Taxes

Social Security – Ending The Myth

by

The US Social Security system consists of a tax on employees and on employers. The main components are 1) Social Security 2) Medicare.

How Social Security Taxes are Calculated:

The social security tax rate on individuals is 6.2% up to $106,800 (this amount has been increasing annually, that is the 2011 “cap”) and this rate was reduced to 4.2% in 2011.

The social security tax on employers is also 6.2% up to $106,800. The employer tax percentage was not reduced in the 2011 “payroll tax holiday” that was put in place as part of the grand budget compromise last year.

For medicare – it is 1.45% on employees with no limit, and for employers it is also 1.45% with no limit.

In total – if you are self employed, it is (6.2+6.2 less 2% tax holiday) or 10.4% FICA up to $106,800 and a medicare tax of 2.9% up to your total income.

The Social Security “Trust Fund”

The revenues from social security go into Federal government coffers. Then benefits are paid out of Federal funds. Technically the “surplus” of social security revenues over amounts paid out goes into a trust fund but there is essentially nothing “saved” in a real sense, just an “IOU” from the Federal government promising to use their taxing (and more likely, their borrowing) power in the future to meet this obligation.

While many people have been skeptical about social security’s ability to pay out benefits in the past (including a recent candidate who called it a “Ponzi scheme“), there was at least a logical smidgen of truth to the fact that the US government attempts to tax in a clear fashion from workers that will someday benefit from social security and then pay out benefits in a consistent manner.

Recent Tax Proposals

Recent tax proposals, however, start to remove the last fabric of the lies that allowed social security to be seen as anything other than another government entitlement program, funded by a mix of taxes with a lot of borrowing thrown in (at an unsustainable rate). The new proposals cut the individual rate to 3.1% (and the employer percentage down to 3.1% for smaller payrolls), a reduction from the pre-holiday combined rate of 12.4% down to 6.2% (for smaller companies). There is a separate $50M holiday for companies increasing payroll that makes this calculation more complex, and the medicare portion stays the same at 1.45% for employer and employee to total 2.9%.

Since social security can barely cover its current obligations now out of tax revenues, likely these changes will move it into the red immediately, and eliminate the fiction that the surplus is “saved” in a trust fund anywhere at all. Now social security looks like any other tax program, subject to the whims of the government and changing policy preferences, rather than a pension plan which it is made out to be.

Taxes and Behavior

The current administration is curious. On the topic of raising rates, they don’t think that it changes behavior. Specifically, they fought the prior administration’s tax reduction as “giveaways” to the rich who could afford to pay taxes, as if the rich would work just as hard in order to provide an ever increasing percentage of their income to the government.

But they DO believe that reducing rates can incent behavior other times, such as in “cash for clunkers” or the previous tax reduction holiday. More specifically, they take a myopic short-term view that putting a bit of extra cash into workers’ pockets will help their constituents, but making a more competitive tax policy overall (that will spur investment and growth) isn’t anything that is worth investing in or considering. I am frankly kind of surprised that it took the administration this long to consider a payroll tax holiday, since all they care about is the short term impact on their logical supporters, and this is the quickest way to reach them. I wouldn’t be surprised if the government tried to turn hiring into a tax INCENTIVE, and then just raised taxes everywhere else, or just borrowed more money. If your only goal is to put money in your supporters’ pockets in the short term, this is a (sad) way to do it.

At least these policy proposals put a lie to the myth that social security is anything other than an entitlement program supported by government tax revenues. If nothing else positive comes out of the debate, a little bit of more obvious truth is a small benefit.

Cross posted at LITGM

About Those 15% Capital Gains Rates

by

Warren Buffett has been talking virtually nonstop about how tax rates on “the wealthy” need to be increased, and of course the dinosaur media has been praising and amplifying this viewpoint. People who think this way are especially fond of citing the 15% capital tax gains rate and contrasting it with the considerably higher rates on ordinary income.

This simplistic comparison, though, ignores the effect of inflation, which acts to increase the effective tax rate–especially on assets which are held for a long period of time. Consider a simple example: let’s say you bought a stock in 2003 and sold it in 2011, with a 30% price increase. To make the numbers easy, you bought $10000 worth and sold it for $13000. But according to BLS data, the consumer price index has risen by 22% over the years 2003-2011. Thus, your $13000 is really only worth $10655 in 2003 dollars.

It gets worse. The IRS is going to tax you on the full $3000 of “gain,” even though it is largely illusory. At 15%, you will pay $450, which is a very big chunk of your true, inflation-adjusted gains. If you work through the calculations, you’ll find that your real capital gains tax rate for this example is not 15%, but more than 50%. (I’ll post the calculations if anyone wants to see them.) Indeed, if you buy and sell an asset whose value just keeps pace with inflation–ie, if you don’t make any money at all in real terms–you will still be paying capital gains taxes on wholly imaginary profits. If we get Jimmy-Carter-style inflation…say, 40% over the next decade…and you have an investment which just keeps pace with inflation, then federal taxes will take 6% of the value of your investment (15% times 40%) when you sell it. And that’s assuming that the current capital gains rate does not increase, and ignoring any state-level taxes on capital gains.

Warren Buffett is surely aware of the preceding considerations, and anyone who writes about finance and economic policy should be aware of them.

A good video by Christina Sochacki, for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, about the problems with the capital gains tax, here.

Quote of the Day: John Robb

by

Global transition points like this are so rare, it’s a great time to be alive.

John Robb

Right on. Yes. Yes.

More of this type of thinking, please.

If I could live at any time in history it would be now.

(If you are not a regular reader of Mr. Robb’s Global Guerrillas, get that way.)

