Tax Expenditures and Tax Reform : Issues and Analysis
Tax reform proposals include both restructuring of the tax system (such as replacing the income tax with a consumption tax or reforming taxation of foreign-source income) and cuts in targeted tax benefits that substitute for spending (such as tax benefits for home mortgage interest and employer paid health insurance). Criteria for analyzing tax reform and expenditure reduction differ. Tax expenditure lists provide useful measures of the costs of “backdoor” spending and departures from an ideal tax base, but have not succeeded in facilitating better choices between using the tax system or direct outlays to promote social and economic policy goals.
Maine: Any Tax is a Bad Tax?
A few years ago, Maine had grand visions of providing affordable health insurance for all its uninsured residents by 2009. But five years after the creation of its Dirigo health care program, funding remains so low that even the first year’s goal of providing insurance for roughly a quarter of uninsured Mainers is very far off. The program is quite popular, especially among small businesses, but Maine simply refuses to raise taxes broadly in order to pay for it. Instead, enrollment has been capped in order to keep costs down while thousands of uninsured Mainers on the waiting list hope for an acceptable source of funding to be found.
Faced with the self-conflicting demand for better health coverage without significant tax hikes, Maine legislators earlier this year considered a fifty cent cigarette tax increase as a way to modestly expand its health program. Broad, progressive, and sustainable tax increases were still out of the question given the political climate in the state, but legislators realized they may be able to raise a smaller and less important tax. Despite being starkly regressive, cigarette taxes have become an extremely popular revenue source among states since they tend to be less controversial than hikes in income, property, or general sales taxes. But having already doubled its cigarette tax in 2005, Maine policymakers soon had to back down from this idea.
The legislature, to its credit, didn’t give up completely in its effort to find funding with which to expand health care coverage. The debate then turned toward another relatively minor tax – alcohol and soda taxes. The argument was made that these products should be taxed more heavily because of their link to higher health care costs, but the more salient reason for the proposal was undoubtedly its perceived political feasibility. Rather than making the hard decision to raise taxes broadly in order to meet the goal it set for itself five years ago, the legislature tried to take the easy way out.
But in Maine, apparently any tax increase isn’t so easy. In response to the tax hike, the “Fed Up With Taxes” coalition was formed, consisting largely of restaurant owners and other related business interests. The coalition is already collecting signatures at restaurants across the state in hopes of getting a repeal of the tax on the ballot.
Despite proceeding so cautiously in search of a revenue source that wouldn’t get them into too much trouble with the voters, the end result of this legislative session may ultimately be a failure to find any way to secure additional funding for the uninsured.
This sudden challenge to the beverage tax suggests that the blame for the lack of funding for the Dirigo health plan should not be placed on legislators – but that the root cause of this embarrassment is instead a refusal on the part of voters to take responsibility for paying for programs they believe to be worthwhile. Across the country the clear preference has been for lower taxes and better government services. These two demands cannot be reconciled, and their interaction has helped contribute to both the national debt and to the avalanche of fiscal problems at the state level.
Too often, voters unwilling to accept higher taxes point to cutting “wasteful spending” as the source of revenues from which favored programs should be enacted or expanded. While wasteful spending certainly does occur, it’s likely not of the magnitude most believe it to be, and identifying it accurately is not a simple, uncontroversial, or inexpensive process. It’s easy to blame whatever one believes to be “wasteful spending” when revenues start to fall short, but the reality is that there’s no easy solution to funding more government services.
Taxpayers either need to learn to expect less from their government, or they need to take responsibility for chipping in to pay for government services. A failure to do these things is what led to the current situation in Maine where a heated battle appears imminent over a tax hike that in the grand scheme of things is too small to substantially improve upon the health care situation in the state. If voters ever decide that they are willing to pay what is needed for government services, the result will be a climate of debate in which sensible reform of the tax system can be enacted. That situation would certainly be preferable to the current one where minor, disjointed, and often regressive tax increases at the margin have the best chance of gaining approval.
SELF EMPLOYMENT TAX VS FICA TAX
All workers are required to pay into the Social Security system – unless you work for the government or some non-profit organizations. Employees have FICA (Social Security and Medicare) Tax withheld from their wages. Employers must match the amount withheld. Individuals with “net earnings from self-employment” pay the Self-Employment Tax – which is actually FICA Tax. However they must pay “both halves” of the FICA tax (the equivalent of the employee’s share and the employer’s share).
