Playing The Tax Compromise Number Game

Here is Anthony Weiner, a Congressional black belt in cable news combat, making waves on Fox News yesterday. You don’t have to watch the whole thing. But note at about 1:25 when he says. “Is it best to add another $80 billion in debt to our children to pay for the Estate Tax burden that will only be lifted for 32,000 people in the entire country?”

It’s quite a stat. But it also is misleading. Weiner is comparing the compromise proposal, which sets rates at 35% with a $5 million exemption, with what is known as “current law,” the rates that will rule if Congress goes home today and does nothing: 55% with a $1 million exemption. But these are not the numbers that matters. Why?

Long before the current deal, President Obama signaled that he did not support setting the Estate Tax that high. In fact, Congress had already budgeted, in the PAYGO exemption, for an Estate Tax at the numbers that Obama, and many Democrats, do support: 45% and a $3.5 million exemption. So absent any phone calls between Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell, in a universe where Obama was king and not president, this was the rate that could be expected next year. What is the cost of lowering the rates from 45% to 35% and raising the exemption from $3.5 million to $5 million? Both the White House and Moody’s estimate it to be about $12 billion a year, or $24 billion over two years. Still a big number, but just a fraction as much as the number Weiner was using.

Working out the baselines is a huge problem in the debate over taxation. All sides tend to choose the baselines that best serve their case, confusing the discussion. You have probably heard that this whole package could cost as much as $800 or $900 billion, which is true, but only if you assume that Congress did absolutely nothing and all rates went up for everyone, an outcome no one in Congress supports. If you take out the consensus costs, like extending the Bush-era tax cuts for about 98 percent of Americans, then you get a cost to the McConnell-Obama deal that is closer to $400 or $500 billion. (Ezra Klein has posted a handy pie chart showing the share of the various provisions. See here.)

This same issue comes into play if you want to calculate your own personal tax from the tax cut compromise. (Because who doesn’t? Read on.) The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan, academic group, put forward estimates for the tax savings for the average family under the deal, but they calculated all of their numbers twice to show the effect on different baseline assumptions.

If you assume current law, which means that Congress does nothing, not even the tax cut extensions that basically everyone supports, the effect of the Obama-McConnell compromise is pretty large. Households with income in the $40,000 to $50,000 range would save an average of $1,679. Those in the $75,000 to $100,000 range would save an average of $3,486. Those in the $500,000 to $1 million range would save an average of $24,894. But again, this assumes that the alternative is that none of the Bush-era tax cuts or perennial tax cuts like the Alternative Minimum Tax adjustment get extended, which is simply not a realistic political assumption.

If one compares the tax compromises effect to the current policy–assuming that the Bush Tax cuts. the AMT, the Estate Tax at Obama-supported levels, current tax credits, etc., are extended–then one gets another read on the impact of the Obama-McConnell compromise. Households between $40,000 and $50,000 get an average of $810 more. Households between $75,000 and $100,000 get an average of $1,415 more. And households between $500,000 and $1 million get an average of $3,765 more.

But this calculation doesn’t tell the whole story either, because it assumes a lot of things that are not consensus, like extending the tax credits most Republicans oppose and extending the Bush-era cuts for the wealthy that most Democrats oppose. Unfortunately, the Tax Policy center has not scored a comparison of the ideal Republican plan and the ideal Democratic plan, so you don’t have hard numbers to show the difference between the party’s proposals.

Related Topics: taxation, Barack Obama, Budgets, White House
  • Latest on Swampland

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

  • nflfoghorn

    “…Unfortunately, the Tax Policy center has not scored a comparison of the ideal Republican plan and the ideal Democratic plan, so you don’t have hard numbers to show the difference between the party’s proposals”
    .
    Could TIME do it/hire somebody to do it?

  • allthingsinaname

    Well Whatever I am going to do what the wealthy is going to do with their savings on this tax deal, put it under my mattress

  • freeinpa

    The question for the big Weiner should be there will no NO increase in any spending for any program above the 2008 budget until all debt and deficits are paid—-for the children.

    .
    See how fast he jumps on the bandwagon for that.

  • http://therealestamerican.wordpress.com therealestamerican

    Absolutely, Free American in Pennsylvania!
    .
    The Dimowits are incapable of doing anything but spend spend spend! With nary any attempt to pay for it!
    .
    When the Real Republican Americans ran things, we made sure everything from the Wars For Freedom (Afghan and Iraq) and all of the Great George Bush II tax cut for Wealthy-Americans was completely accounted for and paid for. You won’t see Republicans attempting to pass the debt buck to the next administration like Obambimaomarxo is!

