How much would you pay with Obama’s tax plan?

The fierce debate over President Obama’s plan to hike taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year has ignored the consequences for individual taxpayers.

By The Fiscal Times Jul 20, 2012 2:09PM
By Josh BoakThe Fiscal Times
The fierce debate over President Obama’s plan to hike taxes on families with incomes above $250,000 a year has mostly revolved around ideologically-fueled disputes about the impact on the broader economy—and has ignored the consequences for individual taxpayers.

Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney predicts an increase would cripple growth as tens of billions of dollars flow away from the private sector each year, while Obama claims that a beleaguered middle class would suffer from the brunt of spending cuts needed to preserve the lower rates that were first introduced by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003. Voters heading to the polls in November will decide not just the occupant of the Oval Office, but what income tax rates will look like starting in 2013.

So what would it mean for the roughly two million American families and individuals on the higher end of the spectrum? That crucial question has escaped the partisan bickering so far.

For most, it’s likely a modest bump, according to independent analyses. At incomes above $1 million—about 378,000 people—the government would start extracting sums equal in size to a salaried job, and after that point the magnitude of the increases would snowball in exponential terms.

“The vast majority of people who are above these thresholds would face small to moderate tax increases, if they face increases at all,” said Joe Rosenberg, a tax policy researcher at the Urban Institute.

The numbers look intimidating at first. Obama would raise the tax rate from 33 percent to 36 percent on household incomes between $247,000 and $398,350. (The ceiling for individuals is $200,000.) Any earnings above that would be taxed at 39.6 percent, compared to the current top level of 35 percent. For those above that ceiling, tax rates on capital gains and dividends would also climb, a key change since many retirees and wealthy individuals derive their income from investments.

But families with $250,000 to $300,000 in taxable income would on average owe an additional $199 a year, according to projections drawn from Census and IRS data by the progressive Citizens for Tax Justice. That works out to $16 a month, enough to reduce the number of afternoon stops at Starbucks but not so devastating that the beach vacation gets canceled.

“What gets lost in this debate is a lot of people in that range aren’t going to be affected,” said Nick Kasprak, who has analyzed Obama’s proposal for the non-partisan Tax Foundation and created an online calculator to see estimated tax bills.

That’s not quite the warning being sounded by Romney, who blasted the proposal this month to the conservative radio show host John Fredericks as “a massive tax increase job creators and on small business.

“This will be another kick in the gut to the middle class in America,” he continued.

Many families will have thousands of dollars in deductions that either put them slightly above or just below the $250,000 threshold.  And because the United States has a marginal tax system— charging a smaller rate at each level of less income—much of their earnings would be protected from the increases called for by Obama and congressional Democrats.

The marginal system is a critical element that often gets glossed over in the political debate, distorting how people think about the proposal. Obama, in some ways, has mischaracterized his position by saying it’s a return to the policies of President Clinton during the 1990s, a period associated with the prosperity of the tech boom.

“I just believe that anybody making over $250,000 a year should go back to the income tax rates we were paying under Bill Clinton -- back when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history, and plenty of millionaires to boot,” Obama said in a White House speech earlier this month.

But due to the marginal system, the country would not return to a Clinton-era tax code. Obama favors keeping the lower rates established by Bush for all earnings under $250,000 for at least one year.  Even the wealthiest who would sacrifice a little more for the good of the federal budget would still benefit from those lower rates.

If the full Clinton tax code was restored, those same families earning $250,000 to $300,000 could have legitimate reason to protest. Their bill to the IRS would surge by $10,259, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

“We’re a little amazed by this actually,” said Steve Wamhoff, legislative director for the organization. “There are some people who don’t realize that Obama would be extending tax cuts for a lot of wealthy people.”

The nature of the debate is muddled a bit by a host of other tax issues that shape the blitz of competing economic studies and analyses. For example, an Ernst & Young study released this month on by the National Federation of Independent Business includes in its model—which projects the loss of 700,000 jobs— a separate tax increase associated with Obamacare.

