Who Benefits Most in Tax Deal?

Sorry, it’s not the middle class (Joshua Roberts/REUTERS)

There is something in the tax deal for everyone from the rich to the middle-class to the working poor to the unemployed to the retired. So who stands to benefit the most from the deal in 2011? It’s not the middle class. The problem is some of the benefits aimed at the middle class will put money in the wallets of the rich as well. Add that to the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and the rich are clearly the winners here. But it’s not by nearly as much as you might think. Who gets the biggest shaft in the deal? The retired.

In making the tax deal, Obama tried to balance the extension of the lower rates for the upper-upper income with some tax measures that should benefit the poor and the middle class and the unemployed. My colleagues over at Swampland say the reason Obama did the deal is that it while it benefits the rich, the middle class gets more:

But given those qualifications, the trade-off looks like this: President Obama gave up campaign promises worth $118 billion in exchange for middle class stimulus measures worth at least $206 billion. And the American people will go into debt another $324 billion or more to make it all happen, though some of that money may flow back to the Treasury in the form of increased economic performance down the road.

The problem with this analysis is that some of the benefits aimed at the middle class also go to the rich. Others go to the poor or the unemployed. Here’s how it all shakes out:

Just looking at 2011, all in, the tax deal is an easy win for the middle class for next year. Extending the Bush era tax cuts alone for those of us making less than $250,000 puts an additional $190 billion in the middle-class’ collective pocket. The extension of the alternative minimum tax credit at 2009 levels, according to the CBO, is another $66 billion windfall for next year for the middle class. But both those changes were likely to happen even without the current deal. Both Obama and the Republicans wanted them. So you really have to exclude them when considering the current deal.

Exclude income tax break and the AMT, and the middle class starts to look more like a loser in the Obama-Republican tax deal. For the rich, extending Bush-era lower income tax rates for those making over $250,000 puts an additional $67 billion in the pockets of the rich, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The rich also get a cut in the estate tax. Income below $5 million would be totally exempt. Above that estates would be taxed at 35%. That’s a big drop from what the estate tax was scheduled to become in 2011, which was a 55% tax on all estate income above $1 million. But again, Obama was already willing to deal on this one, and had proposed making the estate tax 45% on all income above $3.5 million. So in terms of a compromise, we are talking about a $21.5 billion gain for the rich in 2011, or at least their relatives. Then there is the social security tax benefit. Yes. While that cut is aimed at the middle class, the cut is on all income below $106,000. So the rich will benefit as well. They will get a break of roughly $27 billion. So add those items together and you get a gain of $115.5 billion for the rich.

How does that stack up to the middle class? I am defining a family income of $36,000 to $91,750 to be middle class. The middle class get a social security tax cut of 2%. Of that, the middle class will collect about $79 billion. The other tax breaks or credits in the bill that will amount to about $20 billion in 2011. But most are focused on the working poor. Though you could argue that a some portion of that goes to the middle class. Say $5 billion. Unemployment insurance, too, could be seen as a middle class benefit to the tune of $56 billion. But the extension we are talking about is for people who have been out of work for nearly two years. So even if many of those people were middle class when they lost their job. Most of those people are likely to be either now in the poor category or on their way to falling into the lower class. So lets credit another generous $15 billion of unemployment benefits to people who are still solidly in the middle class. Add that up and the deal amounts to a gain of $104 billion for the middle class, or $11 billion less than what the rich get.

The group that comes out the worst in the tax deal is the elderly and the retired. They get the benefit from maintaining the tax on investment income at 15% rather than raising it to 20% as Obama would have wanted. The rich will get some of the benefit from this tax break. So tack it on to their winning tab as well. But studies have shown that two thirds of the benefit from lower capital gain and dividend taxes goes to people over 66. So we are really talking about older people here. But the benefit is relatively modest for this group in 2022. The CBO estimates that maintaining the 15% rate on investment income only creates a gain of $5 billion in 2011 for those that benefit. The benefit of the lower capital gains tax is more impressive in 2012, when it will boost retirees income by $16 billion. And this in unfortunate. In terms of stimulus, it would have been smarter to direct more money to the retired. They tend to spend most of the income they get.

