taxgirl » fix the tax code friday

Fix the Tax Code Friday: Buffett’s Tax Advice

Kelly — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 03:23:48 +0000

It’s Fix the Tax Code Friday! This week, Warren Buffett continued to be all over the news for his statements about taxes for the very wealthy. In case you’ve missed it, Buffett has amped up the rhetoric on tax reform by suggesting that those in higher brackets benefit disproportionately from existing breaks in the Tax Code and that those taxpayers should pay more, not less.

This is nothing new for Buffett. He made similar statements in 2010 and prior to that, famously said about his tax rates:

I’m willing to bet anyone in this room $1 million that those rates are less than the secretary has to pay.

Some tax professionals have questioned whether his statements are accurate, suggesting that Buffett benefits more from tax deferral than from breaks. Others have opined that even if he’s right, raising rates wouldn’t be fair.

So I’m throwing it out to you. Today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question is:

Do you think that existing tax breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers should be scaled back or eliminated? In other words, should the wealthiest taxpayers pay more in tax?

Similar Posts:

Fix the Tax Code Friday: Tinkering With the Gas Tax

Kelly — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 03:10:24 +0000

This week, from Bachmann to Obama, the focus has been on prices at the pump. It’s been suggested that a steep drop in gas prices would kick start an economic recovery. If that’s true, the question is how to make that happen.

Realistically, the U.S. government only has so much control over the price of gas. Currently, demand is high and the price of oil is controlled by foreign sources. Expanding drilling insider the U.S. would offered some limited relief but that would likely not cause the overall price of oil to drop precipitously.

A stronger dollar would go a long way towards reducing the price of gas – but that’s a circular argument (we’d have a better economy if the dollar were stronger and the dollar would be stronger if we had a better economy).

All of which brings us back to the idea of rolling back the federal gas tax. The federal gas tax sits at 18.4 cents per gallon and hasn’t budged since President Clinton was in office. The tax is used to pay for highway and transportation projects – is it worth it? That leads to today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question, which is:

Should the federal gas tax be reduced or eliminated in order to jump start the economy?

I want to hear from you! Leave your comments below and then check back next week for my historical analysis of the tax – you know, because I’m a tax geek that way.Similar Posts:

Fix the Tax Code Friday: Lesser of Tax Evils?

Kelly — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:32:26 +0000

This month, Philadelphia voted to raise property taxes rather than impose a controversial sales tax on soda and sugary drinks, while New York won another round on its efforts to collect excise taxes from cigarettes sold by Indian nations. Other cities and states have struggled with similar questions when it comes to raising revenue.

So today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question is:

Assuming that raising revenue by adding a new tax or increasing an existing tax was your only option, which tax would you prefer to see boosted or added: sales tax, real estate tax, income tax or excise tax (on items like gasoline, alcohol and tobacco)? In other words, what would be the least painful for you?

Similar Posts:

Fix the Tax Code Friday: Lower Tax Rates

Kelly — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:04:20 +0000

It’s the return of Fix the Tax Code Friday!

Earlier this month, executives from Boeing Co., Sears Holding Management Corp., Emerson Electric Co. and Perrigo Co., told members of Congress that they would will be willing to give up tax breaks in exchange for a lower corporate tax rate. This is consistent with a recent survey of top officials at U.S. companies which found that more than 60% of those corporate taxpayers would elect to keep their existing tax breaks unless the corporate rate was reduced to 25%. Interestingly, 17% of those surveyed responded that they wanted to keep their tax breaks no matter how low the rate dropped (GE, perhaps?).

The rationale, of course, offered for the shift is simplicity and constancy. I agree that a simple tax system that offers consistency and certainty to taxpayers makes sense in the abstract. But as I’ve said before that when they say they want a simple tax system, what they really mean is that they want fewer taxes. Nobody really wants to give up their tax breaks (home mortgage interest deduction, anyone?).

But maybe I’m wrong about this.

So today’s “Fix the Tax Code Friday” question is:

Like many U.S. corporations, would you be willing to give up your tax breaks – including deductions, exemptions and credits – for a lower tax rate? And if so, how long would the rate have to be?

Similar Posts:

Fix the Tax Code Friday: Spending or Tax Cuts?

Kelly — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:20:22 +0000

Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of talk about states cutting spending. For example, in Wisconsin, there’s been a very public battle over labor union contracts while in New Jersey, the police force was cut in a city formerly referred to as the “murder capital of the U.S.” California has talked about cutting funding to schools while in Pennsylvania, health insurance is on the chopping block.

