. The likely outcome: No increases for low- and middle-income taxpayers but some significant ones for couples earning more than $250,000 and singles making more than $200,000. Here's how rates and tax benefits may shake out.
None




Letting the Bush cuts lapse also would push the long-term capital-gains rate from 15% to 20%. Dividends, now taxed at 15%, would become subject to rates on ordinary income.
But the chance that Congress will allow all of that to happen is close to nil. "The hit to the economy would be too huge," says Roberton Williams, a tax-policy analyst at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington. "People would hold off buying cars and houses." With some economists watching for a double-dip recession, the country can't afford to slow growth, Williams and others say.
Instead, Congress probably will settle on what President Obama outlined in his 2011 budget proposal: Extend the tax cuts for most taxpayers, but let them expire for couples earning more than $250,000 and singles making more than $200,000. This means that the top two tax rates would rise to 36% and 39.6%. Folks in those brackets also would see the capital-gains rate go up to 20%, and dividends, some savvy observers think, would be taxed at either 36% or 39.6%. That's higher than the Obama proposal's 20% rate for dividends.
While most people making less than the income thresholds would see their tax rates remain the same under the Obama proposal, their effective tax rates would actually be lower than they are now, thanks largely to the Making-Work-Pay tax credit.

That item—a $400-per-worker credit that phases out for couples earning $190,000 and singles earning $95,000—was put in place in February 2009, and originally was intended for only 2009 and 2010. But the Obama proposal extends it to 2011.
Consider a married couple with two children. With a household income of $150,000 and itemized deductions amounting to 18% of income, their tax bill under the Obama proposal would be 4.2% lower than it would if this year's tax law is extended to next year, according to Mark Robyn, staff economist at the Tax Foundation in Washington. The lower you go down the income scale, the greater the savings. For example, if the same married couple earned $85,000, they would save 14% on their tax bill under Obama's plan, according to Robyn's analysis.
Conversely, the more the income is over $250,000, the greater the additional tax burden.
For example, for a couple with a $500,000 household income who have no children, and have itemized deductions equal to 18% of income, the tax bill under Obama's proposal would be 5.2% higher than it would be under current tax law. If the couple earned $1 million, it would be 21% higher.
Obama has also proposed to extend the so-called AMT patch, which adjusts the alternative minimum tax's exemptions to keep the number of AMT payers constant. With the top two rates bumped up to 36% and 39.6%, a number of people in those brackets who have been snared by the AMT in the past may soon escape that tax. But those taxpayers shouldn't assume they will be paying less as a result, Robyn says. That $500,000 couple, who would have paid about $124,000 under an extension of the Bush tax cuts, would now pay about $130,000.
Further tax increases are scheduled under the health-care bill to help pay for provisions expected to cost $938 billion over the next 10 years. It calls for a new Medicare tax of 3.8% on investment income, including capital gains, interest, dividends, royalties, rent and annuity income, and an additional 0.9% Medicare payroll tax on top of the 1.45% already deducted from workers' wages.
The 3.8% tax goes into effect when adjusted gross income, or AGI–that is, wages and investment income combined—exceeds $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for singles. The tax will be applied to the lesser of net investment income or any adjusted gross income in excess of AGI thresholds.
The 0.9% increase in payroll tax will be applied to wages of more than $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for singles, and would be in addition to the 1.45% Medicare tax currently deducted from wages.
For the couple with $400,000 in wages, the 0.9% would apply to $150,000, and their annual payroll deduction would rise from $5,800 to $7,150.
All told, 85% of the tax burden under the bill will be shouldered by the top 1% of taxpayers, who will see an average $28,500 increase in their annual federal tax bill, according to the Tax Policy Center.
Tax advisors are already busily studying ideas for how to reduce their clients' tax bills under the increases likely for next year and in 2013. Here are some of the best moves you can make.
If you've been considering selling any highly appreciated investments—whether a stock or a second home—consider doing so in advance of the capital-gains increases. "You wouldn't want to make a decision to sell based only on taxes, but if you've been planning on selling, doing it a little earlier could save you on taxes," says Jennifer Ellison, a principal at Bingham Osborn and Scarborough, a financial-advisory firm in San Francisco.
You may even want to sell investments and buy them back, assuming the gains are sizable enough that they are unlikely to be totally wiped in a market rout. When you sell the stock later, you will have fewer gains that are subject to the higher rates, says Mark Nash, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Also, carefully plan when to use any losses you are carrying forward. You may get more mileage out of them if you wait and use them once capital-gains rates have gone up, he says.
If tax rates on dividends go up for top earners, as expected, consider holding dividend-paying stocks in tax-deferred accounts, Ellison says. "With rates at 15%, investors have been able to really not care if they hold stocks that pay high dividends in taxable or tax-deferred accounts," she says. "That will have to change."
Strategies to bulk up on tax-free income will be increasingly attractive with every bump-up in rates. While municipal bonds are typically favored by retirees for their tax-free income, Nash suggests investors of all ages compare munis' tax-equivalent yields to those of corporate bonds.
Loans against whole-life insurance policies are another way to pocket tax-free cash, says Tom Karsten, principal of Karsten Strube, a tax-advisory firm in Fort Worth, Texas. He suggests overfunding a policy (you pay the insurer more per month than the policy charges) to build up a large cash value, then taking out policy loans to meet cash needs. The loans aren't required to be paid back to the policy.
The caveat: If you cash out of the policy during your lifetime, the loans would have be taxed as ordinary income, Karsten says.

