• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

ONE WEEK TO DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!

A generous CounterPuncher has offered a $25,000 matching grant. So for this week only, whatever you can donate will be doubled up to $25,000! If you have the means, please donate! If you already have done so, thank you for your support. All contributions are tax-deductible.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

One Tiny Tax Reform, Billions for America

It’s no secret that the federal government needs more revenue going forward. Congress could put the Treasury on autopilot to raise billions (and ultimately tens of billions) year after year. Guided by fairness, it could enact spend-down rules for non-retirement accounts that mirror those for retirement accounts: at age 70 ½, require minimum distributions and tax all gains at ordinary income rates.

Let’s look first at the tax policy drawn up by lawmakers to govern the original individual retirement accounts (IRAs) in 1974. Then let’s see how the same policy points to duplicate rules for regular, non-retirement holdings.

Congress gave generous tax breaks to IRAs all through the build-up years. In fact they’re tax-free, starting with contributions and including realized and unrealized capital gains, capital gains distributions, and dividends. If markets rose (a solid long-term bet), compounding would add hugely to the value of the breaks.

On the back end, legislators turned the accounts into a fair and far-sighted bargain. They elected to tax all withdrawals as ordinary income—including the capital gains, normally taxed at much lower rates (currently 15%). Under this mandate, taxes that were forgiven all along are continually recouped at ordinary income rates as retirees cash in.

So it is that IRAs, 401(k)s and the like yield tens of billions in federal income taxes every year—all of which is actually repaying America for those decades of tax breaks. According to the latest estimatefrom the Internal Revenue Service, taxable income from retirement accounts (not including pensions and annuities) totaled over $254 billion in 2016.

For legislative foresight, it’s hard to beat the taxation rules laid down for retirement accounts. More revenue is streaming into the Treasury precisely when an aging America needs every dollar it can get—to shore up Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, to replace and repair infrastructure, to see that more Americans get a college education, there’s no end to the nation’s pressing (and costly) needs.

Presciently, the annual inflow of new retirees means that revenue from retirement accounts is almost certain to increase. The actual numbers of course depend heavily on the stock market, which in the large has been a major plus. Wall Street’s bull run has surpassed 3,452 days, making it “the longest on record by most definitions.”

In another revenue boost, even the affluent who don’t actually need the money have to begin drawing down and paying back. Minimum distributions begin at age 70 ½ and continue at slowly increasing percentages each year.

On to non-retirement accounts and the case for treating them in like fashion. Holders of such accounts are also indebted to the Treasury for decades of tax breaks; they too should be required to take minimum distributions starting at age 70 ½, with the realized capital gains taxed at ordinary income rates.

Year after year, all their reported investment income gets taxed at a preferential rate. Year after year, they can avoid capital gains taxes by not realizing their gains—by simply buying and holding, while the markets and compounding drive the gains ever higher.

There’s also a final break that costs the Treasury dearly. In an egregious giveaway, unrealized capital gains can be wiped from the books by passing the holdings along to an heir. Through a loophole called the stepped-up basis, the value at the time of the transfer becomes the heir’s basis—erasing, and leaving untaxed, all the accumulated gains in the account. That break would vanish if Congress made minimum distributions a universal rule.

The comedian Rodney Dangerfield rose to fame with a signature line, “I don’t get no respect.” Retirement accounts, the vast majority defined-contribution, get no respect either. They’re regularly attacked for shifting the retirement savings burden to workers; far better and more secure, the critics say, were the defined-benefit pension plans that employers paid.

True enough—but there’s been little recognition of how completely defined contribution plans have outdistanced traditional pensions. Worker participation rates long ago eclipsed the pre-IRA highs. Total retirement savings have soared; likewise for company contributions. Lastly, as a fairness bonus, taxing capital gains the same as wages makes for less income inequality.

Over time though, the most inspired contribution of defined contribution accounts has to be those endless tens of billions in payback headed for the Treasury.  Congress could (let’s make that should) raise the revenue numbers another notch by applying the minimum distribution rule to regular accounts.

After all, why should retirement accounts be the only ones repaying the Treasury for tax breaks?

 

 

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
October 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Trump as the “Anti-War” President: on Misinformation in American Political Discourse
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Where’s the Beef With Billionaires?
Rob Urie
Capitalism and the Violence of Environmental Decline
Paul Street
Bernie in the Deep Shit: Dismal Dem Debate Reflections
Andrew Levine
What’s So Awful About Foreign Interference?
T.J. Coles
Boris Johnson’s Brexit “Betrayal”: Elect a Clown, Expect a Pie in Your Face
Joseph Natoli
Trump on the March
Ashley Smith
Stop the Normalization of Concentration Camps
Pete Dolack
The Fight to Overturn the Latest Corporate Coup at Pacifica Has Only Begun
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Russophobia at Democratic Party Debate
Chris Gilbert
Forward! A Week of Protest in Catalonia
Daniel Beaumont
Pressing Done Here: Syria, Iraq and “Informed Discussion”
Daniel Warner
Greta the Disturber
M. G. Piety
“Grim Positivism” vs. Truthiness in Biography
John Kendall Hawkins
Journey to the Unknown Interior of (You)
Christopher Fons – Conor McMullen
The Centrism of Elizabeth Warren
Nino Pagliccia
Peace Restored in Ecuador, But is trust?
Rebecca Gordon
Extorting Ukraine is Bad Enough But Trump Has Done Much Worse
Kathleen Wallace
Trump Can’t Survive Where the Bats and Moonlight Laugh
Clark T. Scott
Cross-eyed, Fanged and Horned
Eileen Appelbaum
The PR Campaign to Hide the Real Cause of those Sky-High Surprise Medical Bills
Olivia Alperstein
Nuclear Weapons are an Existential Threat
Colin Todhunter
Asia-Pacific Trade Deal: Trading Away Indian Agriculture?
Sarah Anderson
Where is “Line Worker Barbie”?
Brian Cloughley
Yearning to Breathe Free
Jill Richardson
Why are LGBTQ Rights Even a Debate?
Jesse Jackson
What I Learn While Having Lunch at Cook County Jail
Kathy Kelly
Death, Misery and Bloodshed in Yemen
Maximilian Werner
Leadership Lacking for Wolf Protection
Arshad Khan
The Turkish Gambit
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Rare Wildflower vs. Mining Company
Dianne Woodward
Race Against Time (and For Palestinians)
Norman Ball
Wall Street Sees the Light of Domestic Reindustrialization
Ramzy Baroud
The Last Lifeline: The Real Reason Behind Abbas’ Call for Elections
Binoy Kampmark
African Swine Fever Does Its Worst
Nicky Reid
Screwing Over the Kurds: An All-American Pastime
Louis Proyect
“Our Boys”: a Brutally Honest Film About the Consequences of the Occupation
Coco Das
#OUTNOW
Cesar Chelala
Donald Trump vs. William Shakespeare
Ron Jacobs
Calling the Kettle White: Ishmael Reed Unbound
Stephen Cooper
Scientist vs. Cooper: The Interview, Round 3 
Susan Block
How “Hustlers” Hustles Us
Charles R. Larson
Review: Elif Shafak’s “10 Minutes 38 Seconds in This Strange World”
David Yearsley
Sunset Songs
October 17, 2019
Steve Early
The Irishman Cometh: Teamster History Hits the Big Screen (Again)
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail