Income Tax: cut rates or deductions?

tax reformOn the personal side, we have protected the three big deductions — charitable, mortgage and retirement saving. We want to raise the standard deduction caps and get rid of many of the other personal deductions. —Gary Cohn

Income Tax: cut rates or deductions, which is best for the taxpayer? It depends.

If deductions are small relative to income, rate cuts are better. The savings are proportional to the rate–a one percent in rate gives a one percent reduction in tax due. The dollars saved depends on income–for a hundred thousand income a one percent rate cut saves a thousand; for a million dollar income a one percent rate cut saves ten thousand. Thus wealthy taxpayers generally benefit from rate cuts especially when marginal rates for the wealthy are high.

Taxpayers for whom deductions are significant benefit less than others from rate cuts–loss of deductions hurts. Low income taxpayers don’t qualify for many deductions and enjoy relatively low rates in any case. High income taxpayers who manage to offset most of their income with tax shelters may prefer high rates to loss of deductions; in extreme cases when taxable income is near zero due to tax avoidance, rates are unimportant.

Republicans generally favor rate cuts since they are the “party of the rich.”

What about specific deductions:

  • Charitable
  • Home mortgage interest
  • Retirement savings
  • Property, sales and/or income taxes

Charitable and Home mortgage interest are most useful to those who can afford expensive homes and generous gifts. Tax free retirement savings are useful to those who wish to shield income from taxes during working years. Property, sales and/or income taxes, which have been slated to be eliminated, may be at risk.

The problem with Property, sales and/or income tax deductions is that they benefit those in high tax blue states such as New York and California. Eliminating the property, sales and/or income tax deduction would hurt those states, but raise considerable revenue.

To protect NYS taxpayers, Tom Reed has proposed converting the current state income and/or sales tax deduction into a credit. The tax foundation suggests the credit might be 15 percent. This would be a win for taxpayers who enjoy a lower effective rate and a loss for those who currently pay more than 15 percent. While the tax foundation isn’t necessarily unbiased, the analysis of this proposal cited is interesting and useful.

Tom Reed’s proposal, while welcome, contrasts starkly with earlier proposals to embarrass NYS politicians by compelling a change in the way NYS funds medicaid. One might wonder which proposal better reflects Tom’s attitude toward his home state. Both proposals might perversely appeal to tax resisters.

About whungerford

* Contributor at where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Congress, Political, Reed's Views, Taxes. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Income Tax: cut rates or deductions?

  1. Arthur Ahrens says:

    Before any discussion of tax modification takes place, a refresher in history is needed.

    The last major tax overhaul took place in 1986. A bipartisan consensus determined the need of a severe modification of the tax code. Reagan showed leadership throughout the process, which involved over two years of bipartisan discussion. Final votes in the Congress demonstrated this bipartisanship, with both Democrats and Republicans scoring wins and losses.

    Our recent history shows that Trump provides no leadership. We should expect none in the tax cuts to come. The Republicans are not interested in governing. They are interested in providing tax cuts to the 1%. They clearly demonstrated this in the ACA fight. The Democrats are an unempowered minority. No good faith gestures have been made towards bipartisanship.

    Given all of that, it’s obvious that the intent of any tax legislation coming from this Congress is to remove any residual wealth from anyone who is not in the 1% and funnel it to the 1%.

    Any discussion of rates or deductions is a waste of time.

    The real question is how badly will Tom Reed and his Republican accomplices skin us this time?

    And that will be answered in the fullness of time.


  2. whungerford says:

    Arthur, I am not nearly so pessimistic. Gary Cohn outlined the administration’s proposals; Congress will have other ideas. Republicans will probably find it difficult to reach consensus within the GOP, and so will have to seek votes from Democrats. Cohn may not keep his job; President Trump may undercut any progress with an ill-timed tweet.

    Congress can’t do too much for the wealthy without busting the budget. The proposed increase in the standard deduction is welcome. Proposals to remove business tax loopholes, while we may have reason for suspicion, are surely for the better.

    More good news: they seem not to be considering a flat income tax or a national sales tax. Some cause for concern: repeal of the AMT, estate tax repeal, weakening the principle of the progressive income tax. Another concern is inadequate revenue used as an excuse for budget cuts.

    If we expect our representatives to serve our interests, we had better keep watch on what they are doing.


  3. Anonymous says:

    I would be surprised if Gary Cohn doesn’t quit during the process. Trump will lose patience and lash out. He thinks everything is instant oatmeal, and Cohn has already expressed frustration with Trump’s behavior. The 15% business tax is just outright undoable, and Trump will throw a fit. Fasten your seatbelts.


