« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Handouts in the Tax Code that Nobody Wants to Discuss

The forgotten "30% club" that makes money off the tax system

For years, Democrats (and Republicans) have surreptitiously created dependency by manipulating the tax code.  Liberals often refer to handouts as tax cuts, and tax cuts as handouts to the rich.  To that end, they have perpetuated a travesty in which millions of people are able to obtain welfare payouts without ever applying for them.  Most people don’t even realize that they are receiving handouts because they view them as “tax credits.”  Accordingly, all efforts to eliminate these handouts are viewed as insidious tax increases.

These handouts are better known as refundable tax credits.

While most (conservative) commentators focus on the fact that 51% of tax filers paid no income taxes in 2009, the more egregious fact is that 30% of filers had a negative income tax liability.  Over 95% of these handouts came from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC).  As part of the Stimulus, Obama created a third refundable credit; the Making Work Pay Tax Credit.

Here are the relevant statistics for those refundable tax credits in 2009 (CRS report):

Earned Income Tax Credit

The EITC is granted primarily to low-income households with children, who make under $42,000.  In 2009, the maximum value of the credit was $457 for a childless taxpayer, $3,043 for a taxpayer with one child, $5,028 for a taxpayer with two children, and $5,657 for a taxpayer with three or more children.

What was the cost for those credits?

Number of Tax Returns with Credit Claimed: 25.70 million
Number of Tax Returns with Refundable Portion Claimed: 24.92 million
Total Budgetary Cost: $54.98 billion
Budgetary Cost of Refundable Portion: $53.99 billion

Hence, almost the entire cost of the EITC is paid out in the form of a handout.

Child Tax Credit

The Child Tax Credit reduces a filer’s tax liability by $1,000 per dependent child.  It begins to phase out for single filers making $75,000 and joint filers making $110,000.  The standard Child Tax Credit is non-refundable; however, low-income families benefit from the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), which is refundable.  Approximately 21 million of the 35.6 million who receive child tax credits enjoy negative tax liabilities through the ACTC.  The total budgetary cost of the CTC is $54.33 billion, while the cost of the refundable portion was $27.50 billion.

Making Work Pay Credit

This credit was part of the Stimulus bill, and only applied for 2009 and 2010.   The MWP credit reduced the tax withholdings from each paycheck up to $400 annually for single filers and $800 for joint filers.  It was phased out for those making over $75,000.  Approximately 32 million of the 101 million who received this credit enjoyed negative tax liabilities through the MWP.  The total budgetary cost of the MWP in 2009 was $50.79 billion, while the cost of the refundable portion was $12.82 billion.  For 2010, that number is estimated at $19.7 billion.

Let’s put these numbers in perspective.  Excluding the MWP tax credit, which was a two-year anomaly, the EITC and ACTC (the refundable portion) costs the Treasury $81.49 billion.  For some comparison and budget context: the entire cost of the Food Stamp program is $77 billion, while the cost of SSI is about $53 billion.

Why should anyone enjoy a positive tax liability, aka a tax handout, when we already have 77 welfare programs?  With the exception of Medicaid, we are paying more for refundable tax credits than any individual welfare program.  Yet, many of these people have never asked for a handout!  They are useful tools in precluding dependency on welfare and incentivizing people to work, if we were to eliminate many welfare programs.  However, we shouldn’t have both.

The system has been stacked so that millions of people would automatically receive handouts under the guise of the tax credit system.

As the Super Committee begins to tackle tax reform, we will witness much disquiet over the exemptions and deductions for the rich and big corporations.  We must remember that they already incur a tremendous positive tax liability.  The real issue is that a large share of the estimated $1 trillion in exemptions, deductions, and credits (known as “tax expenditures”) allow too many people to have zero income tax liability, or, more egregiously, a negative liability.

Many of the non-refundable tax credits, such as the reduced tax rate on dividends and capital gains, the tax preferences for defined benefit plans, and the tax preferences for defined contribution plans, should be maintained – even if they result in near-zero tax liability for some.  They promote savings and efficiency.   But, at the very least, we must tell the truth about the EITC and ACTC.  They are not tax credits; they are welfare payments – and must be eliminated.  Changing the status of a tax unit from negative tax liability to zero liability is not a tax increase.  At the current trajectory, the cost of these handouts over the next ten years will account for most, if not all, of the $1.2 trillion in targeted budget savings from the Super Committee.