  • http://twitter.com/michaelscherer Michael Scherer

    I am actually hoping someone else does that soon. In the meantime, here is an overly simplistic, back-of-the-envelope way of thinking about it:

    Everyone will get to keep an additional 2 percent of their income under about $107,000 thanks to the payroll cut next year. So credit yourself that much.

    (In exchange, you will lose the Make Work Pay tax credit you enjoyed this year, which was about $400 for individuals and $800 for couples making under $75,000. So subtract that much.)

    If you are wealthy, you will save about 3 percent on your income over about $200,000 (or $250,000 for joint filers) and 4.6 percent of their income over about $400,000. So calculate about that much for yourself. But you won’t really notice this as a cut, as much as a continuation of what happened last year.

    If you have lots of kids, or are paying tuition, or are eligible for EITC you can get even more tax breaks, but you won’t really notice this as a cut, as much as a continuation of what happened last year. But if there had been no deal with Republicans, and the consensus had reigned, you would have lost these, so your taxes would have gone up accordingly.

    If you die and you are rich, your kids will probably be able to buy a couple extra condos in Miami. If you are a business that wants to buy a lot of stuff next year, you will get a fat upfront tax deduction.

    And if you are unemployed, it is likely that the checks will keep coming and you will be able to keep the lights on.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    I think the House Democratic caucus just rejected this deal so it all may be a mute point.

  • stuartzechman

    Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to respond to commentary, Michael Scherer, it is greatly appreciated.

  • Art Pepper

    What you’re basically saying is that the tax cuts won’t cost any money, because even though they were specifically designed (by Republicans!) to expire, nobody seriously intended for them to expire — even though the original CBO numbers assumed they would expire.

    The new extensions to the tax cuts will “expire” in two years, but in 2012 it still won’t cost any extra money to extend them further, because again nobody actually intends for them to expire.

    That’s some way to run a budget.

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    Since the default is that the taxes expire, that position seems to make a good baseline to me. If you want to talk stimulus or the transitional effect on the economy, comparing it to what is currently in effect makes sense. It all depends on what you want to talk about.
    ·
    Regardless of what people want, there is a reality. And that reality is that everything goes away at an appointed time, unless someone changes that.

  • newfreedomblog

    “It’s quite a stat. But it also is misleading. Weiner is comparing the compromise proposal, which sets rates at 35% with a $5 million exemption, with what is known as “current law,” the rates that will rule if Congress goes home today and does nothing: 55% with a $1 million exemption.”

    .
    Other Weiner Facts which have also been unfounded.
    .
    http://www.weinerfacts.com/
    .
    I would recommend you should visit the referenced site above on our favorite libtard Representative from New York before you perhaps quote him the future, Michael. Weiner doesn’t have a great track record for telling the truth at all.

  • newfreedomblog

    The Weiner getting shut-down on Fox by Megyn Kelly.
    .
    Weiner was “interrupting, sighing, looking away, clapping his hands and clearly crossing the line into condescension.”
    .
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fncs-megyn-kelly-shoots-down-rep-weiners-condescension/
    .
    Now the question begs to be answered, when is a Weiner really just a Dick?

  • grape_crush

    Everyone will get to keep an additional 2 percent of their income under about $107,000 thanks to the payroll cut next year. So credit yourself that much.
    .
    (In exchange, you will lose the Make Work Pay tax credit you enjoyed this year, which was about $400 for individuals and $800 for couples making under $75,000. So subtract that much.)

    .
    And that couples making under $40K/year will actually see a tax increase as a result. Considering that is roughly 50% of US households, it’s not such a grand bargain, is it?

  • pintortwo

    It’s quite a stat. But it also is misleading. Weiner is comparing the compromise proposal… with what is known as “current law,” the rates that will rule if Congress goes home today and does nothing
    .
    So these things should be judged by precedent and assumptions of the future. Hmm, OK.
    .
    Well, as tax-cuts and spending (unemployment benefits, “shovel-ready” investments) come back as increased revenue to the government- it’s like a loan! Now, Bush loaned the Banks $9 trillion in one year.. Taken together we have the assumptions and precedent.
    .
    So we can conclude that Obama saved the country over $8 trillion!! I love statistics!

  • shepherdwong

    So absent any phone calls between Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell, in a universe where Obama was king and not president, this was the rate that could be expected next year.
    .
    That’s the hat you’re hanging “the Democrat is being misleading,” 700-word conjecture on? I’m working too hard, how do I get your job?