To mitigate an increase in income tax and the rising Medicare payroll tax, carefully consider the timing of events that add to your income, such as bonus payments, the vesting of restricted stock options, and the exercising of stock options, says Nash of Pricewaterhouse. It may make sense to accelerate these to this year, and to the months prior to the 2013 tax increases, he says.
An effective strategy for some would be conversion from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. Withdrawals from regular individual-retirement accounts are taxed as ordinary income, but they are tax-free from Roth IRAs once you are 59˝ years old. The Roth's tax-free status is already attractive; with income taxes likely to rise to 39.6%, it is looking sweeter than ever.
A conversion to a Roth may shield some retired folks from major tax increases. For those whose required minimum distributions from a regular IRA—which go into effect after the IRA owner turns age 70˝— would push them over the $250,000 or $200,000 thresholds for higher federal taxes, a Roth conversion may be a wise move, says Steve Kunkel, director of taxes at CBIZ MHM, a tax-advisory firm in Los Angeles. With a Roth, withdrawals aren't required and you can keep the account growing, intact, for your lifetime.
Limits on who can convert have been lifted for 2010, but not everyone will jump at the chance. Income taxes are owed on any amount you convert, so you must be confident that the Roth's tax-free gains will outweigh the upfront tax bill over time.
WEALTHY TAXPAYERS SHOULD be on the lookout for changes in the estate tax next year. The tax expired at the end of last year—it has been zero for 2010—but is scheduled to return next year at pre-2001 levels. That would mean that estates of as much as $1 million would be exempt, and the top estate-tax rate will be 55%. That compares with last year's $3.5 million exemption and top rate of 45%.
Michael J. Graetz, professor of tax law at Columbia University, says to expect either a resumption of last year's exemption and rates, or—if certain Republican proposals prevail—a $5 million exemption and a 35% rate.
Many analysts predicted that Congress would have already acted to restore the estate tax this year to increase revenues.
But at this late stage, the likely outcome is that Congress eventually will offer a choice to estates that owed no taxes in 2010: Either pay the estate tax retroactively under the new rules, or lose the step-up in cost basis that beneficiaries typically get when inheriting appreciated assets, asserts Graetz.
EVEN THESE TAX HIKES won't get the government out of its budget mess. "It isn't going to be enough to fiddle with income-tax rates," Williams says. To whittle the deficit down to 2% of gross domestic product—a normal level since 1900—it would be necessary to raise income-tax rates by 50%, according to a study by the Tax Policy Center. If rate increases were focused on the top three tax brackets, they would have to go up 117%.
What's more likely: introduction of a consumption tax, known as a value-added tax, or VAT—essentially a federal sales tax. Some 140 nations have a VAT. "The VAT is in our future, because at some point, it will be the only thing standing between us and insolvency," says Len Burman, former deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury department, and now a professor at Syracuse University's Center for Policy Research. A 5% VAT rate would raise $293 billion in 2012, and $3.3 trillion by 2019, according to the Tax Policy Center.
What will it take to bring about a VAT? A big wake-up call—perhaps a failed Treasury auction, or a downgrading of U.S. debt. Then Washington will rush to impose a big new tax.
Desperate times have always called for desperate measures. But for taxpayers who make the right moves now, there is no reason to despair.
__________________

