Citation URL: http://www.urban.org/GregLeiserson

Republican Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson has announced a tax plan that combines tax cut extensions, additional tax cuts, and an election to pay tax under a new alternative tax system that would substitute a larger standard deduction for all current deductions and credits and have two rates of 10 and 25 percent. Thompson's plan would reduce federal revenues by $6-7 trillion over ten years, amounting to a reduction of almost 20 percent below current projections, and would be highly regressive. This article describes the proposed changes in the individual income and estate tax and examines their implications for revenue and the distribution of tax burdens.

On October 25, 2007, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) unveiled H.R. 3970, The Tax Reduction and Reform Act of 2007, sweeping tax reform legislation that would provide for a revenue-neutral repeal of the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT). This paper describes the proposal and provides distribution tables that analyze the impact of the major individual income tax provisions in the bill.

The individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) was originally an add-on tax intended to assure that high income people paid at least some tax. It has morphed and mutated over time, and now is on track to hit 23 million households in 2007. This note describes an option that would return the AMT by repealing the AMT and replacing it with an add-on tax of four percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) above $100,000 for singles and $200,000 for couples. It is a simple, approximately revenue neutral over the ten-year budget window and highly progressive.

April 15 is synonymous with taxes in the United States, but most Americans actually pay more payroll taxes than federal income taxes. In 2006 workers and employers each paid 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the first $94,200 of earnings and 1.45 percent Medicare tax on all wages. While the statutory obligation to pay payroll taxes is split evenly between workers and employers, most economists believe that the employer tax usually translates into lower wages, so workers bear the full burden of the tax. Thus, the total payroll tax rate equals 15.3 percent of earnings for most workers.

Under current law, the number of taxpayers affected by the alternative minimum tax (AMT) is projected to rise from about 4 million in 2006 to more than 23 million in 2007 and more than 32 million in 2010. On average, taxpayers affected by the AMT in 2010 will owe an additional $3,600 in taxes. Two primary culprits are responsible for this impending explosion: the failure to index the AMT for inflation and the 2001–2006 tax cuts. This article illustrates the growth of the AMT that would have taken place if the different incarnations of the tax that have existed since 1990 were in place today and explains the reasons for the changes in the projections under each scenario.

Tax rate reductions on long-term capital gains and qualifying dividends were a key, highly touted component of the tax cuts passed in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). However, like the 2001–2006 tax cuts more broadly, taxpayers affected by the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) may not pay the advertised lower rates. This article explains the interaction between the capital gains rate and the AMT and provides example tax calculations for two sample taxpayers.

The paper describes the new standard deduction for health insurance, proposed in the FY2008 Budget, and evaluates the extent to which it would meet its stated goals of expanding health insurance coverage and restraining healthcare spending, and its effects on the distribution of tax burdens in the short and long terms. The basic approach would improve the market for health insurance, but inadequate attention was paid to problems in the nongroup market or those facing households with low incomes. In consequence, the plan could actually reduce overall insurance coverage. The paper suggests a variety of ways in which the proposal could be improved so more people would be covered, including those with low incomes or in poor health.

The individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) was originally designed to limit the amount of tax sheltering and to assure that high-income filers paid at least some tax. The current AMT, however, has strayed from those original goals and under current law the tax will affect over 23 million taxpayers in 2007. This brief examines a variety of implications of AMT repeal or reform and an array of options for offsetting the revenues lost under such options. The ideal solution would be to address the AMT in the context of a complete overhaul of the income tax, such as the proposal made by the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Income Tax Reform.

This article examines variations in tax liability and tax rates confronting typical families as income and the number of children change for tax year 2006. Although the examples represent very simple tax situations, they illustrate how hidden taxes and subsidies can make the marginal tax rate an amalgam of different effects. Often, the effective marginal tax rates and average tax rates can vary significantly from the statutory tax rates because of the phase-ins and phase-outs of deductions and credits, the individual alternative minimum tax, progressive tax schedules, and other aspects of our income tax system.

The individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) was originally enacted in 1969 to guarantee that high-income individuals paid at least a minimal amount of tax. Middle- and upper-income taxpayers must add a number of so-called “preference items” to their taxable income, subtract a special AMT exemption, and calculate their tax according to the AMT tax schedule. If the tax under that schedule is higher than the regular income tax, taxpayers pay the difference as AMT. This document outlines 11 key facts and projections about the AMT, including its effects on taxpayers and prospects for its reform.

Return to list of authors