John McCain Believes Sarah Palin Could Be President Right Now

Peter Cohn
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Peter Cohn
July 17, 2014, 4:38 p.m.

Next year, a strange phe­nomen­on is set to oc­cur: Mar­ried couples earn­ing between $270,000 and $380,000 who have sev­er­al chil­dren will ef­fect­ively pay a high­er mar­gin­al tax rate than the child­less mil­lion­aire down the leafy av­en­ue.

And the more kids, the high­er the rate. Con­sider that these folks will face a stat­utory mar­gin­al tax rate of 36 per­cent. If the stars of Jon and Kate Plus Eight re­united and net­ted $370,000 in ad­jus­ted gross in­come, they would be hit with a 47.6 per­cent ef­fect­ive rate. The av­er­age couple in this in­come range with two chil­dren would pay 41.3 per­cent. Mean­while, filers earn­ing above that range would pay a top mar­gin­al rate of about 40.8 per­cent, no mat­ter how many de­pend­ents they have.

The reas­on is that next year marks the re­turn of “PEP” — the per­son­al ex­emp­tion phaseout — and “Pease,” a lim­it on item­ized de­duc­tions named after its au­thor, former Rep. Don­ald Pease, D-Ohio. The meas­ures are little-un­der­stood but sig­ni­fic­ant ele­ments of Pres­id­ent Obama’s plan to let taxes rise on the wealth­i­est 2 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans on Janu­ary 1. But even if Con­gress takes no ac­tion on Obama’s pro­pos­al and the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts sun­set at the end of this year, PEP and Pease will kick in auto­mat­ic­ally.

The phaseout of the per­son­al ex­emp­tion is the pro­vi­sion that primar­ily af­fects large fam­il­ies. Tax­pay­ers can claim a de­duc­tion for each fam­ily mem­ber, shel­ter­ing a por­tion (com­puted an­nu­ally to ac­count for in­fla­tion) of their in­come. The ex­emp­tion goes down by 2 per­cent for each $2,500 in ad­jus­ted gross in­come above a cer­tain threshold. The ex­emp­tion is com­pletely neg­ated after in­come reaches $122,500 above the threshold — a fig­ure that is not in­dexed for in­fla­tion — so top earners won’t face an ex­tra bite on their last dol­lars of in­come.

It may be hard to muster sym­pathy for house­holds earn­ing nearly $400,000 a year, con­sid­er­ing that the me­di­an U.S. in­come in 2009 was about $50,000. But tax ex­perts of all stripes, even if they dif­fer on wheth­er the well-off should pay more taxes, agree that re­in­stat­ing the per­son­al ex­emp­tion phaseout and the Pease lim­it on de­duc­tions cre­ates an odd and seem­ingly un­fair scen­ario. They say that if the idea be­hind the per­son­al ex­emp­tion is to al­low par­ents with more mouths to feed to keep more of their money, it makes little sense for people who earn less money and have more chil­dren to pay a high­er tax rate than the wealth­i­est Amer­ic­ans.

“It’s bad tax policy,” said Rober­ton Wil­li­ams, a seni­or fel­low with the Tax Policy Cen­ter, run by the Urb­an In­sti­tute and Brook­ings In­sti­tu­tion. “Ideally, we’d be much bet­ter off … rais­ing the reg­u­lar tax rates. You’d get the same amount of rev­en­ue and you’d be much more ra­tion­al in terms of how you do it. That would be much more read­ily un­der­stood, and people wouldn’t be pen­al­ized de­pend­ing on wheth­er you had lots of kids or not.”

{{ BIZOBJ (photo:225) }}

“The num­ber of chil­dren that you have is a fact. That’s one of the things that’s so un­fair,” said Car­ol Mark­man, a cer­ti­fied pub­lic ac­count­ant and a part­ner at Feld­man, Mein­berg & Co. in Sy­os­set, N.Y. “If they want more money from this group of tax­pay­ers, then let them be hon­est about it and just raise the rate for those tax­pay­ers, rather than get it through the back door by elim­in­at­ing the de­duc­tions.”

Wil­li­ams hadn’t done the math, but he said that the stat­utory rates wouldn’t have to go as high as the ef­fect­ive rates un­der PEP and Pease would be to bring in the same amount of money. But rais­ing the stat­utory rate is a much more ob­vi­ous tax in­crease — and thus less polit­ic­ally pal­at­able.

The tax de­bate this year has fo­cused on the re­in­state­ment of the top Clin­ton-era mar­gin­al tax brack­ets — 36 per­cent and 39.6 per­cent — and high­er rates on cap­it­al gains and di­vidends. But the re­turn of the per­son­al ex­emp­tion phaseout and the Pease lim­it on item­ized de­duc­tions will raise some $204 bil­lion over a dec­ade, nearly one-third of the total tax in­crease on in­di­vidu­als earn­ing more than $200,000 and house­holds mak­ing more than $250,000. PEP and Pease af­fect more house­holds than the high­er mar­gin­al rates would be­cause they ap­ply to ad­jus­ted gross in­come, be­fore de­duc­tions and ex­emp­tions.