Oh, but you might ask, what would you do for low-income families?  Well, we can’t offer more tax cuts to those who don’t pay taxes and are already eligible for a litany of welfare programs.  We can’t outbid the socialists in offering more handouts.   But we could make this promise: by fostering a true free market society – one that is devoid of over-taxation, regulation, litigation, and yes – subsidization – they would have a realistic opportunity to receive a decent paycheck, instead of a handout.

Such a bold move would give the Wall Street protesters – the product of the 30% crowd – something more substantial to protest.

COMMENTS

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    “Many of the non-refundable tax credits, such as the reduced tax rate on dividends and capital gains, the tax preferences for defined benefit plans, and the tax preferences for defined contribution plans, should be maintained”

    Sorry, government shouldn’t try to pick any winners and losers through the tax code at all. We need comprehensive tax reform that eliminates ALL deductions/exemptions/special rates and uses this savings to lower rates across the board while also gaining simplicity (thereby also cutting compliance costs).

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      most part I agree with eliminating most tax credits, especially in favor of a low flat tax, but I figure we’ll start the clearest issue: negative tax liability. Also, I’m advocating this policy even within the current tax structure. We should never have refundable credits. In the vent that we institute a real flat tax, we should indeed make changes to other credits and deductions.

      • Death_of_the_Donkey

        there is no way we are getting rid of EITC/Child Credits without fundamental tax reform. Tax reform is going to have to be all or nothing, as just like in 86, if you leave a few special interests in, they will all come knocking back within 3 years.

    • sadams

      but absolutely unachievable under our political system. Congress will never surrender its power to reward campaign contributors with tax breaks.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        in that case there might be a lot of change possible.

  • florajo

    The EITC was started by a Republican and later expanded by Reagan and Clinton. We didn’t fix it when we controlled the whole show under Bush. I always assume both parties love the thing.

    • sadams

      The only thing I can figure is there is an overwhelming political consensus that we should be encouraging people to have children who cannot afford them.

    • sadams

      The negative income tax proposals gained traction with Republicans as an alternative proposal to simply increasing welfare benefits that the Democrats were pushing for. The rationale at the time was that it would encourage people to get off welfare and get jobs. Of course, that rationale went by the board when welfare reform passed in the 1990′s, but of course the constituency supporting the EITC didn’t let that get in their way.

      • wonkish1

        The GOP was the one that brought the EITC to smooth over Welfare Reform which was originally supposed to be predominately just a negative income tax.

        So its a little weird for the GOP to bring the EITC to the table in 94 and then want it removed in 2011.

        • sadams

          The EITC came into existence long before welfare reform. I was auditing EITC returns at the IRS in 1979, and I’m sure it had been around for a number of years before that. The problem Republicans faced back then was a lack of political power to require welfare recipients to return to the work force; the EITC was intended to serve as “bait” to at least encourage people to get off welfare and go to work. Once welfare reform passed, the original rationale for the EITC was gone. As I recall, some Republicans in Congress brought this up at the time, but were basically shouted down.

          • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

            It was enacted in 1975.

            You’re on the money. EITC was a great alternative to welfare as a means of precluding self perpetuating joblessness. However, in this day and age, when there are 77 different programs there is no need to have both.

          • wonkish1

            I am pretty sure the EITC was expanded in 94 in the compromise legislation.

        • aesthete

          Milton Friedman envisioned the negative income tax as a replacement and alternative for welfare, *not* a supplement.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            under any circumstances, it is the same exact thing as EITC. It is supposed to be an alternative, but we will be stuck with both, indeed if we open that door we will have all four, income, FICA, Sales, and VAT taxes.

            Some here on this site have reasoned that “well we already have that threat” But they don’t understand the dynamic.

            IF the congress just tried to give us a VAT or a NST right now on top of current taxes then they would not be successful,

            But it they sale us those things based on a roll back (but not repeal) of the income tax, then it will be sooner rather than later before we have an increase in all three.

            AND I DARE ANYONE TO TRY AND CONVINCE ME THAT IS NOT EXACTLY THE WAY IT WOULD GO!!!!! If you believe otherwise you are just naive and not nearly cynical enough.

          • wonkish1

            Are convinced it would exactly like that as well.

            They just say place is such a corrupt and broken cesspool you give them another tax and you’ll regret every day afterwards.

  • A_Texan

    This post, like so many posts by my fellow conservatives, treats the payroll tax is if it’s not an income tax. It is–an effective 15% rate on all wages and other work-related income. And it’s regressive and very burdensome to the working poor.

    The EITC is for most, a partial refund of some of that tax.

    But it will be said–no, that’s not a tax, that’s your contribution for your participation in the SS and medicare system, which, of course will be there when you retire. Just keep paying it without complaint.