In reality self-employed individuals actually pay only 14.13% on “net earnings from self-employment”, as the 15.3% is only applied to 92.35% of their net Schedule E (or K-1) earnings. Plus they are allowed an “above-the-line” deduction for ½ of their Self-Employment Tax – so the actual effective tax rate depends on their federal income tax rate. taking into account the 50% self-employment tax adjustment to income, the “effective” cost of your self-employment tax is –
* 15% Bracket = 13.07%
* 25% Bracket = 12.36%
* 28% Bracket = 12.15%
The “Fix The Tax Code Friday” topic at Kelly Phillips Erb’s TAXGIRL blog today is “Fix the Tax Code Friday: SE Tax”. She asks the question – “Should self-employed persons be allowed to opt out of paying self employment tax (and thus, collecting Social Security benefits and the like)?”.
In my comment on the question submitted at TAXGIRL I said that “My answer is yes – but only if “normal” W-2 employees were similarly able to “opt out” of Social Security. As long as one class of worker is required to participate it should be mandatory for all classes.
I also support private Social Security accounts – not invested in the stock market, but in the money market or Treasury securities market.”
If I was able to invest all the money that I paid into the Social Security system over the years, and all future payments, in a 5% money market account or bank CD I would have a lot more money at retirement than I will be collecting from Social Security.
In addition – if I apply for Social Security and get my first check and then drop dead the next day, all the money I paid into the system will not go to my beneficiaries but to other SS recipients. All the money will be lost! If I had instead invested the money in a private account the balance would pass on to my sister and other relatives.
My comment goes on to say – “The self-employment tax calculation should be corrected to bring it in line with the treatment allowed a one-man corporation. In a one man corporation all employee benefits provided to the owner, like health insurance and pension contributions, reduce {the money available to pay} the owner’s salary. FICA tax is only assessed on the actual salary.
With a self-employed individual, the SE tax is imposed on net profit of the business before deducting the self-employed health insurance premiums and pension contributions for the self-employed person and the ½ of SE tax.
Owner health insurance premiums and pension contributions should be Schedule C deductions and not adjustments to income.”
In the case of two self-employed individuals with the exact same income and expenses – one filing Schedule C and one incorporated – the Schedule C filer will pay a lot more in Self-Employment Tax than the incorporated business owner will pay in employee and employer FICA tax. Is that fair?
So how would you answer Kelly’s question – and what do you think of my suggestions?
A Perfect Opportunity for Health Reform : The Government We Deserve
A confluence of forces provides an almost perfect opportunity for health reform this year. Not the perfect reform, perhaps, but one that would significantly improve a sadly flagging system. The only obstacle-a big one-is politics. Right now, congressional Democrats are pressing to reauthorize and expand children’s health insurance as a way to jump-start a better system. This expansion has already incurred a veto threat, partly because of costs. Separately, some congressional Republicans have indicated serious interest in reforming the way the tax system subsidizes health insurance. The Democrats, in their turn, have reacted with a yawn.
Can a Child Health Insurance Tax Credit Serve as an Effective Substitute for SCHIP Expansion?
As the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) has come up for reauthorization, the coverage of children with incomes above 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) has become a contentious issue. Proposals have surfaced that would subsidizing the purchase of health insurance for children between 200 and 300 percent of the FPL using tax credits and the private insurance market, as an alternative to allowing states to continue enrolling these children in SCHIP coverage. This analysis compares the family financial burdens of covering children under SCHIP and under a refundable tax credit providing a $1400 per child subsidy.
Tax Code and Health Insurance Coverage : Before the House Committee on the Budget
In this testimony Burman argues that there are limitations to using tax credits to expand health insurance coverage. A program of health insurance tax credits combined with reforms of the market for nongroup health insurance could significantly expand coverage, but at a very high cost. The testimony summarizes the current tax treatment of health insurance, the effects of tax subsidies on coverage and health care costs, and discusses ways that tax credits might affect health coverage. Burman offers recommendations and adds that the most cost-effective approach to expanding health insurance coverage may not be a tax subsidy at all, but an expansion of an existing public program, such as Medicaid, S-CHIP, or Medicare.
A Blueprint for Tax Reform and Health Reform : Before the Senate Committee on Finance
In this testimony Burman outlines a plan for tax reform that would maintain progressivity, raise enough revenues to finance the government, and dovetail with plans to provide universal access to health insurance. It would combine a value-added tax (VAT) dedicated to pay for a new universal health insurance voucher with a vastly simplified and much flatter income tax. With a new financing source for health care, income tax rates could be cut sharply-the top rates could be cut to 25 percent or less. The health care voucher would also offset the inherent regressivity of a VAT. And, under the simplified system, most Americans would not have to file income tax returns.