Biden's Tax plan

lil devils x

šŸMore Lego Goats Please!šŸ
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
šŸUSAšŸ
Gender
ā™€
"Joe Biden wants to raise taxes to pay for an agenda that includes fighting climate change and expanding child care, pushing federal revenue about 9% above what it would be without any policy changes in the next decade."


"Mr. Biden, the former vice president, would target his tax increases on high-income households, which he defines as those making above $400,000 a year. He said recently that no one making under $400,000 would pay more.

The household types included here arenā€™t representative of the U.S. population and instead are constructed to show the impact of various Biden policies.

ā€œNo president can get all the policies passed that they want,ā€ Mr. Pomerleau said. ā€œPeople should focus a little more on the fact that he wants to raise taxes mostly on high-income households and the rough magnitudes of the tax increases, rather than, for example, the specific contours of his policy to tax capital gains.ā€

Mr. Bidenā€™s proposed corporate tax increases make up a significant piece of his $4 trillion tax plan. They arenā€™t part of this household analysis, and they would mostly hit high-income people that own stock, as well as foreigners, endowments and pension funds. But some of the burden would fall on the rest of the population, in the short term on those who own stock, and potentially in the longer term as companies respond to higher taxes by limiting wage increases."


"Many middle-income households would see little if any change in their tax burdens. They would get to keep the tax cuts they got in the 2017 law signed by President Trump.

In some cases, Mr. Biden has proposed targeted tax cuts that would help some but not all households. Those include a child-care tax credit of up to $8,000 for one child and $16,000 for two. That credit means that this household would get a larger net benefit from the income tax system than it does now."


In addition to tax increases, Biden proposes a variety of tax incentives that are meant to encourage specific kinds of activity, ranging from carbon capture and storage to an $8,000 tax credit for childcare. In addition to those tax credits, he proposes:

  • A restoration of the electric vehicle tax credit
  • Tax credits for residential energy efficiency
  • Making permanent the New Markets Tax Credit
  • Establishing a Manufacturing Communities Tax Credit
  • A renterā€™s credit to reduce rent and utilities to 30 percent of income
  • An expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for those older than 65
  • A $5,000 tax credit for informal caregivers
  • Expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
  • A reinstated Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC)
  • A tax credit for childcare facilities built by businesses
  • Providing a 26 percent tax credit to match traditional retirement contributions as a replacement to deductibility of those contributions (Roth treatment remains unchanged)
  • Establishing a First Down Payment Tax Credit of up to $15,000
Bidenā€™s tax vision is twofold: higher taxes on high-income earners and businesses paired with more generous provisions for specific activities and households. Given the current economic landscape, as households and businesses are still reckoning with the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic, the former part of the Democratic nomineeā€™s tax vision may have to be put on hold if he wins the election.

SO far it isn't looking that bad. No tax increases for middle and low income earners, they keep their current tax cuts and some households get additional cuts.Higher taxes on high earners to pay for much needed programs. The renters credit and the low income housing credit will help some families really struggling to keep a roof over their heads.
 
Last edited:

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,944
3,099
118
Country
USA
Wait, so basically heā€™s just reversing the Bush tax cuts maybe? Like, Iā€™m pretty sure those amounted to more than 9% of federal revenues. Tax credits for child care donā€™t necessarily help people who canā€™t afford it to begin with. Tax credits for workers over 65 incentivizes retiring later which is terrible for workers. Weird retirement changes also maybe do that I donā€™t know. Anything that pushes people unable to afford housing to try to buy a house can easily contribute to another real estate bubble, especially if it is reliant on making housing accessible but not affordable (easy credit, cheaper down payments, etc). Very little of this looks good at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

lil devils x

šŸMore Lego Goats Please!šŸ
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
šŸUSAšŸ
Gender
ā™€
Wait, so basically heā€™s just reversing the Bush tax cuts maybe? Like, Iā€™m pretty sure those amounted to more than 9% of federal revenues. Tax credits for child care donā€™t necessarily help people who canā€™t afford it to begin with. Tax credits for workers over 65 incentivizes retiring later which is terrible for workers. Weird retirement changes also maybe do that I donā€™t know. Anything that pushes people unable to afford housing to try to buy a house can easily contribute to another real estate bubble, especially if it is reliant on making housing accessible but not affordable (easy credit, cheaper down payments, etc). Very little of this looks good at all.
  • A renterā€™s credit to reduce rent and utilities to 30 percent of income
  • Expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
Wouldn't that offset the "pushes people unable to afford housing" issue you speak of?
Tax credits for childcare are still better than what they have now I would think. How are they affording now?
Reducing rent + utilities to being 30% or less of income is huge for people struggling to make ends meet right now.