    I hope that no one on here will make such a claim with a straight face.

    So can we drop this nonsense about some people paying not federal income taxes… or getting a “handout.”

    • sadams

      If I don’t have kids, I don’t get the break, even though I’m paying the same amount of payroll tax on my income.

      • A_Texan

        He was alleging negative net tax liability–that those with the EITC receive a greater refund than their federal income taxes.

        It’s a handout if you didn’t have it, and now they give it to you. Here, the taxpayer’s money was his, and part of it was being returned–not a handout.

        (Of course, socialists believe the government owes everything, so a tax cut is no different from a handout).

        It may be unjust or unfair that some, but not others, should receive a tax cut, but that’s a different issue. I for one strongly favor reducing the tax liability for those with more children. Those parents are engaging in a very expensive and the most important public service-raising the next generation of citizens.

        • sadams

          See my post below. I don’t agree with you that we should have a federal policy encouraging people to have children, but I lean libertarian, so we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

    • sadams

      EITC can exceed the amount of the FICA withholding, which is certainly a handout. My previous comment has more to do with a lack of horizontal equity, as opposed to a handout.

      • sadams

        Looks like 23 million people get more back from EITC than they paid in FICA. I would post the link, which is to a speech on the Senate floor by Orrin Hatch, but I found the link on Daily Kos, which would probably get me banned from this site.

        • A_Texan

          As I’ve been taught by my fellow conservatives for years–and still believe, the so-called “employer’s contribution” represents $$ that the employee would have received as compensation. Both parts of the FICA together total the 15% tax.

          That 15% is painful. We receive EITC, with our large family, and for my second job, it’s self-employment, and that 15% is brutal.

          • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

            A Texan,

            I feel your pain with the payroll taxes, and I’ve written a lot about SS reform in the past. But for this post, for the most part, I’ve referred to negative income tax liability. Payroll taxes are a different story. They are not contributions to the general fund (at least officially); they go towards your own Social Security. You can’t complain about the tax burden of something that funds your retirement.

            Now your next question might be, why can’t we have private accounts and abolish the payroll tax altogether? I agree, but for now, this is the way Social Security is funded. Why should low-income earners pay a lower rate for SS, if they expect to receive a commensurate benefit from it?

            This is why payroll taxes represent a totally different issue than income taxes. The bottom line is that it doesn’t make sense for someone to make money off the system. And no, you can’t count payroll taxes as a contribution because you are receiving SS from that. Yes, the government is stealing the money, and we all might lose SS. But we are all is the same boat, irrespective of tax bracket.

          • sadams

            I am an attorney and have advised employers for years, and I have never once seen a salary determination made with reference to FICA, except in cases where I learn the employer was illegally misclassifying an employee as an independent contractor. On the self-employment side, you are probably correct that you are not getting more EITC than you are paying in taxes.

          • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

            again, sadams, those “taxes” go towards a person’s Social Security. They shouldn’t be able to enjoy a tax credit that zeros out their payroll tax liability, if they want the same benefits as anyone else paying FICA. Obviously, as mentioned previously, many low-income or large family conservatives would argue that they would rather take care of retirement on their own. But that’s another discussion altogether.

          • sadams

            But, it is probably still a horizontal equity issue more than anything else. I do find it somewhat inconsistent for a conservative to support credits for having children, but I have to respect the fact that some conservatives aren’t as libertarian as others.

          • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

            I certainly benefit from the Child Tax Credit. But for the purpose of this piece and this argument, I am not even going after the base CTC. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t have an additional tax credit to offer someone a negative tax balance.

  • Getting_Back_to_Basics

    I by no means want to encourage federal craziness by “increased revenues,” but I do not understand the GOP’s reluctance to close loopholes and smooth out the distortions in the tax code. This is an easy one to give the Dems and it is good for a free enterprise system — and it should be coupled with ending absurd refundable tax credits.

    Every time government carves out credits, loopholes or exceptions for special interest (even ones we like) this is a distortion to the market and encourages malinvestment.

    Let’s meet the Dems challenge to close loopholes (we can work on lowering rates later as long as they don’t raise them) and end refundable tax credits.

    • A_Texan

      Are the poor undertaxed? Are we taxed enough already, except for those making minimum wage? Is a 15% payroll tax just not enough for the poor? I think the answer is obviously no. And to say yes is kinda sorta like class warfare.

      • sadams

        I assume you are opposed to raising anyone’s taxes?

        • A_Texan

          As to federal taxes, I think our federal government is spending far too much. There are some who are getting unfair exemptions, but generally I’d favor reducing spending and taxes.

          The problem is we have a massive debt to pay off–and I would be open to raising taxes to do so, if necessary. But I don’t know.

          • sadams

            whom you believe are getting unfair exemptions. Do you agree with the President’s list?

          • A_Texan

            Hedgefund manager’s whose salaries are not treated as salaries, so they’re subject to the lower capital-gains tax. They’re not really working your see.

            Of course, the Dems won’t touch these guys. Just like they didn’t touch the drug companies or the insurance companies or…..

          • acat

            Enough that, if we taxed their gross income at 50%, it would make a dent in the defecit?

            I .. don’t think so.

            What I see, A_Texan, is that you’ve bought into the hype that the Dems have been peddling. Please do try to correct this.

            Mew

          • sadams

            They have repeatedly introduced legislation in the past couple of years to tax “carried interest” transactions, but for some reason they can’t get it through Congress…

          • http://conservativemountaineer.blogspot.com/ conservativemountaineer

            Hedge fund managers, Venture Capital managers, Private Equity Fund provide capital ($$) to fund a deal (acquisition, early/mid/late-stage equity, etc.). Those managers do pay ordinary rates on their ‘management fees’ (typically 1-2% of amount managed), typically as General Partners in a Fund. They get other people/institutions to invest in the Fund; these investots are typically Limited Partners.

            The way it works is that *upon a predetermined event*, e.g., sale of a Company that the Fund has invested in, the Limited Partners receive 80%. As for the managers and their capital investment, they typically get a 20% ‘carry’ *after* the Limited Partners get paid. It is this 20% that is and SHOULD be characterized as capital gains.

            Now, I may be off a little bit in my explanation or the ‘mechanics’, but the gist remains the same.

      • acat

        Inmates in pennitentiaries can file 1040s and get the Earned Income Credit.
        People on welfare can file 1040s and get the Earned Income Credit.

        Is that “paying taxes”? Sure smells more like “welfare” from here…

        Mew

        • A_Texan

          How’s that? :)

          I was under the impression that the EITC was dependent upon one actually having earned some income–tho I guess that includes some inmates. I was under the impression that the vast majority of EITC beneficiaries are people who actually work for a living and pay payroll taxes.

          • sadams

            EITC can exceed the amount of payroll taxes a person owes.

          • acat

            Do please correct this situation.

            Respectfully,

            A. Cat.

          • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

            A Texan,

            You are trying to suggest that EITC is not really a negative tax liability because there are still payroll taxes. However, aside for the fact that many people’s EITC and ACTC outweigh even their payroll tax liability, FICA cannot be used to offset my argument. Those taxes are different because they fund (or at least they should ) your Social Security. So supporters of refundable credits in Congress can’t have it both ways. You can’t have 30% of filers enjoying a negative income tax liability, while still receiving full SS benefits. It might be semantics, but that is clearly defined as an overall negative tax liability.

            BTW, nobody is blaming those who are entitled to the credits. I’ve gotten them myself. You automatically get them! That is just the way the system is set up. The problem is with the politicians who steal 12% for SS and take over our retirement, but then turn around and offer kickbacks in the tax code.

          • A_Texan

            Those taxes are different because they fund (or at least they should ) your Social Security.

            But they don’t, and they never did. And to say so today, especially, is deception.

  • joecollins

    Illegals file income tax returns to claim the Additional Child Tax Credit. Last year, our US Treasury gave out $4.2 billion in refunds to illegals working in the USA.

    This is an easy to find savings for future years.

    • sadams

      Indeed.

    • weyland

      In contrast to the discussion involving A_Texan, above, payroll taxes collected from those with an ITIN (mostly illegals) do *not* go toward any retirement benefit. Estimates I’ve seen of the annual payroll tax receipts from ITINs are around $10 billion — quite a bit more than the $4.2 billion you quote.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        If you think for one second that illegals will not be able to collect Medicare and Social security when the vast lot of them start to be of age, then you are naive.

        Illegals from Mexico, have a huge amount of political power and it is increasing every year. In fact i think they probably have more political power now than Blacks or Unions.

        • rightwingmom52

          Dan wrote a diary about it here.

  • earlgrey

    we need to be talking about it. I really believe that the way to start changing hearts and minds is to be as open and upfront and blunt as we can. The RNC can play games, but there is no reason for political activists to play by their rules.

    As yucky and icky and mean as we may seem for talking about it, we must talk about it.

    People are literally depending on their neighbors for survival that is not a recipe for success for those families or our communities.

  • Darin_H

    eliminate all taxes (income, payroll, cap gains, interest, dividend) and move to a flat tax above a certain dollar amount – like 17% or everything made above $50,000.