So its the rich, though not by a landslide. But that’s just 2011. For 2012, the deal that Obama struck gets even better for the rich. They still get their upper income tax cuts, but the social security payroll tax and the unemployment benefits expire. As the saying goes, the rich get, well, better tax treatment.

Related Topics: taxes, Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Brendan McDermid / Reuters

    Facebook’s Stock Falls Below $30 for First Time

    (NEW YORK) — Facebook’s stock has fallen below $30 for the first time since its much-awaited public debut this month.

    The Jury Is Out on the EuroSlate

    U.S. consumer prices rose faster than expected in May. (Mario Anzuoni / Reuters)

    Consumer Confidence in the Economy Plunged in May

    NEW YORK — American confidence in the economy suffered the biggest drop in eight months as worries about the weak jobs, housing and stock markets rattled them again. The decline comes after a few months of optimism amid some positive economic news.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Now let me see. The tax deal benefits the rich, the middle class and the poor. It also benefits their children and their grandchildren. It benefits businesses. It benefits future heirs. It benefits the employed and the unemployed.
    .
    So why are so many people angry about it? Because it increases the deficit and everyone knows that’s a bad thing, because . . . because . . . because what?
    .
    Can anyone list the date of one negative economic event — one inflation, one recession, one depression, — caused by too little taxes and/or too many benefits to the people?
    .
    No, don’t list any inflations. If you look at the graph at Inflation you’ll see there is no historical relationship between federal deficits and CPI. (The Fed controls inflation with interest rates.)
    .
    No, don’t list any recessions. If you look at the first graph on: Recessions you’ll see that recessions come when federal deficits go down, and are cured when federal deficits go up. (In a recession, the economy is starved for money.)
    .
    And no, don’t list depressions. If you also look at the above page, you’ll see this:
    .
    1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
    1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
    1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
    1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
    1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
    1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
    .
    (Depressions are caused by severe money shortages)
    .
    Oh, and don’t say future generations will have to pay more taxes. We are the future generations of the gigantic Reagan deficits, and we’re paying less taxes. The reason: Federal taxes don’t pay for federal spending. Even were federal taxes zero, federal spending could continue forever. See: Taxes: Item 9a.

    So if reducing taxes and increasing the deficit benefit everybody, everybody’s children and everybody’s grandchildren, and have no negative effects, remind me again: What are the facts (not popular intuition) that say the federal deficit should be reduced?
    .
    Why are people so angry?

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • http://stephenpoo.wordpress.com stephenpoo

    Could it be we feel betrayed, our President is not willing to fight. We didn’t like it when he layed down on the public option for the health program.
    He put togeather a deficit commision that recommends cuts in social security and medicare and I expect he won’t say much if the recomedations are taken up in legislation.
    And he put himself in a box for 2012 when guess what he runs for relection and the tax cuts come back up for renewal.
    What’s left to find out is who will leave the house next election day to vote for Mr. Obama, he may not have many freinds left.

  • warrwim

    Stephen, what a fanciful article! Why write about the tax compromise versus Obama’s “make-believe” wishes when what you really should have reported is how the tax compromise, or Bush-era extension, fared against the legislated tax hikes previously scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2011? Your readers surely would have benefitted more knowing how much they were to save from the tax compromise versus a return to Clinton era taxation! For example, dividends were scheduled to rise to the marginal individual tax rate of 39.6% (for the highest bracket) from a flat 15% rate had a compromise not been forged.

  • 94134gamesmith

    Gamesmith94134: It’s the Big Questions That Slow Growth

    Bernanke Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is stepping up his defense of the Fed’s $600 billion Treasury bond-purchase plan, saying the economy is still struggling to become “self-sustaining” without government help. Also, “Congressional Budget Office projections show that the current budget trajectory is grossly unsustainable. The tax changes required to balance the budget in the future could be modest or enormous, depending on what happens to spending.” Christina D. Romer indicated the budget and spending are relatively interactive; and the budgetary policy must return to the economic value system to make America prosperous.
    At present, our economic policy ran on the system that value is relatively dependent to our governmental projection; otherwise, our value system is not sustainable. Especially, the States are at the brim of bankruptcy, and unemployment is up by 0.5% last month and more to come. It is true based on the macroeconomic that the imbalance is inevitable that Americans spent more than they gained; and investors saw devaluation on housing, and shrinkage on the budget. Then, consequently the result by our value system would be negative, if more credit or politics must apply to keep our economy going.
    In order to improve the budgetary policy, it must sustain a positive gain on the revenues to advance in the value system. Perhaps, it is not relatively bigger earning accompanies a bigger spending if the revenue can be improved with more tax and projections are frozen at certain point. Many may argue more tax can sabotage growth; but with less of it, more unemployment will come off the States that cut spending and workers. At least for the image wise, it is better off because the Federal can assist the States more efficiently with better ammunition. It can stop further perplexity from the investor or corporations which are deciding to expand its investment once they see the change is made—improvement on the value system with less deficit.
    How efficiency work with our present value system? I heard the story from my dentist and pharmacist. My dentist charged me two thousand dollars on his twenty minute work on my filling. He explained that the insurance will only pay about sixty percents of it and it comes late after seven months. And, the pharmacist said my drug was sold in Canada at 66% discount because our insurance and Medicare pay only so much and the patent would come five to ten years after, so I must pay for advertisements in between the golf tournament; that is the assurance of the higher cost to the claims before it is patented. They may sound irrelevant in correction to our budget now, but it is how efficient we are opened on the dependency of our government that we can change.
    At present, I think those at the Congress are irritated by the changes to cut spending and saving employment; and I am not promoting the austerity program on the economy since it have suffered enough. I wish them to focus on the revenues that made the value system sustainable and try to put on a show if they will. They can improve the value system and it is sustainable if revenue is not made into both stick and carrot and tax is the assurance the Wall Street and the world can sense. The deficit is sustainable and is under controlled by not compromising on luring investors or corporation to make their moves. Our Congressional Budgetary Committees should emphasize on future tax cut would elude the value system and everyone is loitering in the mine fields to invest. Our government has its limits and principles that they can count on; and the economy will revive itself from the result of their decisions on restoring the value system. Everyone would develop on the principle of economic and sticks and carrot does not apply.
    It is revenues, revenues, revenues; not budget, spending, revenues to apply.
    May the Buddha bless you?

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    94134gamesmith,

    What you write would be true if — if federal taxes paid for federal spending, which they do not.
    .
    Yes, state taxes pay for state spending. And county taxes pay for county spending. And city taxes pay for city spending. And even Greek taxes pay for Greek spending. (States, counties, cities and Greece are not Monetarily Sovereign ).
    .
    But federal taxes do not pay for federal spending. The U.S. is monetarily sovereign. In a monetarily sovereign government, taxes do not pay for spending. Nor does borrowing pay for federal spending. The federal government creates money by spending.
    .
    To understand the economy, it’s necessary to understand Monetary Sovereignty. This lack of knowledge is why we have had an average of one recession every 5 years.
    .
    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • 94134gamesmith