I think his focus on retirement is actually to address some of the current issues with retirement so they so they do not have to increase social security payments immediately to buy some time and reduce the number of elderly that are homeless or about to be.
 
Last edited:

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,944
3,099
118
Country
USA
  • A renterā€™s credit to reduce rent and utilities to 30 percent of income
  • Expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
Wouldn't that offset the "pushes people unable to afford housing" issue you speak of?
Renterā€™s credit absolutely (mustā€™ve missed that while reading) assuming itā€™s just a flat thing. The problem is tax credits tend to most effect people who have taxes after everything is accounted for, which many poor people donā€™t. I really feel the tax credit back for your first purchase is just asking to create a bubble.
Tax credits for childcare are still better than what they have now I would think. How are they affording now?
Reducing rent + utilities to being 30% or less of income is huge for people struggling to make ends meet right now.
Universal childcare is a legitimate option and should be treated as such.
I think his focus on retirement is actually to address some of the current issues with retirement so they so they do not have to increase social security payments immediately to buy some time and reduce the number of elderly that are homeless or about to be.
An overhaul of Social Security to simply be a universal welfare system for retirees would be better. Pushing back retirement ages keeps squeezing the job market and makes it harder for young people to get jobs. Itā€™s very bad. If we continue to not address this issue, it will create a crisis.
 

lil devils x

šŸMore Lego Goats Please!šŸ
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
šŸUSAšŸ
Gender
ā™€
Renterā€™s credit absolutely (mustā€™ve missed that while reading) assuming itā€™s just a flat thing. The problem is tax credits tend to most effect people who have taxes after everything is accounted for, which many poor people donā€™t. I really feel the tax credit back for your first purchase is just asking to create a bubble.

Universal childcare is a legitimate option and should be treated as such.

An overhaul of Social Security to simply be a universal welfare system for retirees would be better. Pushing back retirement ages keeps squeezing the job market and makes it harder for young people to get jobs. Itā€™s very bad. If we continue to not address this issue, it will create a crisis.
I would love for them to be able to overhaul social security, but that depends on congress doing a whole hell of a lot, rather than just passing his tax cuts/ credits in the budget. I think he went this route to bypass all that and he sees it as doable. I agree about the retirement job issue, I see why he is doing it because we can't afford to raise social security payments right now, but I also know the job market completely sucks and is going to only get worse. We really need UBI, but I don't think he can campaign on that just yet. It could come up as something progressives manage to get though if democrats win both houses and unemployment remains high like it is now as a means to address unemployment though.

With the tax credits though, they may be better off not paying their taxes in for once AND still would get a healthy income tax check. so it will still be better than what is happening now.
 

lil devils x

šŸMore Lego Goats Please!šŸ
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
šŸUSAšŸ
Gender
ā™€
" his tax increases on high-income households, which he defines as those making above $400,000 a year. He said recently that no one making under $400,000 would pay more. "

So only the wealthy people in the room would be complaining. Probably all the guys on the other side of the room in the suits, everyone else would be benefiting.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
" his tax increases on high-income households, which he defines as those making above $400,000 a year. He said recently that no one making under $400,000 would pay more. "

So only the wealthy people in the room would be complaining. Probably all the guys on the other side of the room in the suits, everyone else would be benefiting.
Yeah, just to clarify, this is me being a smartarse rather than commenting on tax brackets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lil devils x

SupahEwok

Malapropic Homophone
Legacy
Jun 24, 2010
4,028
1,401
118
Country
Texas
I like a lot of that in theory, in practicality it's only going to apply to people who have a financial advisor or can afford Turbotax to afford them tax literacy; I don't see credits being a good tool to help the poor.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,547
930
118
Country
USA
Can they knock it off with the corporate income tax nonsense? It's just not a progressive tax. You want steeper tax brackets and properly aligned capital gains taxes, these are things I can understand. But screwing with the finances of businesses screws with not just the owners, but also the employees and consumers.

To quote the tax foundation analysis in the OP: " While Bidenā€™s tax plan would make the tax code more progressive, it would reduce after-tax incomes for filers across the income spectrum by reducing the incentive to work and invest in the United States." Corporate tax burden disproportionately hurts in that sense compared to the relatively low portion of taxes raised that way. It's not progressive.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,963
118
Can they knock it off with the corporate income tax nonsense? It's just not a progressive tax.
Evidence suggests it is progressive - corporation tax changes mostly seem to change shareholder payouts, which means increasing corporation tax is likely to hit high earners more. But sure, it is not the most efficiently progressive.