  4. whungerford says:

    Yes, but if Cohn goes will there be an adult in the room at the whitehouse?


  5. Joseph Urban says:

    The tax code is where all the special interest groups and corporations get their pork. The only way to eliminate this is to develop a tax plan that eliminates all deductions over time. By all deductions I mean all of them. ALL of them. Do this over a 10 year period so businesses and individuals can adjust. No loopholes. None. Zero.
    Also eliminate the concept of “non-profits” avoiding taxes. Any individual or organization that brings in money from any source should be fairly taxed . Right now you and I are paying higher taxes because “not-for-profits” (some of which have CEOs making 6 or 7 figure salaries) go untaxed. Some of these “not-for-profits” are really political organizations who lobby Congress to change laws.I would phase out all of this tax avoidance over a 10 year period, as well.
    Finally, all income, from any source, should be taxed as earned income. This includes pay, investment income, inheritance, etc. And Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes should be paid on all earned income as well. This would make SS solvent overnight.
    Of course these ideas have no chance of passing Congress which relies on the manipulation of the tax code to keep special interests happy.

    (Still banned by Askimet so I cannot use my wordpress account:


  6. whungerford says:

    Joseph, I can’t agree on taxing non-profits. What is it that they might be taxed on, gross income? Other organizations are taxed only on profit. Executive salaries? The executives pay taxes on those just as highly paid executives in for-profit businesses.

    I am also uneasy with the idea of eliminating all deductions. Certainly some serve a worthwhile purpose. I see that if any are allowed, there is a question of where to draw the line.

    I don’t understand your problem with Askimet; the link you gave works for me.


  7. Anonymous says:

    Taxing the NFL would also be sensible.


  8. Joseph Urban says:

    Bill. I think you put your finger on the reason why there will never be meaningful tax reform. It is the old question of: Whose ox gets sacrificed? Every business, every organization, etc. thinks that they should be the exception because they are providing a benefit that is essential. That is exactly the current problem with the tax code.
    First, I would not tax profits for corporations, I would tax gross income (but the rates, adjusted, would be significantly lower than today). And yes, I would tax any gross income from any organization that collects money.
    Why? That is the only way to end the manipulation of the tax code by the various deductions and loopholes. Eliminating all deductions would drive down the rate and end any manipulation.
    Why should a company be able to deduct the “cost of doing business” ? Does that not discourage efficiency? In other words, a more efficient organization is punished because it has a lower “cost of doing business” than a less efficient company. Let the market work. To borrow a phrase from the other side of the political spectrum: Government should not be picking winners and losers.
    Of course, that is exactly what the “conservatives” do when they allow and encourage loopholes for the wealthiest among us. Whose ox gets sacrificed?
    One of the things to keep in mind is that overall this system would lead to a reduction in everyone’s tax rates. Right now we have a phony 35% tax rate that the business community rails against. Yet, we know that no one pays that rate. In fact, the wealthiest among us, like Mr Trump, brag about paying NO TAXES because they know how to manipulate the system. As long as we allow any loopholes, every special interest will continue to demand their loophole.

    (Regarding Askimet. My own wordpress site works fine. However, when I try to post comments through wordpress I am banned. Askimet has not been able to tell me why or how this is happening. They are supposed to be the filter, which is needed, but their system seems open to abuse. I have been trying for over 6 months to resolve this with no success)
    For example,this post was not accepted by your website, so I have to leave wordpress and repost outside that system under a different address.


  9. whungerford says:

    Joseph, your missing comments are in our spam queue. Is this a problem with just this site so we might fix it? I tried selecting “not spam; which made that comment subject to approval.


  10. Joseph Urban says:

    Bill. Thanks for the info. Evidently sometime in January or February all my posts originating from my wordpress account were labeled as SPAM. I don’t know why. I appreciate your attempts to rectify that. It is not only this website, but any wordpress website. Which is why I have contacted Askimet a number of times but they seem unable to “unspam” me for some reason.


  11. whungerford says:

    Joseph, I see that your tax proposal is radically different from today’s income tax. I am suspicious of laws that purport to limit what congress can do–the debt ceiling law is an example. Even if congress would pass a tax law allowing no deductions, it is unlikely that they would stick with that. Still, I see that your idea has some good points, yet I have questions:

    • Wouldn’t it be expensive and difficult to administer?
    • Some say today’s IRS is intrusive; wouldn’t taxing every financial transaction be even more intrusive?
    • Wouldn’t your proposal be even less progressive than current law with all its imperfections?


  12. Arthur Ahrens says:

    They are going to try to skin us! The Lying Liars!

