« House to Vote Today on Business Activity Tax Simplification Act | Main | ABA Tax Section Calls on Sen. Baucus to End Block of Solomon's Appointment as Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy »
July 25, 2006
Tax Policy in the Next Clinton Administration
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday released her American Dream Initiative, described by the New York Times as her attempt to "stake out the center... [with] a broad policy platform geared toward helping middle-class voters and the working poor through a series of tax credits and other modest government programs." Among the tax proposals in the 20-page plan:
- Third-Party Reporting of Capital Gains. According to Tax Notes, the United States is losing billions of dollars in revenues from underreported capital gains. It is bad enough that the Bush administration has given the wealthiest Americans capital gains tax cuts they do not need; it is worse to see even those shrinking obligations go unpaid. We should require securities firms to report to the IRS not only the sale of assets, but the amount of capital gains. This change alone would produce $250 billion in new revenue over the next decade.
- A Single, Refundable $3,000 College Tuition Tax Credit. To help students and families pay for college, Washington has layered one new tax break upon another and created a confusing, often contradictory system. Under current law, there is no uniform definition of qualifying education expenses, there are different income limitations for different incentives, and much of this assistance comes with massive bureaucracy attached. If we want college to become as universal as high school, college aid needs to be simpler and more generous. We should simplify the tax code by replacing the HOPE tax credit, the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit, and the higher education deduction with a single, refundable $3,000 college tuition tax credit to help offset undergraduate and graduate costs for all families. This new credit will cover up to four years of college and graduate school. In addition, workers will be eligible to use the credit for education and training.
- Baby Bonds. The chance to get ahead depends in large part on having the assets to take advantage of it. The United States should follow Tony Blair's lead in Britain by providing a Baby Bond to each of the 4 million children born in America each year. A $500 savings bond at birth and again 10 years later would give young people from low- and middle-income families a stake in upward mobility. We should give families with incomes of $75,000 or less the option of directing their existing annual children's tax credit into these accounts, tax-free. The money could be used for college and training, a first home, and retirement savings.
- A Home Mortgage Deduction for Everyone. Many Americans cannot take advantage of the mortgage deduction because they do not itemize their taxes. Only one-half of American homeowners itemize, and only one-fifth of the 28 million households with annual incomes below $50,000 receive any homeowner subsidy. We should make sure the mortgage deduction helps those who need it most -- middle-income and working families -- by making the deduction available to those who do not itemize their taxes. This would enable an additional 10 million Americans to take advantage of the primary incentive to help individuals purchase homes.
- American Dream Down Payment Grant for Homebuyers. Owning a home is the biggest "prosperity escalator" into the middle class, yet many American households are missing out because they cannot afford the first step. As Hope Street Group has proposed, we should provide a $5,000 refundable tax credit for down payment assistance, which over the next 10 years will make homeownership possible for 7 million modest- to middle-income home buyers with good credit who would otherwise slip into the higher-interest rate sub-prime mortgage market or be rejected for a mortgage altogether. The credit would be available to home buyers earning up to 120 percent of their area median income. This program should work in conjunction with similar programs offered by state and local governments, financial institutions, and employers. We also should spur the construction of affordable homes by offering an Affordable Homes Tax Credit patterned after the successful Low- Income Housing Tax Credit. Finally, we should build on the model offered by the Federal Home Loan Banks, by creating an affordable housing fund to increase the stock of affordable housing.
- Housing America's Workforce. Police, firefighters, teachers, and other middle-class families should not be penalized for living and working in areas of the country with high median housing prices. Employer-assisted housing helps attract and retain workers and enhance the economic stability of communities. We should give employers a 50 percent tax credit for qualified employee housing assistance programs, and let working families exclude such housing assistance from their taxable income.
July 25, 2006 in Political News | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef00d834a2557753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tax Policy in the Next Clinton Administration:
Comments
It is bad enough that the Bush administration has given the wealthiest Americans capital gains tax cuts they do not need;
Thanks comrade. Now I have to demonstrate that I need my own money or you will take it.
1. Collections from capital gains are up. The tax cuts did not reduce revenue.
2. Subsidizing college costs doesn't work. The colleges simply factor that in to the Expected Family Contribution and raise tuition accordingly.