__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 06-19-2010, 11:33 AM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
Notice the point about VAT. Also notice that Europe has a VAT since the early 80s and they also have a government debt crisis.
I have no doubt that there will be a VAT at some point in the USA and it will not go to pay down the debt; although it will be sold that way.
__________________

__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 11:56 AM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Bikerdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by dex View Post
Notice the point about VAT. Also notice that Europe has a VAT since the early 80s and they also have a government debt crisis.
I have no doubt that there will be a VAT at some point in the USA and it will not go to pay down the debt; although it will be sold that way.
So, what does Europe do now? They already have a VAT tax so maybe now they need a BAT tax (as in baseball bat) to beat the money out of the rich.
__________________
“I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said” Alan Greenspan
Bikerdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 12:41 PM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,618
But won't Very Long Term cap gains taxes be 15% and not 20%? That is, if you realize a cap gain on assets held 5 years or longer, the rate will be 15%?
__________________
LOL! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 01:02 PM   #5
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
I've always thought that given the increases in the other tax brackets, the 10% jump from the 15% to 25% tax brackets seemed a little steep, especially given the solidly middle-class status of that income level.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 01:07 PM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,972
I don't have a problem with any of the taxes proposed. There are a lot of things in this country that people take for granted but those things need to be paid for somehow. The "bush tax cuts" never should have happened so letting them expire seems obvious to me. The so called "war on terror" and "bailout" of the last and current administration have put us in a position that requires an increase in taxes and possibly the implementation of new taxes like the VAT. I would prefer(being the frugal person I am) if there was no "war on terror" or "bailout" but there was and is so higher taxes are a must.
__________________
aaronc879 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 01:19 PM   #7
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 882
Quote:
WEALTHY TAXPAYERS SHOULD be on the lookout for changes in the estate tax next year.
and what, kill themselves to avoid the tax increase?
__________________
jebmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 02:10 PM   #8
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikerdude View Post
So, what does Europe do now? They already have a VAT tax so maybe now they need a BAT tax (as in baseball bat) to beat the money out of the rich.
Thanks to the free circulation of people within the EU, the rich are simply relocating. There is no common taxation policy in Europe, so some countries like Belgium offer very compelling tax breaks for wealthy European citizens. Wealthy EU citizens for example can move to Brussels and take advantage of the fact that there is no capital gain tax or wealth tax in Belgium. Many also leave the EU altogether.
__________________
FIREd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 02:13 PM   #9
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by FIREdreamer View Post
Thanks to the free circulation of people within the EU, the rich are simply relocating. There is no common taxation policy in Europe, so some countries like Belgium offer very compelling tax breaks for wealthy European citizens. Wealthy EU citizens for example can move to Brussels and take advantage of the fact that there is no capital gain tax or wealth tax in Belgium. Many also leave the EU altogether.
To some degree, that happens in the U.S. with people moving from high-tax states to low-tax states.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 06:37 PM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
kyounge1956's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebmke View Post
Quote:
WEALTHY TAXPAYERS SHOULD be on the lookout for changes in the estate tax next year.
and what, kill themselves to avoid the tax increase?
No, but perhaps there are other actions they could take. For example, if they were planning on leaving something to a charity in their will maybe they should donate it next year instead, creating extra itemized deductions after the Bush tax cuts end. Wouldn't that reduce their income tax next year, and their estate taxes in the future?
__________________
kyounge1956 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 07:21 PM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,905