  • sgre144

    Not to get too precise, but my understanding is that the CBO estimates of the impact of a proposed bill is based on the law in effect. The law that is now in effect is what Weiner offered. I’m looking forward toTime bringing Spock back so he can do the Vulcan mind meld, so we would be able to use anyone’s intentions to determine the impact of legislation. I assume the the Republican intention is to have everyone pay a tax rate equivalent to the rate paid by the bottom 40% of tax filers.

  • 53_3

    Hey, the House did reject Obama’s proposal. Maybe now he’ll start listening to his base.
    .
    As I’ve said before, I would be wiling to pay higher taxes — it would be worth seeing Rusty whine about it.
    .
    My sentiments are a micro-simulacra of the larger issue…

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    @ grape: That tax increase for those making the least is what has me incensed. It’s not a bargain to me or anybody like me–who work full time at jobs we actually enjoy and are good at, but are low paying.
    .
    Yes, it was my choice to go into human services. Yes, it was my choice to go to work for a non profit mental health services agency. But, no, it was not my choice to be taxed to a point where I can’t afford to put food on the table.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Actually, despite my post above 1.4, I’d be willing to pay higher taxes, as well. But only if all of the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire. It’s not fair that those who can least afford it are constantly required to carry the bulk of the tax burden.

  • 53_3

    That’s my take, to eriangel. I want the rich to shoulder their share instead of constantly, constantly whining about it.
    .
    I’m old fashioned. We, the people provide them a place where they can enjoy the privileges of high-income life. In exchange, they have an obligation to return something to the community as a whole.
    .
    The claim they create jobs does not absolve them, because that is exactly what they must do to get rich.
    .
    They are not special people…

  • 53_3

    And pop goes the weasel, er, uh, revenue…

  • newfreedomblog

    Oh I am 100% with you IQ53. I also WANT the tax rate increase to happen. I would consider it my political donation for the end of the Democrat Party once and for all as we all know this economy would tail-spin, stall and perhaps even crash totally.
    .
    Please do advocate for the tax rate increase Democrats so desperately want to have happen. I think that is a winner in 2012!!
    .
    Yes We Can!!!

  • 53_3

    Any more capitalizations and I’ll start thinking that people like you are planning to put Dear Leader in the White House.
    .
    Wasn’t it your supreme intellect, Sarah Palin, who included Dear Leader’s Enlightened And Righteous Republic as one of our Chief Allies?
    .
    …?!…
    .
    I still chuckle over that one…

  • 53_3

    Of course, never mind that it’s so…it’s so…so soviet…

  • 53_3

    Tell you what:
    .
    If the tax cuts sunset, and the economy doesn’t tank (unemployment doesn’t rise to more than 11% – 1.4% above current), YOU leave swampland for three months.
    .
    If it does tank (using the same criteria, but above 11% unemployment), I leave for three months.
    .
    Specific:
    Unemployment <11%, you go.
    Unemployment >=11%, I go.
    .
    Keep on whining, rusty. Remember to watch those rocks from space…

  • 53_3

    jeopardy.wav
    jeopardy.wav
    jeopardy.wav

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    newfreedomblog doesn’t have the moral standing to make such a bet. He’s a welch. Even if he pretended to do it, he’d still post under another name. Making this bet would be idiotic, if only for the freak natural disaster that could happen and kick unemployment up.

  • shepherdwong

    I would consider it my political donation for the end of the Democrat Party once and for all as we all know this economy would tail-spin, stall and perhaps even crash totally.
    .
    Be careful what you wish for. It was “conservatives” who destroyed the economy and Republicans who wrote the looming, higher tax rates into law. Maybe that will spell the end the Republican Party, rather that having it live on as the party of white southern resentment and treason.

  • lcky9

    No the REALLY wealthy are buying gold.. those that aren’t are buying FOOD.. just think IF things go south you can sell a small amount of FOOD for a LARGE amount of GOLD..as long as you know how to grow,can and hunt your own food guess who comes out ahead

  • lcky9

    the IRS takes donations.. your welcome to put your money in.. can’t say as they have ever rejected a donation.. see problem solved..

  • allthingsinaname

    Either way it does nothing good.

  • 3xfire3

    Weiner is a Weiner,
    .
    Congressman Weiner says Americans should not worry about Estate Taxes because we will be dead when the taxes are paid.
    .
    Weiner is a total Idiot. He could only be elected in New York.
    No other part of our country would elect a Snake like him.

    Watch the last couple of minutes of the interview with Mygn Kelly.

blog comments powered by Disqus