3. Eliminate the home mortgage deduction for everyone. Why should the government be subsidizing home purchases? (Yes, I have one). This deduction has been abused to where you can buy a boat (no, I don't have one) and put it on my Home Equity line of credit. So the government is subsidizing my boat purchase. Housing starts are at rediculously high levels. 40% of the homes bought last year were second homes. This is hardly an industry that needs government help.
Posted by: Paul | Jul 25, 2006 12:21:34 PM
As a CPA now working in the securities industry, I have to say the reporting requirement is unlikely to produce any meaningful revenue. Firms must already report gross proceeds & it has become standard practice to report cost basis to the client, when known. It seems highly unlikely many are underreporting in this circumstance. And if the client has switched brokers a few times, how is the broker supposed to divine the cost basis?
Posted by: Chris | Jul 25, 2006 12:22:42 PM
Can't you only deduct HELOC interest if you use it toward the cost of your home or home improvement? I am sure people use it to by boats and improperly take the deduction but that's an enforcement issue.
Posted by: jallgor | Jul 25, 2006 1:19:49 PM
The home mortgage deduction is classist and racist, and promotes the 1950s stereotype of one-working-parent households which reinforces discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Let's at *least* make rent tax deductible for parity!
Posted by: fetcher | Jul 25, 2006 1:43:43 PM
The tuition credit, with the previously mentioned "colleges have already accounted for it and increased fees accordingly" caveat, had better be at least 4 years PER CHILD. Additionally, it should be increased to allow multiple children to attend at the same time. Currently there is a $4000 reduction in income on the front of the 1040, but if you have two children in college, it does not go to $8000, etc.
Posted by: David R. Block | Jul 25, 2006 1:49:46 PM
"Many Americans cannot take advantage of the mortgage deduction because they do not itemize their taxes."
Well, a large portion of that is because they're better off without itemizing. If you don't have the standard deduction's worth in itemized deductions, you don't itemize, but take the standard deduction. I fail to see how anyone is injured by not being able to deduct any given expense on account of not itemizing... the fact that they aren't itemizing is (or, at least, should be) evidence that they're getting a bigger deduction than the rules would otherwise allow.
Posted by: AughtSix | Jul 25, 2006 2:13:54 PM
This whole plan is nonsense. It's a bunch of added complexity and subsidies.
The best thing you could do for poor and middle income payers in America would be to raise the retirement age, means-test SS and Medicare to knock close to 50% of retirees with substantial assets off these programs, and use the resulting savings to lower the payroll tax rates. That would be real money in the pockets of every poor and middle-class person who works, and also result in real spending reductions by the government.
Not that it would ever happen.
Posted by: Evan | Jul 25, 2006 4:06:33 PM
...and a chicken in every pot!!
This is just more tinkering and more pandering.
Posted by: Mike | Jul 25, 2006 4:22:36 PM
This is typical Clinton junk: all hype...no substance.
More of a Clinton effort at deceiving the American voter, which both Clintons specialize in.
Posted by: thinking | Jul 25, 2006 5:19:03 PM
The first Clinton White House set a probable record for junking up the Code with a wide array of provisions that (i) anyone responsible enough to earn any real money doesn't qualify for, due to income phase-outs, and (ii) anyone sufficiently irresponsible can qualify for -- oops -- such people as a practical matter incur little or no income tax in the first place.
Sen. Clinton once again proves that legislators can accomplish through the back door -- "incentives" in the IRC -- what they have no nerve to propose as a direct public subsidy in the form of checks, vouchers, or other forms of paper that substitute for currency.
Posted by: Jake | Jul 25, 2006 10:07:19 PM
I am surprised that they did not include something to manage a soft landing for the credit card debt problem facing America. Oprah dedicated a week to the subject. I think if Hillary wants to get a feel for the pulse of America she should spend more time watching Oprah. The tax proposals that were highlighted above are admirable but pretty forgetable.
Posted by: Bill | Jul 27, 2006 9:24:01 AM
Well, so much for tax simplification...
Posted by: Judy | Jul 27, 2006 10:29:48 AM