Dex, very interesting data you present. Particularly the statement "All told, 85% of the tax burden under the bill will be shouldered by the top 1% of taxpayers, who will see an average $28,500 increase in their annual federal tax bill, according to the Tax Policy Center." I've tried to figure out what percentage of income of the top 1% of taxpayers that $28,500 represents but I've been unable to find that. Do you happen to have that percentage available? Thanks
__________________
ejman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 07:29 PM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
packrat44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: near Canadian border and near Mexican border
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikerdude View Post
So, what does Europe do now? They already have a VAT tax so maybe now they need a BAT tax (as in baseball bat) to beat the money out of the rich.
The baseball bat should be used on those in power who are wasteful in the spending of taxpayer's money.
__________________
Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
packrat44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 08:19 PM   #13
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejman View Post
Dex, very interesting data you present. Particularly the statement "All told, 85% of the tax burden under the bill will be shouldered by the top 1% of taxpayers, who will see an average $28,500 increase in their annual federal tax bill, according to the Tax Policy Center." I've tried to figure out what percentage of income of the top 1% of taxpayers that $28,500 represents but I've been unable to find that. Do you happen to have that percentage available? Thanks
Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 08:43 PM   #14
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,905
Dex, thanks for the information. So as I calculate it, that would represent approximately a 10% increase in their tax bill is that about your read?
__________________
ejman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 09:44 PM   #15
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,905
Sorry, I should have included the source for that 10% calculation ( as of 2007) The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data. Tax paid by top 1% 450 billion/1.4 million tax returns = #321K per return. $28 K increase = 8.8% rounded to 10% because it looks rounder...
__________________
ejman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 09:45 PM   #16
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejman View Post
Dex, thanks for the information. So as I calculate it, that would represent approximately a 10% increase in their tax bill is that about your read?
Is sounds about right. Does going from about 285K to 313.5K in taxes sound right? I'm really not sure.
__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 09:49 PM   #17
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
A "blunt" sounds like a good solution...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg blunt-1213.jpg (22.8 KB, 3 views)
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 09:50 PM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by dex View Post
Is sounds about right. Does going from about 285K to 313.5K in taxes sound right? I'm really not sure.
Yes, that's about where I get roughly. I was just trying to get a an idea of the actual impact on those folks at the top 1% of income on a basis I could understand.
__________________
ejman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 10:13 PM   #19
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 95
Another reason for RE. The government is just going to keep taking more and more. Why bust your hump, run a successful business, hire employees and pay all their benefits when the govt will eventually take more than 50% of your profits?

These taxes will kill the economy, just as the healthcare bill will cause a lot of doctors to jump ship and those considering a career in medicine to go elsewhere.

My biggest fear is the govt will find more and more ways to go after our accumulated wealth. It's coming my friends, duck and cover!
__________________
Hiredgun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 10:27 PM   #20
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,043
Assuming my taxable income remains the same in 2011 as I project it to be in 2010 (top 1 or 2% I believe), I estimate that my federal income tax liability will increase by about 7% next year.
__________________

__________________
FIREd is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Home prices rising in certain areas? xtradoe Other topics 9 04-27-2010 07:33 PM
Bonds and rising rates bobbee25 FIRE and Money 4 09-24-2009 03:18 PM
Rising Rate Fund RockOn FIRE and Money 8 03-25-2008 07:25 PM
bamboo rising lazygood4nothinbum Other topics 24 12-08-2007 06:31 PM
Who's to blame for rising insurance costs? wildcat Other topics 18 12-23-2005 09:26 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:15 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.