Data analysis shows people of color will get much smaller tax breaks over time. ….
…. Starting next year, every income group will see their average tax rates drop. But rates for the super wealthy, those earning more than $200,000 a year, will decrease between 2.1 and 3.1 percent of their income, compared to half a percent for those earning less than $30,000, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan congressional panel that analyzes the effect of proposed tax changes in bills.
For later years, the disparities only become greater.
Between 2019 and 2025, many Americans earning less than $30,000 will see their taxes increase until their effective rates are actually higher, as much as 0.7 percentage points more than if the new tax law had not passed, according to the JCT. The wealthy will continue to pay at lower rates, as much as 1.5 percentage points lower.
That’s not only a bad deal for the poor; it has a disproportionate impact on blacks and Hispanics. Nearly 40 percent of black households earn less than $30,000, followed by 30 percent of Hispanic households, according to the Center’s analysis. Only 22 percent of white households earn less than $30,000. ….
In July 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that certain organizations that are exempt from paying federal income tax (tax-exempt organizations or EOs) under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), including social welfare organizations, labor unions, and trade associations, will no longer be required to disclose the names and addresses of their “substantial” donors in Schedule B of their annual Form 990 returns to the IRS. Charitable tax-exempt organizations described in IRC Section 501(c)(3), which are statutorily required to disclose certain donor information, were not impacted by the July 2018 policy.
The IRS noted several reasons for making the change, including reducing administrative burdens and protecting sensitive, nonpublic personal information. In opposition, some have argued that the IRS’ policy change will reduce transparency over the funding sources of EOs’ political activities and make it more difficult for the IRS to enforce tax laws. At least one state has filed a lawsuit seeking to have the new policy set aside, alleging that the IRS implemented the policy in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
This Sidebar will first provide background on the statute and regulations regarding EOs’ disclosure of contributor information. Next, the Sidebar will discuss the justifications of and reactions to the new policy, including the views of proponents and opponents of the new policy. The Sidebar will then discuss the litigation Montana has filed against the policy. Finally, the Sidebar will provide considerations for Congress…..
For-profit companies don’t typically downplay the value of their assets.
But when it comes to paying property taxes, some of Silicon Valley’s largest companies are going head to head with officials to try to prove that some of the equipment and machinery they used to become global titans are actually worth a lot less than what county tax assessors say.
In the Bay Area, Genentech and Apple are particularly aggressive in opposing tax assessors — elected officials who determine the value of property for tax purposes. Both companies are leading years-long efforts to recoup tens of millions of dollars they say they’ve overpaid in taxes on buildings, land, lab equipment, computers and other items….
…. There is nothing illegal or unethical about appealing assessments. Companies are entitled to contest property assessments they believe are done improperly or inaccurately. But the tactics taken by Genentech, Apple and other large corporations, county assessors say, border on abusing the system.
The practice, they say, forces local governments to hold millions of dollars in limbo that would otherwise go to taxpayer-funded programs like schools, roads and special districts, in case they have to issue refunds to the companies. ….
From July 16 to August 7, 2018, Tom K. Wong of the University of California, San Diego; United We Dream; the National Immigration Law Center; and the Center for American Progress fielded a national survey to further analyze the experiences of DACA recipients. The study includes 1,050 DACA recipients in 41 states as well as the District of Columbia.
This research, as with previous surveys, shows that DACA recipients are making significant contributions to the economy and their communities. In all, 96 percent of respondents are currently employed or enrolled in school.
….Several years of data, including this 2018 survey, make clear that DACA is having a positive and significant effect on wages. The average hourly wage of respondents increased by 78 percent since receiving DACA, from $10.32 per hour to $18.42 per hour. Among respondents 25 years and older, the average hourly wage increased by 97 percent since receiving DACA. These higher wages are not only important for recipients and their families but also for tax revenues and economic growth at the local, state, and federal levels…..
On 1 August, the New York State (Aa1 stable) Comptroller’s Office announced that first half of calendar year 2018 sales tax collections grew 6% over 2017, the highest six-month increase since 2010. Sales tax revenues are a significant revenue stream for many counties and cities across New York, and sales tax growth also indicates that New York’s economy is improving. Additionally, the early effects of the federal tax law may be having a positive influence on people’s buying habits through the first half of 2018. As a result, these results are credit positive for many cities and counties in New York.
New York’s (Aa1 stable) legislation allowing municipalities to issue bonds to liquidate operating deficits is an important tool for local governments mired in financial distress. However, accessing this deficit financing has produced mixed results, providing a one-time influx of cash but still leaving local governments vulnerable to poor management decisions.
Source: Mark E. Bokert and Alan Hahn, Employee Relations Law Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, Summer 2018
On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), which significantly amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). While the main focus of the TCJA may be on lowering corporate and individual tax rates, the TCJA also includes meaningful changes in the area of employee benefits and executive compensation, including changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the tax treatment of how public companies and tax-exempt organizations pay their executives, and the tax treatment of various fringe benefits. Among the changes in the benefits and compensation arena, the TCJA effectively repeals the ACA individual mandate by reducing the individual mandate penalty to zero, effective as of January 1, 2019; prohibits public companies from deducting certain performance-based compensation paid to their top executives; and provides that nonprofit organizations are subject to excise taxes for certain compensation packages paid to their highest paid employees.
Some expected changes impacting benefits and compensation never came to fruition. For example, while some earlier drafts of the TCJA included a repeal of Section 409A of the Code and the expansion of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), the final law does not include any meaningful changes in these areas.
This column provides an overview of some of the changes enacted by the TCJA that impact the employer-employee relationship. Employers will want to work with their legal counsel to understand the nuances of the TCJA to determine whether any of their employee benefits plans or executive compensation arrangements should be amended in light of the TCJA and whether they should consider revising benefit packages offered to their employees.
– The Trump tax cuts were pitched as a boon to US workers, with the administration arguing their benefits would trickle-down into rising wages.
– While the tax cuts have meant some Americans are keeping more of their paychecks, no discernible gains in wages have materialized thus far.
– Real average hourly earnings (adjusted for inflation) for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls were totally unchanged in June from one year earlier.
President Donald Trump recently said that the U.S. economy is “stronger than ever before” and points to his tax plan as one of the major reasons why.1 But the fact is that workers are not getting ahead in the Trump economy. Official data released in recent weeks have shown that workers’ wages are flat or even slightly down, in real terms, over the last year.2 These data fly in the face of many tax plan boosters who have claimed that the bill’s passage has already been a boon to middle-class workers….
The state is caught in an economic straitjacket and there’s no easy way out…..
…. Blue chip companies like General Electric have either left or are threatening to leave. A yawning budget deficit continues to loom over the state, amplified by some of the nation’s most glaring economic inequality. Greenwich, home to hedge funders and Manhattan corporate titans, and the Norman Rockwell suburbs of Westport, New Canaan and Darien share few priorities with Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport, gritty cities struggling with searing poverty and fiscal disaster. Connecticut’s political leaders must choose between what seem like equally rotten options: cut services, and push more burden onto the urban poor, or hike taxes, and risk repelling both the suburban rich who pay much of the freight and new businesses that might consider moving here. Put simply, Connecticut is in a bind with precious little room to maneuver.
Connecticut’s troubles are extreme but hardly unique. The recovery that has entrenched Connecticut into the haves and have-nots has been unequal in other regions as well – from Florida to California and down to Texas. As the stock market climbs but wages remain relatively flat, the Constitution State serves as a troubling bellwether of national priorities that seem to favor wealth creation for the few before investments in the broader economy. ….
On June 25, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the Kansas (Aa2 stable) state legislature’s latest K-12 public school funding bills still do not meet the state’s constitutional standards for adequately funding public education. This ruling is a credit positive for Kansas school districts because it will mean a modest amount of additional operational revenue to districts, on top of the $643.9 million in additional funding over the next five-year period covered by the legislature’s current funding plan. Further, the court has also stated that the current plan is to remain in temporary effect with a stay on the ruling through June 30, 2019, during which time the state will need to re-submit to the court a remedy that will bring funding up to state standards for student achievement.
Source: John L. Mikesell – Indiana University, Sharon N. Kioko – University of Washington, presented at the Brookings Institution’s 7th annual Municipal Finance Conference, July 16-17, 2018
For the second half of the 20th century, the retail sales tax was the largest single source of tax revenue to state government and the second largest source for local governments. Born out desperation during the Great Depression, the retail sales tax became the single largest source of tax revenue for the states by 1947. While consumption is an indispensable measure of household ability to pay, the U.S. retail sales tax fails to fully capture that measure in its taxable base. As a result, the tax is not economically neutral, horizontally equitable, robustly revenue-productive, or simple to collect. Since its adoption, political, social, and economic forces have created a tax that is both “too broad” or “too narrow”. We explore patterns of change and their impact on the retail sales tax. Specifically, we explore how changes in consumption, policy, and technology, particularly the internet, have made the retail sales tax less neutral, equitable, administrable, and productive. We also examine which policy options have been successful and what policy changes should be encouraged.