To quote the tax foundation analysis in the OP: " While Bidenā€™s tax plan would make the tax code more progressive, it would reduce after-tax incomes for filers across the income spectrum by reducing the incentive to work and invest in the United States." Corporate tax burden disproportionately hurts in that sense compared to the relatively low portion of taxes raised that way. It's not progressive.
The Tax Foundation may be "non-partisan", but it most certainly not neutral. It is an anti-tax and anti-spending think tank, albeit in a rather quaint, moderate fashion compared to the far more fanatical ones of more recent decades.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,547
930
118
Country
USA
Evidence suggests it is progressive - corporation tax changes mostly seem to change shareholder payouts, which means increasing corporation tax is likely to hit high earners more. But sure, it is not the most efficiently progressive.
Ok, but a flat tax hits high earners more, in a traditional sense of more or less. In terms of life disruption, a corporate tax is going to have less impact on a billionaire moving to a different country than the people being left behind.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,963
118
Ok, but a flat tax hits high earners more, in a traditional sense of more or less. In terms of life disruption, a corporate tax is going to have less impact on a billionaire moving to a different country than the people being left behind.
Probably not in the USA. Where are US billionaires going to move to?

Billionaires don't just pick a place that's cheap, they want culture and access to centres of power in the society and business world they operate in. In Europe, they can live in tax-free Monaco and skip off to Paris, Berlin, London etc. at a whim. But there's nowhere near the USA where a billionaire can do that with lower taxes. When a US investor moves to Singapore, it's not because they're fed up with US taxes, it's because they want to invest in the Far East.

Corporation tax also represents companies paying their bit for the public services they also benefit from, and arguably companies don't pay that much. Companies in the USA made ~Ā£2 trillion in profits in 2019 (~10% of the US economy) and paid ~$230 billion in corporation tax (~6% of federal revenues).
 
  • Like
Reactions: lil devils x

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,547
930
118
Country
USA
Corporation tax also represents companies paying their bit for the public services they also benefit from.
I know this is a bit of a US idiosyncrasy, but they do. Those public services are local services paid for locally.
 

lil devils x

šŸMore Lego Goats Please!šŸ
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
šŸUSAšŸ
Gender
ā™€
I like a lot of that in theory, in practicality it's only going to apply to people who have a financial advisor or can afford Turbotax to afford them tax literacy; I don't see credits being a good tool to help the poor.
Even the poor have to file a tax return. My brothers are poor and they still do their taxes and understand credits and such. That is how my unemployed brother still gets his healthcare subsidies exempted.
 

lil devils x

šŸMore Lego Goats Please!šŸ
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
šŸUSAšŸ
Gender
ā™€
Ok, but a flat tax hits high earners more, in a traditional sense of more or less. In terms of life disruption, a corporate tax is going to have less impact on a billionaire moving to a different country than the people being left behind.
They aren't going anywhere. You always hear that, then you see them building grandma a house down the street from them the same year the wealthy threatened to leave. Instead they buy a bunch of land and build an entire neighborhood for their extended family here in the US somewhere instead.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,963
118
I know this is a bit of a US idiosyncrasy, but they do. Those public services are local services paid for locally.
Oh, it's much wider that that: companies benefit from a lot of things at a lot of levels. The entire legal framework that companies operate in is the work of the state. They are also defended by the US military. They use transport infrastructure. Health expenditure helps keep their workers alive healthy and public education provides them skilled workers. And so on.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,456
721
118
Country
Sweden
"Mr. Biden, the former vice president, would target his tax increases on high-income households, which he defines as those making above $400,000 a year. He said recently that no one making under $400,000 would pay more.
Since I don't use the US dollar as a currency I had to convert that number to make sense of it. I encourage others in my position reading this to do the same.

Anyway, this website claimed that a 400,000 $ income puts a household in the top 2 % of the highest earners. Which if Mr. Biden can deliver doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lil devils x

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,547
930
118
Country
USA
Oh, it's much wider that that: companies benefit from a lot of things at a lot of levels. The entire legal framework that companies operate in is the work of the state. They are also defended by the US military. They use transport infrastructure. Health expenditure helps keep their workers alive healthy and public education provides them skilled workers. And so on.
And we have property taxes, payroll taxes, business licensing fees, etc.