    Oh and change tax day to the last week of October.

    • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

      I like the way you think.

  • drfredc

    One additional feature of the EITC is part of its history is the EITC was supposedly a refund of part or all of the FICA (Social Security) taxes that an individual or family was supposed to pay.

    In other words, those who receive the EITC aren’t paying their fair share into Social Security — however, they still get full credit for paying into Social Security and get full benefits upon retirement — basically, double dipping. All of which is just another reason that Social Security is running out of money and has become little more than a generational transfer scheme taking the liberty away from future generations as more and more of their earning will be required to pay for older generation’s welfare at the sacrifice of not promoting the general welfare… In other words, breaking two major Constitutional guidelines as defined in the Preamble.

    A few years ago, when Social Security was running a big surplus, paying the EITC out of the surplus wasn’t such a problem as it was never reported as deficit spending — plus there is the mythical Social Security Trust Fund which is where all these expenditures were supposedly going to be paid back… Like there’s a projected surplus in general revenue to pay these IOUs back — not…

    In summary, most all of these ‘handouts’ and promises are based up a house of cards of mistruths and bogus accounting gimmicks, if not fraud –Fraud that any private company using such gimmicks couldn’t get away with… However, these sort of gimmicks are also the basis for handouts that generate votes that prolong political careers for those who go along to get along, and cut short careers of politicians who speak the truth…

    It’s increasing over polite to call this all a ‘house of cards’ as it’s sinking faster and faster towards becoming a deep pit of poo that will be hard to extricate our nation out of… All of which is no worry for those with union, political and bureaucrat early pensions that pay near full wages for life…

  • baracksolyndraobama

    “grand bargain” must eliminate all loopholes, deductions, and especially, these idiotic giveaways.

    Specifically, the GOP members of the supercommittee should declare this position to their Dem adversaries now.

  • jeffwtux

    As is Romney’s, as was McCain’s. If Paul Ryan’s healthcare plan became law that 51% who pay no or a net negative taxes would surely become over 60% with the difference made up in loss of employer tax deduction that disproportionately benefits the 49% who still do pay taxes. Paul Ryan’s latest healthcare plan is as progressive as you get.

    • lineholder

      Once the public health insurance exchange under O-Care kicks in, between subsidies AND an extra set of cuts for people below a certain bracket…Ryan’s plan looks good by comparison.

  • statenislandcon

    Number of Tax Returns with Credit Claimed: 25.70 million
    Number of Tax Returns with Refundable Portion Claimed: 24.92 million
    Total Budgetary Cost: $54.98 billion
    Budgetary Cost of Refundable Portion: $53.99 billion

    Hence, almost the entire cost of the EITC is paid out in the form of a handout.

    No. You have confused? conflated? the refundable portion of the credit with the refunded portion. These are not the same. The only portion of a refundable tax credits that actually gets refunded (the “handout” you are demagoguing) is the portion left over (if there is any) after the individual’s tax income liability has been reduced. The vast majority of that $53.99B number is NOT refunded, but instead reduced the income tax paid just like a regular old non-refundable tax credit.

    And as to your general thrust of going after the tax credits that support the working poor and children, count me out. Absurdly bad politics and bad policy too. This type of thinking is liberal logic, its picking part of a picture and pretending its the whole thing. Your “handout” analysis only makes sense if you can bury your head deep enough to pretend that non-income taxes – which account for over half, 59% last year, of federal government revenue – don’t count.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      explains the 2005 EITC like this: “Most of the EITC
      (88.3%) was received as a refund (EITC exceeded tax liability) by low-income workers.” That means that 88% exceeded tax limit. Post-Stimulus % is undoubtedly higher, unless they are also getting this wrong.

      I don’t know what you mean by other non-income taxes. Most of these people don’t pay them. If you are referring to payroll taxes, that is a different story altogether as explained by this commenter. Additionally, half of the states offer EITCs on their taxes. When we already have 77 assistance programs, there’s got to be a limit to how much we are willing to contort the tax code to redistribute additional wealth.

  • LoneStarSon

    …that people get a deduction on their taxes because they chose to finance their home. In my opinion, this has been a subsidy to the banks and builders. I personally have paid cash for my houses after years of scrimping, saving and living like a pauper. They aren’t fancy, but aside from property taxes, I own them free and clear. However, I don’t get a ‘tax deduction’, but I can get penalized for any capital gains. There is something wrong with this picture.

    We need to get away from penalizing income, wipe out the income tax system and go to a straight consumption or national sales tax.