    From The New York Times: The False Promises in President Trump’s Tax Plan
    Mr. Trump says that all Americans will win big from tax cuts on businesses and the wealthy. It’s a tough sell because it’s not true. It’s never worked and never will.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Joseph Urban says:

    Bill. I know my idea is radical but here are my thoughts regarding your concerns.
    1. I think it would be cheap to administer. Since there would be no deductions and loopholes it would be pretty straightforward. Simply report your gross income and take the appropriate per cent as taxes. To be honest, I have no clue what the rate would be. And I would exempt a certain amount of income as a base with no taxes at all.
    2. I don’t agree that the IRS is intrusive. It just administers the law. In fact, it is the only agency in which the employees actually make money for the government well above and beyond their salaries by catching tax cheats. I wouldn’t be taxing every financial transaction, just end of the year income statements like today.
    3.An interesting point. Is our tax system “progressive”? Don’t the very wealthy and many corporations avoid all income taxes by using loopholes. I mean I paid more tax than Trump the last 10 years. I think there is a real distinction between what we see as the “tax rates” on paper and what people actually pay. Additionally, the Soc Sec and Medicare taxes are very regressive. Folks making 25,000 a year pay a much higher percentage of SS and Medicare taxes than millionaires do.
    I think a system that starts by exempting a certain income level, say $30,000 for example, from any income taxes would be a base from which to start. Then tax all gross income above that level, either equally or with a small progressive increase.
    As I see it the main weakness in our tax code are the loopholes and deductions. Let’s end them and produce a fair system that cannot be manipulated by accountants and tax lawyers.


  14. whungerford says:

    Thanks for the explanation which I found very interesting.

    1.” It would be cheap to administer.” I see little difference for individuals, am unsure for corporations, but suspicious in case of non-profits. If I contribute to a non-profit, my contribution will be carefully recorded as I will likely claim a deduction. Without that incentive, I might better contribute anonymously.

    2. “I don’t agree that the IRS is intrusive.” Neither do I, but wouldn’t the IRS have to look much more carefully into business activity to catch cheaters? I imagine today, in the absence of an audit, the IRS need only check that the reported profit is reasonable. One problem with taxes today is that wages are surely subject to tax, while a great deal of blackmarket activity isn’t.

    3.”An interesting point. Is our tax system ‘progressive’?” I don’t believe a uniform rate is fair anymore than a flat dollar amount would be; I would prefer to equalize hardship. The principle of progressive taxation is worth defending even though current taxes aren’t as progressive as one might like. Also, as you noted, progressive income tax offsets the regressive nature of some other taxes. Perhaps your system would work better if sales and property taxes were replaced with the proposed tax.

    I’m not convinced that the main weakness in our tax code is the loopholes, nor that ending them would produce a fair system that cannot be manipulated by accountants and tax lawyers. I’m sure accountants and tax lawyers are much more resourceful than that. As long as an irresponsible Congress makes the laws, any system, however perfect, would surely go downhill from the start.


  15. Arthur Ahrens says:

    It looks like they are not shy about stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

    Some questions from J. Rubin for the people pushing Trump’s “tax reform” package as they appear in today’s Washington Post:

    National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn said, “We have also said that wealthy Americans are not getting a tax cut.” The president said the rich wouldn’t get any reduction. Is this true?
    Aren’t rich people going to take advantage of the 25 percent pass-through rate rather than pay the 39.6 percent rate? If you are going to stop that, tell us how.

    President Trump was required to pay $30 million additional tax in one year due to the alternative minimum tax. When you eliminate it, won’t many rich people pay less?

    You reduce the top rate to 35 percent. Won’t that benefit rich people? Tell us the exemptions, deductions, credits, etc., that will make up the difference. Please be specific.

    If you wanted to keep the wealthiest Americans paying what they do now, why not leave the code alone for those taxpayers?

    Tax-cut proponents are tossing around all sorts of growth numbers for the tax plan. The treasury secretary at one point said he wanted 3 percent growth. Aren’t we there already? Does any reputable economist think we can attain 6 percent? Five percent?

    There is considerable economic evidence that tax cuts may create a momentary bump in economic growth but in the long run don’t affect growth rates. What evidence to the contrary do you have? President Barack Obama and the Congress raised the top rate to 39.6 percent, and yet we are growing faster now. How do you explain this?

    There is no evidence that tax cuts pay for themselves. Why is the administration saying otherwise? Do you believe that, and if so, what evidence do you have?

    How much debt are you willing to add with this tax plan?

    What programs will you cut to pay for them?

    Because part of the cuts go to the rich, aren’t you proposing adding to the debt and cutting programs so the rich get a tax break?