What’s clear is that the further up someone is on the economic food chain, the more those Bush-era cuts disappear and the higher the tab with the IRS. In other words, the political debate is really about whether multi-millionaires and billionaires should face a substantially higher tax burden, rather than those with relatively generous salaries but middle class lifestyles.

The Tax Foundation calculator estimates that a typical two-child household with $400,000 in salary and investment income would pay $3,541 more in taxes under Obama. Those figures build to the point that a family earning $10 million to $20 million would see their bill balloon by almost $700,000.

And that reflects the underlying philosophical difference between Obama and Romney. To Romney, this group includes job creators whose business incomes are taxed at individual rates (pass-through taxation).  These include partnerships in professions like law and medicine as well as small individual business owners  who may not hire additional workers if their incomes are dramatically reduced. By contrast, Obama looks at the economic troubles across his time in office and concludes that prosperity will not trickle from the top, saying this month, “We’ve tried it their way. It didn’t work.”

Josh Boak is a National Correspondent at The Fiscal Times. Subscribe to The Fiscal Times' FREE newsletter.

More from The Fiscal Times:

Jul 20, 2012 8:15PM

What mathematical moron works at the progressive Citizen for Tax Justice?  No wonder the progressive in the Senate can't do a budget because they don't know simple mathematics. A change in the rate for a person earnings of $300,000 per year goes up by $10,000 per year or $200 per week. 


What promise do we have that the thieves in Washington will stop over spending.  NONE!

Jul 23, 2012 3:32PM
The tax increases being discussed will have minimal impact on the annual fed budget deficit...or "spending-tax revenue deficit" because there's been no budget for 3 years, thank you banana-head Harry Reid.  Plus it won't pass because both Congressional Dems and Repubs are opposed.

The real question should be what will be done about the massive spending, fraud and waste of our money??!!  35 Million people getting food stamps, including foreign nationals/non-citizens??  Green energy/Obama-crony handouts for one failed experiment after another?  Dozens of duplicate jobs programs, explosion of disability applications, out of control entitlement spending and automatic entitlement goes on and on and on and on...  Tax increases WON'T FIX THIS MESS!  Before asking for a larger share of our labor/income/life, first tell us what you plan to do with it!

Jul 26, 2012 10:33AM

The very rich invest in corporations who make it over seas or in US.  These goods need to be sold.  90% of purchasing power for these goods in the US comes from the middle class.  If they have no spendable income to buy these goods, the rich will soon have less gain on thier investments.  A stong middle class is vital for everyone to succeed.  I own my own business...I can tell you, if I have less tax I keep the money.  If I have more sales, I hire.

Jul 24, 2012 1:48PM
Perhaps the rich would prefer the model of third world countries, where the rich pay nothing, extract everything, live behind guarded walls and bulletproof cars, and where the middle class, ever shrinking, and the poor, imitate by being tax cheats that lie because they can't, like Romney, take Swiss bank accounts and Caymans Islands tax cheat havens.  Rich patriotism is an oxymoron.  While betraying America, they take their wealth abroad, eat it in luxuries.  Perhaps they should look at their rich fellow Mammon worshippers in third world nations and wonder if that is a life worth living.  By gorging themselves like pigs, they encourage a wholly negative response.  Try Jesus, not Money.  Be wealthier by growing the middle class, not shrinking it.  Who will otherwise buy their stuff?
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?


Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.




Quotes delayed at least 15 min
Sponsored by:


There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.
There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.
Market index data delayed by 15 minutes

[BRIEFING.COM] The stock market began the new week on a cautious note. The S&P 500 lost 0.3%, but managed to erase more than half of its opening decline. Thanks to the rebound, the benchmark index reclaimed its 50-day moving average (1976.78) after slipping below that level in the morning.

Equities slumped at the open amid a couple global developments that dampened the overall risk appetite. Continued student protests in Hong Kong and a potential response from China weighed on the ... More


There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.