(Also check out Mr. Robb’s way cool new Wiki MiiU, which is all about resilience. I eagerly await his book on resilient communities.)

(Here is an xcellent John Robb talk about open source ventures, but full disclosure, a lot of it sailed over my head.)

(And if you have not read his book, Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization, go get it.)

Friends, please let me know in the comments, on a scale of 1 to 5, strongly disagree to strongly agree, how you respond to this quote. Put me down as a 5, obviously enough.

Cokie Roberts Blurts Out the Truth

by

I watch the Sunday talk shows, usually flipping back and forth between them. I was struck today by a comment made by Cokie Roberts on ABC’s This Week. In the discussion of the downgrade of US Treasury bonds, she was arguing with a tea party affiliated Congressman from Utah named Chaffetz and she made the following statement: (The comment begins at 8:55)

The reason why they (S&P) like France and England is because they have parliamentary government,   because the majority gets what it wants. There is no divided government where both parties have to agree.

I thought that an astonishing but revealing statement. First, Britain and France have not been exemplars of fiscal probity the past 50 years, with the exception of Margaret Thatcher’s era. She even mentioned that England now has an austerity program. Also, she didn’t mention that Obama had undivided government for two years and spending increased 24%. In fact, there has been no national budget for two years, probably because the Democrats did not want to expose their plans prior to the 2010 election.

Her second comment was also revealing:

The problem is with the US Constitution.

There, in a nutshell, is the Democrats’ complaint. The Constitution restricts the ability of one political party to spend at will without regard of the consequences. God knows we have had excessive spending since 1965 in this country under both parties and with the Constitution intact. But, for Democrats, that has not been enough. I don’t think I have seen a more revealing comment.

An Explanation for Obama’s actions

by

The debt ceiling debate has dragged on creating frustration and some anxiety about the economic consequences of default. President Obama has even threatened to withhold Social Security checks, claiming there would be no money for payment. Through most of this he has seemed to me to be unserious about the matter and using it chiefly to try to improve his chances for re-election. Fred Barnes has now come up with what I consider a good explanation for his behavior, including the last moment maneuvers yesterday.

First, the trade treaties:

The path to ratification by Congress was greased after President Obama renegotiated trade treaties with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. Obama would supply Democratic votes. Republicans were already on board, President Bush having put together the treaties in the first place. It had the look of a done deal.

It wasn’t. In May, the White House suddenly insisted the treaties be accompanied by roughly $1 billion in Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA as it’s known in Washington. Organized labor was demanding TAA funds be set aside for workers whose jobs might be lost as a result of the treaties. Obama took up the cause.

Then there was the oil pipeline from Canada:

The Keystone XL pipeline from the oil sands in Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast is another win-win issue for Obama, if only he’d embrace it. Canada is America’s leading foreign supplier of oil. The more Canada exports to the United States, the less we’re forced to rely on unfriendly folks in the Middle East and on Latin American countries (Mexico, Venezuela) whose oil production is declining. With the new pipeline, Canada would increase its exports by as much as 700,000 barrels a day. (The United States consumes 10-11 million barrels daily.)

A permit to build the pipeline was requested nearly three years ago by TransCanada. Because it would cross an international border, approval must be granted by the State Department. This was expected to be a snap, particularly after gasoline prices reached $4 a gallon. White House aides thought so, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated she was ready to approve it.

Then the environmental lobby, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, began a campaign against approval, and the Environmental Protection Agency joined in. It criticized the State Department’s first environmental impact statement, which found the pipeline would have little effect on the environment. Clinton buckled, and a second impact statement was ordered. Last month, EPA said the new study was “inadequate.”

Both of these initiatives promised thousands of new jobs and would seem to be helpful to Obama in his quest for a second term. In both cases, a left wing member of his base intervened and his support collapsed.

Now, the debt ceiling:

The Speaker and the President had nearly agreed on a plan that included $800 billion in “revenue enhancements” but did not raise rates. What happened ?

House Speaker John Boehner’s (R., Ohio) office is pushing back against White House claims that the new revenue in the “framework” being discussed in the now defunct negotiations would have been generated by letting current tax rates expire. “That is simply false,” writes Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

In reality, Steel writes, the White House offered a “ceiling” of $800 billion in new revenue over 10 years that would be achieved through comprehensive tax reform (e.g., eliminating loopholes, credits and deductions) in a way that would stimulate economic growth. This would not constitute a tax increase.

Following the release of the Gang of Six proposal, however, the White House then insisted on an additional $400 billion in actual tax increases, for a total of $1.2 trillion in revenue that would become the new “floor” for revenues. Additionally, the administration backed away from several aspects of the tax reform package they had already agreed to, including a protection against tax hikes on small businesses and a guarantee that they would only be three tiers of tax rates, the highest of which would be below 35 percent.

In regard to Social Security, the two sides had agreed on a change in the way the government calculates inflation (the so-called “chain CPI”) that would extend the program’s solvency. However, the White House reneged on a previously agreed-upon solvency target and offered a weaker target that would yield 25 percent less in savings.

What had happened was that the “Gang of Six” report was released and the revenue (tax) increases there looked better to Obama so he reneged on the pending deal with Boehner. There was also considerable discussion that Democrats were furious with him because he had not insisted on tax increases. Revenue from loophole closing was not enough.

No. I think what happened is Congressional Democrats got a whiff of a possible deal where you get entitlement cuts and tax reform, say, next year — which might increase revenue or might not — and they panicked because a) they have a religious belief in raising the taxes. If you don’t have that, you can’t have a deal, so it created a kind of a theological panic.

Obama, it seems, cannot stand up to the rest of his party. He will negotiate but once some interest group objects, he is gone. No deal.

It’s a good thing the Soviet Union is gone.