    Do you think we have an income-inequality problem in this country? Do you agree inequality has increased? Is that a bad thing, and if so, won’t this increase that disparity?

    If you are a modest-income person who doesn’t itemize, won’t your taxes go up? If you live in a high-tax state but don’t own a home (no mortgage deduction) would your taxes go up?

    The biggest exclusion by far is for employer-provided health-care coverage. (The Tax Foundation explains that it costs about “$260 billion in income and payroll taxes in 2017 making it the single largest tax expenditure.”) Will you touch that?

    Why aren’t you proposing to tax carried interest as ordinary income? (The Post reports: “Hedge fund and private-equity managers earn most of their money from their investments doing well. But instead of paying income taxes on all that money at a rate of 39.6 percent, the managers are able to claim it as ‘carried interest’ so they can pay tax at the low capital gains rate of 20 percent.”)

    For years, you talked about deficits and the need for entitlement reform. Is the debt not important when a Republican is president? If the Obama administration had proposed spending an additional $2.2 trillion that would have no revenue source (and therefore add to the deficit), wouldn’t you have said this was fiscally reckless?

    You said you did all the hard work before rolling this out, so why won’t you tell us the dollar amounts for brackets, which deductions are at issue, etc.?

    Have you determined if the changed tax code would be more or less progressive under your plan?

    Liked by 1 person

  16. whungerford says:

    Great questions; some of the answers are available, but not from our duplicitous representative.

    I suspect the GOP plan is to pass the tax plan first then demand spending cuts to reduce the deficit.

    I was surprised to learn that government spending to reduce poverty may be more important than progressive taxation. If this is true, less progressive taxation plus spending cuts would be a double whammy.


  17. Joseph Urban says:

    I think the underlying GOP economic philosophy is to “starve the beast”. That is, collect fewer tax dollars so eventually cuts will have to be made. Of course, because of the power and influence of the military equipment industry they know that funding will have to be cut from social programs.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. whungerford says:

    Rep. Capuano (D-MA) on taxes–he seems to agree with Joseph–cuts to services will follow tax cuts.

    The Collapse of the ACA Repeal and the Pivot to Tax Cuts

    Senate Republicans could not muster the 50 votes they needed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) this week, which is a great relief considering how devastating it would have been to the health care of millions of Americans. The fight is far from over, but for now, it is on pause.

    President Trump then turned his attention to touting his tax cut plan. Well, his plan certainly represents a massive tax cut – for the wealthy. In fact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that the top 1% of households would receive 50% of the tax cuts.

    The President’s proposal reduces the tax brackets from 7 to 3, lowering the top individual tax rate to 35%. It doubles the standard deduction to $12,000 for an individual and $24,000 for a married couple filing jointly. The estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would be repealed. Currently the estate tax applies only to the wealthiest estates because the first $5.49 million of an estate is already exempt. The AMT was established to ensure that higher earners taking numerous deductions could not avoid taxes. You may recall that a very small portion of Trump’s 2005 tax return was leaked, showing that he had to pay $31 million that year because of the AMT. You can imagine how much he’s paid over the years and how much he will personally save if these tax cuts passed.

    Trump’s plan also eliminates the state and local income tax deduction, which would have a negative impact on many middle class families. Currently taxpayers are able to deduct state and local taxes from their returns. In states like Massachusetts where property values are high, these deductions are particularly important.

    Trump’s plan reduces the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% and establishes a tax rate of 25% for “pass through” businesses. It is estimated that 95% of all businesses in the U.S. are established as a “pass through” business. Owners of businesses set up this way do not pay corporate income taxes. There is no real plan to pay for these massive tax cuts and very little detail offered. Proponents of tax cuts always argue that the cuts eventually pay for themselves by stimulating the economy. Analysis done by the Congressional Research Service and other organizations illustrates that past rate cuts on top earners did not automatically translate into increased economic activity. You have probably heard this argument referred to as “Trickle Down”.

    My first question for proponents – is it really worth exploding the national debt by an additional $2 Trillion (that is $2,000 Billion or $2,000,000 Million) in order to give the wealthiest people in the world a large tax break and a token to the middle class?

    My suspicion – if this debt bomb passes, the same people who supported it will then argue we must slash federal spending to pay the debt. They will propose all the cuts Americans have defeated for years – housing, school lunches, highways and subways, and so many other non-defense items … and of course, don’t forget health care!


  19. Arthur Ahrens says:

    Reed is one of only two NY Republican congressmen to vote for the budget. The other was Chris Collins.

    I like to speculate how his vote would change if there was a robust challenge to his seat.

    Lacking any sort of challenge (where are the Democrats anyway) no one should be surprised by his vote.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.