Ori­gin­ally en­acted as part of the 1990 budget deal between the Demo­crat­ic Con­gress and Pres­id­ent George H.W. Bush, the per­son­al ex­emp­tion phaseout and the Pease de­duc­tion lim­it were de­signed to in­crease tax rev­en­ue without in­creas­ing tax rates. Pres­id­ent George W. Bush signed the re­peals of PEP and Pease in­to law as part of his 2001 tax cut. But to mask the rev­en­ue im­pact, Re­pub­lic­ans wrote the meas­ure so that re­peal did not be­gin un­til 2006 and took full ef­fect only this year.

Con­cerns have already sur­faced about the un­even im­pact of the dis­ap­pear­ance of PEP and Pease for 2010. Ac­cord­ing to the Con­gres­sion­al Re­search Ser­vice, only 3.3 per­cent of tax­pay­ers will feel the be­ne­fits, mainly those earn­ing more than $100,000. The largest sav­ings will be en­joyed by mil­lion­aires — an av­er­age of $19,234.

The re­in­state­ment of PEP and Pease next year for up­per-in­come earners, which Obama’s plan sup­ports and which will hap­pen auto­mat­ic­ally even if Con­gress takes no ac­tion, “would re­duce the de­fi­cit, make the in­come-tax sys­tem more pro­gress­ive, and dis­trib­ute the cost of gov­ern­ment more fairly among tax­pay­ers of vari­ous in­come levels,” ac­cord­ing to a Treas­ury De­part­ment sum­mary of the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s tax pro­pos­als.

Sen­ate Fin­ance Com­mit­tee rank­ing mem­ber Charles Grass­ley, R-Iowa, a crit­ic of PEP and Pease , ar­gues that it’s re­gress­ive to tax fam­il­ies earn­ing less money at a high­er rate. “It’s one thing to ar­gue that tax­pay­ers who earn a cer­tain amount don’t de­serve cer­tain ex­emp­tions or de­duc­tions,” he said. “But it’s in­tel­lec­tu­ally dis­hon­est to down­play the ex­tent that you want to raise tax rates.”

Here’s how it works: Con­sider a couple, with two chil­dren, who earn $300,000 in ad­jus­ted gross in­come next year and have $50,000 in item­ized de­duc­tions. The Pease pro­vi­sion would give those de­duc­tions a 3 per­cent hair­cut on in­come above $254,150, so the couple’s de­duc­tions would de­crease to $48,625. Then in­stead of be­ing able to claim four full ex­emp­tions at $3,700 each, this fam­ily could claim only $2,294 per ex­emp­tion, for a total of $9,176.

Sub­tract the de­duc­tions and ex­emp­tions from the couple’s ad­jus­ted gross in­come, and they would be left with $242,200 in tax­able in­come. Un­der Obama’s plan, that fam­ily would be bumped in­to the 36-per­cent tax brack­et, which is es­tim­ated to be­gin at $237,300 in tax­able in­come, ac­cord­ing to the Joint Com­mit­tee on Tax­a­tion. The Pease pro­vi­sion would add about 1.1 per­cent to that mar­gin­al rate, and each ex­emp­tion’s loss of value from the per­son­al ex­emp­tion phaseout would add about 1.06 per­cent—for a total ef­fect­ive rate of 41.3 per­cent. Add an­oth­er de­pend­ent, and the rate jumps to 42.4 per­cent, and so on.

Now com­pare a child­less couple who earn $500,000 in ad­jus­ted gross in­come and have $90,000 in item­ized de­duc­tions. Pease rules would cut their al­low­able de­duc­tions to $82,625, but un­der the phaseout pro­vi­sions they would already have maxed out any­way. So their $417,375 in tax­able in­come would be sub­ject to the 39.6 per­cent brack­et, which is es­tim­ated to start at $382,650 next year. The Pease lim­it would add about 1.2 per­cent to that rate, for a total ef­fect­ive rate of 40.8 per­cent—which could not rise even if they had de­pend­ents.

Dur­ing his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign, Obama de­clared that his plan would re­turn tax rates to those of the Clin­ton years. However, due to in­fla­tion, Obama’s ef­fect­ive rates in some cases would be high­er than those un­der Clin­ton, be­cause the per­son­al ex­emp­tion’s value rises over time — each ex­emp­tion was worth $2,800 in 2000, for in­stance. In­fla­tion will con­tin­ue to hike the ef­fect­ive rate in later years, and that’s be­fore the 2013 tax in­creases on up­per-in­come earners kick in un­der the new health care law, Grass­ley noted.

As the de­bate con­tin­ues in Con­gress, the size of the na­tion’s debt prob­ably ne­ces­sit­ates some tax hikes, said Mark­man, who test­i­fied be­fore the Sen­ate Fin­ance Com­mit­tee in Ju­ly. “We really could not, as it turned out, af­ford the Bush tax cuts,” she said in an in­ter­view.

What We're Following See More »
U.S. Immigrant Population Hit 43.7 Million in 2016
49 minutes ago
Second Lady Pence Rolls Out Initiative
1 hours ago
Five Shot at Maryland Office Park
3 hours ago
Ricketts, Short Among Heritage’s Possible New Presidents
4 hours ago

“The Heritage Foundation has narrowed its search for a new president down to a shortlist of finalists, a group that includes Todd Ricketts, a co-owner of the Chicago Cubs, and Marc Short,a top Trump White House official. … Heritage’s board of trustees has also expressed interest in Lisa B. Nelson, the CEO of the American Legislative Exchange Council, and David Trulio, a vice president at Lockheed Martin.”

Trump Unconvinced on Obamacare CSR Deal
4 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.