View Research by Author - Greg Leiserson

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

Tax and fiscal policy will loom large in the next president's domestic policy agenda. Nearly all of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 expire at the end of 2010 and the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) threatens to ensnare tens of millions of Americans. While a permanent fix palatable to both political parties has proven elusive, both candidates have proposed major tax changes. This report describes how we performed our modeling and analysis, outlines the major tax proposals, and discusses the implications of their policies for the revenue raised, taxpayer economic activity, and the distribution of the tax burden.

Since 2001, Congress has passed a major tax bill almost every year. Most have reduced taxes significantly and, since they were not accompanied by spending cuts, the resulting deficits have increased the national debt. The tax cuts total almost $2.2 trillion over ten years, and that total may be vastly understated if some or all of the cuts are extended beyond their scheduled expiration date of 2010. In addition, the cuts exacerbated the growing problem of the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Barring legislative action, more than 33 million taxpayers will fall prey to the AMT in 2010.

Congress originally enacted a minimum tax in 1969 to guarantee that high-income individuals paid at least a minimal amount of tax. Under today’s alternative minimum tax (AMT), middle- and upper-income taxpayers must add a number of "preference items" to their taxable income, subtract a special AMT exemption, and calculate their tax according to the AMT rules. If the tax under those rules turns out to be higher than their regular income tax, taxpayers pay the difference as AMT. Unless Congress acts, 26.8 million taxpayers will be affected by the AMT in 2008.

Congress enacted a minimum tax in 1969 to guarantee that high-income individuals paid at least some tax. The AMT now threatens to grow from a footnote in the tax code to a major component affecting tens of millions of taxpayers. Although most lower- and middle-income taxpayers will remain unaffected by it, policymakers need to deal with the explosive growth of the AMT from an obscure tax affecting only 20,000 filers in 1970 to one affecting more than 33 million-a third of all taxpayers-by 2010. This document provides updated estimates of AMT participation, revenue, and distribution.

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.

Return to list of authors