Taxes

Last week, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that life expectancy has gone up, hitting a "record high in 2006 of 78.1 years."

This kind of trend data is relevant to tax reform discussions, but not often highlighted. Tax reform discussions could be better focused if we spent more time looking at how the world has changed since most of our current rules were enacted and how it will likely continue to change.

Several years ago I started gathering data on trends and using it to show where our tax law was outdated or working contrary to a trend, that is - contrary to reality. A few simple examples:

1. Longevity - this is clearly relevant in considering our Social Security system. When Social Security was created in the 1930s, life expectancy was lower than retirement age. That is clearly not the case today.

2. Who lives in poverty - In 1959, 35.2% of people age 65 and older were in poverty. In 1996, that percentage had dropped to 10.8%. (Leatha Lamison-White, Poverty in the United States: 1996, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Table C-2, page C-5). The federal tax law (as well as some state income tax laws) include exemptions and credits for being old. Years ago it may have been appropriate to assume that most elderly needed a tax break, but that is not true today.

By Art Hauptman

Both Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) have made achieving greater college affordability a high profile issue in their Presidential campaigns. To reach this goal, the two Democratic candidates have proposed expanding Pell Grants and consolidating the current set of tax breaks for college into a single refundable tuition tax credit. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has thus far been strangely silent on the topic, despite its importance to so many millions of Americans.

The reach of the Democratic contenders' proposals does not match their rhetoric, however. To truly make college more affordable, the next President will need to push for a much fuller integration of student aid and tax provisions for higher education, as I suggested in my guest post last week.

Any effort to change the current system (or non-system) of student financial assistance should first recognize that federal higher education policy has two distinct goals. The first is to eliminate the chronic gaps in the rates at which students from low-income and high-income families (and between minority students and white students) enroll in and graduate from college. Call this the accessibility problem. The second big goal is to make college more affordable for millions of students from middle class and upper middle class families who have found the ever growing price of college to be a real strain on their budgets. Call this the affordability problem.

By Art Hauptman

There is widespread agreement among financial aid analysts and practitioners that our country's student aid system is not working as effectively as it could be. Many believe that the solution to this problem is to have the federal government substantially increase the amount of money it spends on the existing student aid programs.

I disagree. The federal government currently spends roughly $40 billion for grants, college work study, loan subsidies, and tax breaks for college -- more than enough to achieve the programs' goals if they were operating effectively and efficiently. As I argued last week, the current structure of student financial support in this country needs to be changed in fundamental ways.

Like generals who are always fighting the last war, California's pundits are still fighting their way out of the last budget crisis. Latest case in point: George Skelton of the Los Angeles Times, who recently complained again that California's income tax "depends too heavily on the wealthy." In Skelton's world, the wealthy are just like those men mothers always warn their daughters about: they'll show you a good time, and then disappear, leaving you heartbroken. "Their incomes rise and fall steeply with the economy," he writes, "and therefore so do state budget deficits."

Except that's not why California has a budget crisis. As the state controller reported on May 9, personal income tax collections for the first nine months of the current budget year are $1.4 billion over the estimate in Gov. Schwarzenegger's January budget and within a whisker of the amount budgeted last summer. Through the first nine months California revenues are up 1.2 percent over a year ago, thanks entirely to the income tax, which has more than made up for the decline in sales tax revenues caused by the housing crash.

Each year the U.S. Treasury Department issues over one-hundred million refunds worth billions of dollars to individual tax filers.

Almost half of all refunds are issued via a paper check, with the majority of those checks being mailed to lower-income households. This presents a scaleable opportunity to provide these households with a low-cost transaction and savings account on the tax form.

IRS data show that of the 60 million federal tax refunds that were issued via a paper check in 2005, almost half were mailed to households earning $30,000 or less. These are the very households who typically lack access to reasonably-priced financial services and who are most likely to pay a disproportionate amount of their income to conduct routine financial transactions. They are also less likely to have adequate savings to cover emergency expenses like car repairs or unexpected medical bills, which often leads to payday lenders and other expensive sources of credit.

These households do, however, receive on average about $1,700 in federal tax refunds. And when examined in the aggregate, almost $50 billion is annually refunded to households with AGIs of $30,000 or less, via paper check.

The potential of those refunds as deposits creates a powerful case for financial institutions to make a low-cost transaction and savings product available to lower-income consumers.

DEPARTMENT OF MOON HOWLING: The Las Vegas Review & Journal takes a long look at one of the country's more important signature firms, National Voter Outreach and its CEO Rick Arnold. I've interviewed Arnold in his Carson City home, and found him to be one of the more thoughtful people in the petition trade, critical of its problems and clear-eyed about its limitations. This story is built heavily around criticism from the liberal/progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which is quick to lable signature gathering as corrupt (at least in cases where it opposes the cause in question). There is a "shocked, shocked" quality to this criticism. The signature gathering business has plenty of problem workers, many of them poorly trained folks who, for lifestyle reasons, have taken a job that usually pays them in cash. But BISC and other critics invariably propopse to criminalize the process of gathering signatures, as in Oklahoma. In supporting these restrictions, liberals are hurting themselves, by establishing precedents restricting political speech that can be used by their political opponents. And such restrictions don't stop direct democracy. They merely slow it down, adding to the costs (and thus the influence of interest groups) that progressives love to denounce. The more you regulate, the more firms like National Voter Outreach will benefit.

April 15, 2008 - US NewsWire Service - A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service today apologized for the inadvertent release of an unauthorized letter* written to accompany the economic stimulus payments to households across America. The IRS spokesman said that taxpayers should ignore the letter, originally written for review and consideration by the White House. Congressional leaders asked for an investigation into how the letter was released. The document is reproduced below:

Dear U.S. Citizen,

Enclosed is your economic stimulus payment for 2008. The check amount is as follows: $600 for a single person, $1,200 for a married couple, and $300 per child, for families making less than $75,000 ($150,000 for a couple).

Speaking of children, if you have any, you should thank them for loaning you this money. After all, they are the ones who will have to pay it back. If you are blessed with grandchildren, don't forget to thank them too. They'll be paying off the interest.

Although many people dread the April 15 deadline to file their taxes, for millions of working families, tax time represents a potential lucrative asset building opportunity. Families, who are eligible for the earned income and other tax credits, can receive a lump sum of several thousand dollars and there are a growing number of options to use this lump sum to build assets.
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) represents the country's largest, most effective anti-poverty programs. Every year approximately 20 million workers claim about $30 billion through the program lifting five million of them above the poverty line. For many families, tax refunds are the single largest lump sum of cash received each year.

Many workers regard this lump sum as a forced savings strategy. The average income tax refund is approximately $2,000 and although many of these families need their refund to help pay for basic living expenses, the lump sum can also be used as an opportunity to save and build assets. The lump sum could be used to establish an emergency fund, to pay down consumer and other forms of debt, to fund the down payment of purchasing a home, or to build long-term savings.