There’s no doubt that, in this economy, something has to give. You can’t cut spending and taxes – there is simply not enough room in the budget of most states. Which brings me to today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question:

If push comes to shove, would you rather cut spending or raise taxes?Similar Posts:

Fix the Tax Code Friday: Corporate Tax Breaks and Reputations

Kelly — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:34:25 +0000

This week’s Fix the Tax Code Friday is related to last week’s question – but with a twist. Earlier in the week, I posted about the potential for corporate tax breaks for companies who are repatriating funds to the U.S. Among the companies which appear to have interest in such a move is Apple, which recently hired a DC-area lobbying firm to further their interests.

So today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question is:

Does it concern you when companies like Apple get involved with lobbying firms? Do you think better, worse, or about the same of companies who make reduction of taxes a public and political issue?

Technorati Tags:
Apple, tax, tax break, tax policy, lobbying

Similar Posts:

Fix the Tax Code Friday: Tax Breaks for Companies

Kelly — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:55:13 +0000

It’s Fix the Tax Code Friday! On yesterday, I reported on a potential tax break for companies in San Francisco (clearly directed towards Twitter) meant to encourage companies to invest in a specific part of the city. We have similar breaks in Philadelphia and indeed across the country. But is it a good thing? Is it desirable to provide tax incentives to keep companies in one place or is it, as some allege, simply shifting the tax burden to other taxpayers?

So today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question is:

Should cities and states offer tax breaks for companies as incentives for certain kinds of behaviors, such as locating businesses in rundown areas or hiring new employees from within a tax break zone? If so, what kinds of limits should be imposed on those companies?

Technorati Tags:
San Francisco, tax, tax break, twitter

Similar Posts:

Fix the Tax Code Friday: How Rich is Rich?

Kelly — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:53:35 +0000

The latest point of contention in the “will they or won’t they?” session of Congress is whether to extend tax cuts to the “rich.” There seems to be a lot of discussion about what constitutes rich. Some in Congress have indicated that taxpayers making more than $200,000 per year are rich with others suggesting $250,000 or $500,000 as more appropriate thresholds for blocking cuts. Today’s headline on one major web site says “Dems Vow No Cuts for Millionaires” although the $1,000,000 figure hasn’t really been used as a suitable cutoff in most discussions about cuts. So, I want to know for today’s “Fix the Tax Code Friday” question:

How rich is rich? If Congress were going to impose a threshold for taxpayers at the “top”, what would the “top” be?

Similar Posts:

Fix the Tax Code Friday: Excise Taxes

Kelly — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:40:33 +0000

I have to say that I remain fascinated by the vote in Washington state that would have transferred a majority of the tax burden onto the upper wage earners (those earning more than $200,000 as individuals and $400,000 as married couples). Despite the fact that most Washington taxpayers would be financially better off under the law (estimates are that about 98% would pay no excise tax and would benefit from a 20% property tax cut instead), taxpayers sent an overwhelming “no” in response to the proposal. I wonder why that is. Altruism? Fear? Apathy?

So today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question is:

In your own state, would you support an excise tax that would transfer the tax burden to upper wage earners if it meant across the board cuts for the rest of the taxpayers in the state?Similar Posts:

Fix the Tax Code Friday: Social Security Benefits

Kelly — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:33:34 +0000

If you follow me on Social Media at all (I’m on twitter here and Facebook here), you’ve probably heard me grumbling about the riots in France this week. I’ll admit it: it’s not about the French, I’m totally being selfish. My husband and I have been planning a trip to France for awhile (it just so happens that he has an ABA speaking engagement that coincides with our anniversary) and it’s looking less likely that we’ll be able to go. I’m trying to stay positive but being tear gassed at a Parisian cafe is hardly my idea of a romantic vacation…

At any rate, what’s so fascinating about the riots is what is driving the French to protest: retirement age. Due to budget cuts, the French government is planning to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62. And with that, the French reacted – violently so. They cut off refineries, blocked a major airport, set cars on fire and slowed rail service.

The whole thing, while quite remarkable, had me thinking about how the US would react in similar situations. In the US, retirement benefits from the government for most taxpayers are paid out from the Social Security Administration. Those taxes that you pay in as FICA taxes, together with matching funds, are eventually paid back to you in the form of Social Security benefits (well, except for Gen Xers and after – nothing for you, bwahaha!). For taxpayers born in 1960 and later, “full” retirement age is 67 though you may begin to receive benefits as early as age 62 (or as late as age 70).

But what if the US raised the retirement age… again? That brings me to today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question:

Would you care if the US government raised the minimum age necessary to collect Social Security retirement benefits?

Technorati Tags:
retirement, France, Social Security, tax policy

Similar Posts: