Tax Man Cometh: Democrats Finally Have a Piece of An Outline On Taxes

Tax Proposal Details

Lawmakers plan to vote this week in the House Ways and Means Committee on their Tax Hike Proposal. Emphasis Mine.

Corporate Tax Rate 

  1. 18 percent on the first $400,000 of income; 21 percent on income up to $5 million, and a rate of 26.5% on income thereafter. 
  2. The benefit of the graduated rate phases out for corporations making more than $10,000,000. 
  3. Personal services corporations are not eligible for graduated rates. The domestic dividends received deduction is adjusted to hold constant the tax on domestic corporate-to-corporate dividends.

Tax Increase for High Income Individuals

  1. The provision increases the top marginal individual income tax rate to 39.6%. This marginal rate applies to married individuals filing jointly with taxable income over $450,000, to heads of households with taxable income over $425,000, to unmarried individuals with taxable income over $400,000, to married individuals filing separate returns with taxable income over $225,000, and to estates and trusts with taxable income over $12,500. The amendments made by this section apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.
  2. The provision increases the capital gains rate to 25%. The amendments made by this section apply to taxable years ending after the date of introduction of this Act. A transition rule provides that the preexisting statutory rate of 20% continues to apply to gains and losses for the portion of the taxable year prior to the date of introduction. Gains recognized later in the same taxable year that arise from transactions entered into before the date of introduction pursuant to a written binding contract are treated as occurring prior to the date of introduction.
  3. This provision amends section 1411 to expand the net investment income tax to cover net investment income derived in the ordinary course of a trade or business for taxpayers with greater than $400,000 in taxable income (single filer) or $500,000 (joint filer), as well as for trusts and estates. The provision clarifies that this tax is not assessed on wages on which FICA is already imposed. The amendments made by this section apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.
  4. This provision adds section 1A, which imposes a tax equal to 3% of a taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income in excess of $5,000,000 (or in excess of $2,500,000 for a married individual filing separately). For this purpose, modified adjusted gross income means adjusted gross income reduced by any deduction allowed for investment interest (as defined in section 163(d)). The amendments made by this section apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.

IRAs

  1. Under current law, taxpayers may make contributions to IRAs irrespective of how much they already have saved in such accounts. To avoid subsidizing retirement savings once account balances reach very high levels, the legislation creates new rules for taxpayers with very large IRA and defined contribution retirement account balances. Specifically, the legislation prohibits further contributions to a Roth or traditional IRA for a taxable year if the total value of an individual’s IRA and defined contribution retirement accounts generally exceed $10 million as of the end of the prior taxable year. 
  2. The limit on contributions would only apply to single taxpayers (or taxpayers married filing separately) with taxable income over $400,000, married taxpayers filing jointly with taxable income over $450,000, and heads of households with taxable income over $425,000 (all indexed for inflation). 
  3. The legislation also adds a new annual reporting requirement for employer defined contribution plans on aggregate account balances in excess of $2.5 million. The reporting would be to both the Internal Revenue Service and the plan participant whose balance is being reported. The provisions of this section are effective tax years beginning after December 31, 2021.  
  4. If an individual’s combined traditional IRA, Roth IRA and defined contribution retirement account balances generally exceed $10 million at the end of a taxable year, a minimum distribution would be required for the following year. This minimum distribution is only required if the taxpayer’s taxable income is above the thresholds described in the section above (e.g., $450,000 for a joint return). The minimum distribution generally is 50 percent of the amount by which the individual’s prior year aggregate traditional IRA, Roth IRA and defined contribution account balance exceeds the $10 million limit.
  5. Under current law, contributions to Roth IRAs have income limitations. For example, the income range for single taxpayers for making contributions to Roth IRAs for 2021 is $125,000 to $140,000. Those single taxpayers with income above $140,000 generally are not permitted to make Roth IRA contributions. However, in 2010, the similar income limitations for Roth IRA conversions were repealed, which allowed anyone to contribute to a Roth IRA through a conversion. irrespective of the still in-force income limitations for Roth IRA contributions.
  6. In order to close these so-called “back-door” Roth IRA strategies, the bill eliminates Roth conversions for both IRAs and employer-sponsored plans for single taxpayers (or taxpayers married filing separately) with taxable income over $400,000, married taxpayers filing jointly with taxable income over $450,000, and heads of households with taxable income over $425,000 (all indexed for inflation). This provision applies to distributions, transfers, and contributions made in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2031.

Funding the IRS

  1.  This provision appropriates $78,935,000,000 for necessary expenses for the IRS for strengthening tax enforcement activities and increasing voluntary compliance, and modernizing information technology to effectively support enforcement activities. 
  2. No use of these funds is intended to increase taxes on any taxpayer with taxable income below $400,000. Further, $410,000,000 is appropriated for necessary expenses for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration to provide oversight of the IRS. Finally, $157,000,000 is appropriated for the Tax Court for adjudicating tax disputes. These appropriated funds are to remain available until September 30, 2031.  

Special Favors and Provisions

  • In the “special favors” category, local newspapers will get a new $12,500 payroll tax credit for employing journalists. The rule applies to a local newspaper that serves the needs of a regional or local community and who employs no more than 750 employees. 
  • A retroactive to 2016 provision limits deductions for land-rights donations and conservation easements. 

Mish Comments

We still do not have details on the spending side, but the document on taxes has 18 pages of very specific details. 

Senate Democrats will have their say. For example, Senator Joe Manchin proposed a top corporate tax rate of 25%.  

The proposal did not revisit the state and local tax SALT deduction which was capped at $10,000 in 2017. 

Democrats in high-tax states including New York and New Jersey threatened to vote against any tax legislation that doesn’t include the change. 

House Democrats only have 3 votes to spare showing how fragile the setup is. 

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? If you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

35 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
2 years ago
test
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
Newspapers get a $12,500 credit for hiring journalists? What? If anyone had any doubts newspapers are almost 100% left leaning, this should leave no doubt. Wonder what the response would have been if private episcopal schools got a $12,500 credit for hiring teachers when the pubs ruled.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
I guess you missed the part where as part of the EV subsidies (which we already don’t need since EV’s can now compete with ICE cars) there is an extra 4,500 if you buy an EV from a unionized auto maker. Literally direct vote buying!
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
They’re making it sound like they’re going after the rich, but not really. The super rich make almost all their money from capital gains, which will still be taxed far lower than income. The real reason for this is politicians on both sides of the aisle, routinely insider trade and don’t want to be taxed on their profits. They’ll increase taxes on the upper middle class instead. Like Trump did with the SALT tax. The super rich contribute enough to swing elections. The upper middle class, not so much. So they’re the easy target.
davefromdenver
davefromdenver
2 years ago
We just past the Event Horizion, I hope our children will forgive us.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Pretty good article on rents by the Tyler Durdens.
Bungalow Bill
Bungalow Bill
2 years ago
Land of the fee, home of the slave…
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
AOC in her Tax the Rich dress, attending a $30K per ticket gala. Great optics, I suppose.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
That sh*t pisses me off. The dress probably has pockets for stuffing anonymous cash.
I wonder who does HER taxes? I’m guessing it isn’t an indigenous woman of color.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T

What pisses me off is that she and the ones around her don’t
care if we see their hypocrisy. 

KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
What do you expect from a narcissist who wants to be a celebrity politician instead of doing what’s best for her constituency?
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Probably won’t win any PC points with the well-indoctrinated-and-hysterical iliiterati; but it’s far from entirely uncorrelated that the guys who casually slaps a united West around like ragdolls at will, while kicking back in sandals; are also above wasting resources denigrating women by dragging them into “politics.”
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
It turns out to be exactly what I always said it would be….more taxes on high income earners. Very little evidence that any of this will affect hedge fund managers or anybody else who gets most of their money from managing risk assets or from stock options.. No big surprise to those of us who have borne and unfair burden for years, while watching billionaires play nothing, or next to nothing. They did sew up the Peter Thiel Roth IRA scam…..albeit after the horse has long left the barn.
But….the good news is that I don’t need to change anything about my investment strategy. Everything I’ve been doing is still going to work, and I have a few more years to grow my nest egg before I have to tap it for retirement.
Pretty good recap here:
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Does it propose to also close the backdoor Roth ?
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
I don’t think they totally closed the Thiel scam. You can still put up to 10 million into the Roth before the loophole starts. So putting in some way out of the money stocks/options etc will still be possible as long as it’s less than the 10 million in value. So if you later get a massive surge in value you’ll be OK other than being capped at 10 million. That’s plenty for 99.9% of people.
As I mentioned above, this will hardly generate any tax revenue since so few people earn 400k+ in a year unless you happen to sell a home that has massive appreciation (married you get 500K tax free so we’d be talking about 800+ appreciation) and even then you pay a one time extra tax the year you sell.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
My refi’s are about ready to close, finally. Knock on wood. I was looking at the closing docs for my last 4 deals, made from 2015 to 2018.
My best, a house near Austin Samsung that I bought nearly brand new for a mere 170K in the spring of 2015….my investment was about 40K up front…the appraisal just came in at $394K. That’s roughly a ten-bagger in 6 years.  
I always planned for inflation. I wasn’t sure I’d get it, but I did, and I fully expect asset inflation to continue.
The other 3 weren’t’  quite that good (mostly because I’ve used less leverage lately) but all of the houses appraised very close to the current Zillow guesstimates, which surprised me, since prices have pulled back a little. 
davebarnes2
davebarnes2
2 years ago
The vomit inducing oil depletion allowance remains.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
No elimination or reduction of 1031 Exchange I could find. Did I miss it?
ColoradoAccountant
ColoradoAccountant
2 years ago
Tax consumption and give a tax relief check to the poor equal to their consumption taxes.  This is stupid.  Who cares how much Warren Buffet makes if he doesn’t spend it?  His heirs will.  There is too much administration in an income tax so only rich countries do it.  Poor countries tax consumption.  On a finite planet its your consumption that matters, not your production.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
2 years ago
Taxing “consumption” requires, at least, as invasive an apparatus as taxing income. Running around spying on kids, to make sure they are reporting lemonade sales, isn’t some sort of hands-off undertaking.
Besides, consumption is not finite. There’s an unlimited supply of Microsoft Windows and Stairway to Heaven. And an effectively unlimited supply of most else.
What is finite, is current resources. Land, housing etc. So, as per your reasoning, the granting of exclusive access to those, is what should be taxed. Which does not require any invasiveness at all, since if you omit reporting it, noone will aid you in keeping access exclusive. It’s a tax which does work. Is cheap. Is “fair.” Is efficient etc., etc. Which no other means of raising government revenue, comes even close to.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
2 years ago
This proposal is a “want”. They will get a lot less. I predict something along the lines of what Manchin will agree to. No changes to SALT are a nonstarter even in states like Texas where property taxes have gone up significantly.  
anoop
anoop
2 years ago
since we’re about to hit hyperinflation, there will be more people earning $400k, so anyone at $200k cheering this proposal is likely to be hit by it in a few years.  additionally, it does zero in terms of addressing wealth inequality since there are loopholes the size of jupiter all over the tax code allowing wealthy people to pay nothing.
ed_retired_actuary
ed_retired_actuary
2 years ago
Mish
Is $78,935,000,000 for necessary expenses for the IRS…. spread over a number of years?  This appears very large for a single year This proposal appears generally consistent with Biden’s campaign promises, and not nearly as extreme as Warren and Sanders wealth tax proposals.  Any indication whether the corp. tax proposals are intended to be tailored to the G7 leaders agreement to impose a corporate minimum tax on global earnings?
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Presumably a 1 time payment meant to be spent over however many years the IRS wants to use the money.
The problem I mentioned before is that in year 1 the extra audits may generate some cash but in year 2 and beyond they won’t because word will get out fast if the audits are in fact generating a lot more money. So at that point the IRS will have hired a bunch of expensive accountants (6 figure salaries + 6 figure benefits) that cost more than they bring back in.
Mish
Mish
2 years ago
It’s largely, but not entirely front loaded. It will double the size of the IRS as I understand it.
shamrock
shamrock
2 years ago
I’ve seen the criticism that these tax increases on businesses are really tax increases on the poor and middle class who will suffer higher prices and lower wages.  Funny, I don’t remember lower prices and higher wages after Paul Ryans corporate tax cut 4 years ago.  I’m guessing stock buybacks might suffer a bit, but that’s all really.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
2 years ago
Reply to  shamrock
It’s all largely irrelevant. The Fed will just print more, in order to make sure stocks, and all else, go up their desired amount.
Debasement is how 90% of redistribution is done in the Unlimited Fed era. Taxes etc., are just circus for the economically illiterate masses.
QTPie
QTPie
2 years ago
Was there any information provided on how much revenue these changes are forecasted to bring in?
shamrock
shamrock
2 years ago
Reply to  QTPie
$3T, but with dynamic scoring it’s $3.5T.
ed_retired_actuary
ed_retired_actuary
2 years ago
Reply to  shamrock
Over 10 years?
shamrock
shamrock
2 years ago
Yes over 10 years.  Of course this is the estimate of the people who wrote the proposal, and not an official scoring from whoever does the official scoring (OMB?).  Also, how a tax increase can dynamically score higher is kind of a mystery.  Normally tax increases result in fewer people doing the taxed activity.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Reply to  QTPie
Given it’s only on incomes over 400K it can’t be that much money because there can’t be that many individuals / corporations making over that amount.
I think the projections I saw many months ago when this was first proposed was no where NEAR 3.5 trillion that Biden said would make it revenue neutral.
Mish
Mish
2 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Correct. 
Moreover, does anyone believe the alleged benefits of that $3.5T
Irondoor
Irondoor
2 years ago
Reply to  QTPie
What difference does it make? Do you expect Joe Biden will be around over the next 10 years to oversee his monstrosity bills? Nope, just as Joe is nullifying Trump’s legislation, so will the next GOP President do the same. It’s a joke, and the joke’s on us.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.