    “Yet, no one intelligently can discuss national deficits and debt without understanding the implications of monetarily sovereignty. The concept is the basis for all modern economics. Monetary Sovereignty is to economics as arithmetic is to mathematics.” Rodger Mitchell
    Gamesmith94134: Unserious Central Bankers
    Perhaps, when we compare the economy at the strength of its currency, to the capacity to earn its claim; it could just like a glass with water half way. We put all the prices of all currencies in a glass that all of them are relatively proportion in its own right; the value of the currencies, each must be supported by it substance like employment, productivity, population and government. Then, the state as half empty currencies must balances the half full substances. Value balances price in its fair exchange and in its nature’s way as many perceive.
    …………..
    In 1949, my grandmother purchased a sack of rice with a bucket of Chinese bonds (money), in China. There was no standard for monetarily sovereignty; and price and value were not applied to the user’s agreement or monetarily sovereignty’s obligation. It was a chaos and it was not a fair exchange.
    Economics is only a kind of measurement that most apply. When transaction occurs, price and value is being enforced for what is being traded or exchanged. It takes no effects on me whether the billion dollars of bills sitting at the mint; but once it is distributed to its owner, the owner has the obligation to make the balance in the fair exhange. I cannot afford a million dollar house because I did not make the balance to such fair exchange agreement—I did not earn it or pay with equity.
    What is the obligation for the monetarily sovereignty? After the monetarily sovereignty distributes its money; it has the obligation to make a fairy exchange. Deficit cut its value therefore revenue is acquired to make its balance; and United States cannot break its fair exchange agreement on a sustainable price of its currency—dollar.
    May the Buddha bless you?

  • curiousamerican

    I would rather have seen a deal that would have raise the minimum for the tux cut to continue for the wealthy to $750,000 and above rather than $250,000. This would have reduced the effect on the deficit by billions, still satisfied the Republican’s big money backers and continued to give a break to small businesses for 2011/2012. My fear now is that once Republicans take over the House and the fight starts in the new year over budget, this massive deficit will be reduced by compromising further the protection of seniors. Social Security, Medicare, etc. to satisfy the “tea party” extremist who haven’t showed up yet.

  • johnarendsen

    The rich, the rich, the rich. When are you lefties going to give it up? Don’t you realize that it’s the rich that propels and sustains capitalism and free enterprise? And what’s all this BS about the “Death Tax”. Why should government or society have the right to triple and even quadruple money, estates and wealth that belong to a decadents family or whomever or what ever they desire and choose to do with what they’ve spent their lifetime building?

    As for Social Security. I’m 65 and have worked since I was 8 years old. I plan to work until the day I drop dead. It’s these ridiculous entitlements that will bring the Western world to its knees leading to the demise of our civilization.

    We need to get off the public teet altogether or our society as we know it is doomed. But what’s even more is that the government needs to get out of our lives and the only way that will happen is at the polls. All the moaning, bitching and political rhetoric won’t make the changes we need to save our rear ends. So go VOTE and get some forward thinking leadership in there before it’s too late.

  • duduong

    It was Obama’s decision to make the deal, even though the alternative of letting the Bush tax cut expire was natural, easy, fiscally sensible and politically advantageous. It seems reasonable to deduce that Obama himself will be the greatest beneficiary of the deal. Has it occur to anyone that retired presidents can make $250k per speaking engagement at the US Chamber of Commerce and its constituents as long as they are popular among the business elites?

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    Taxes actually go up, under this plan on families making $40,000 or less or individuals making $20,000 or less. Sucks to be not rich, indeed.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Yeah, I got that point over at the swamp. I make about $20,000 a year and am a single mother–so I can pretty much see my taxes go up while the 44% of our elected officials in DC who are millionaires won’t see an increase.
    .
    Seriously, I wish I had some representation.

  • duduong

    Which planet are you from? Or, are you being sacastic? Your arguments are so far detached from reality that readers don’t know whether to cry or laugh.

  • http://stephenpoo.wordpress.com stephenpoo

    Where can I see that, and what is the swamp?

  • deconstructiva
  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    The comments are often better than the articles, once you learn the personalities.
    .
    But essentially (if I’m remembering right), switching the “making work pay” tax cut for the payroll tax translates into an increase for the poorest Americans.

  • http://stephenpoo.wordpress.com stephenpoo

    Thank you both:
    I did go there and skimmed and found a link for a NYT artical with just as you say the loss of the Make Work Pay provison.
    Amazing really isn’t it, but then he who has the gold makes the rules.

blog comments powered by Disqus