« Forbes Offers Tax Tips Webcast Today | Main | Milne Presents U.S. Environmental Taxation at Brussels Tax Forum Today »
March 20, 2007
WSJ: Conrad's Tax
Interesting editorial in today's Wall Street Journal: Conrad's Tax*:
Senator Kent Conrad and his fellow Democrats proposed their five-year budget outline, or at least that part of it they're willing to discuss in public. Mr. Conrad, the Senate Budget Chairman, pulled off the neat magic trick of claiming his budget includes "no tax increase," even as it anticipates repeal of the Bush tax cuts after 2010. How does he pull that rabbit out of his hat? By positing what amounts to a giant asterisk where the tax increase is supposed to go and hoping no one will notice. Mr. Conrad has no intention of extending the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against and whose repeal would slap the economy in 2011 with the largest tax increase in U.S. history. But Senate Democrats don't want anyone to know this, at least not before the 2008 election. So Mr. Conrad says his budget revenue estimates "assume that Congress will take steps to counter the effects of the expiration of tax cuts in 2010 in a manner that does not add to the nation's debt burden." How so? Well, "this additional revenue can be achieved without raising taxes by closing the tax gap, shutting down illegal tax shelters, addressing tax havens, and simplifying the tax code," he avers.
What the Senator should have said is "Abracadabra." The 10-year revenue increase from repealing the Bush tax cuts is something like $2 trillion, according to Congress's static-revenue models. Mr. Conrad is claiming that Congress will make up for all of that lost revenue by chasing down such illusions as the "tax gap," which the IRS claims is the difference between the taxes people owe and what they pay. But if this magical $345 billion a year (as of 2001) were easily found, don't you think the army of IRS auditors and tax collectors would have found it by now? ...
All of this is really sleight-of-hand to disguise that Democrats are intent on repealing the Bush tax cuts. This would raise the tax on capital gains to 20% from 15%, more than double the tax rate on dividends to 39.6% from 15%, and sharply increase marginal tax rates at all levels of income. And all of this saber-rattling about a future tax increase is coming just when the current expansion may need another tax cut to keep growth going. ...
By the way, the latest IRS data also show that the wealthiest Americans continue to carry a record share of the income tax load. As the nearby chart shows, the richest 1% paid 35.6% of all income taxes in 2004, the most recent year in which data are available. The top 10% pay a remarkable two-thirds of all income taxes. The irony is that the Bush tax cuts have made the U.S. income tax code more progressive. But according to John Edwards and other class warriors, that's not enough. If there is a virtue in Senator Conrad's magic budget act, it is that it begins to reveal where Democrats would take fiscal policy after 2008 if they run the entire government. Voters may want to look behind the Conrad curtain before their lower tax rates and higher stock-market returns go "poof."
March 20, 2007 in News | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef00d834eea51953ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WSJ: Conrad's Tax:
Comments
Typically, the WSJ Editorial page ignores what share of total income the top 1% earned in 2004 vs. 1996. If the top 1% earned 40% of all income in 1996 but 50% of all income in 2004, of course their share of taxes will have gone up. This hardly means the tax code is more "progressive" because of tax cuts (a farcical argument if ever there was one).
Plus, of course, they ignore the payroll tax.
Posted by: Ugh | Mar 20, 2007 5:08:18 PM
I second the above comment. One reason the top 1% is likely "earning" much more money is because the possibly temporary low capital gains rates and qualified dividend treatment of the Bush Tax Cuts did stimulate the recent cashing in of major investments. This is also how editorial pages claim that tax cuts somehow increase the amount of taxes collected.
Still, the WSJ articles do keep your mind fresh (if only by being able to see past them).
Posted by: Philip Cleary | Mar 21, 2007 6:26:25 AM





