Tag Archives: Income Tax

A National Sales Tax Is a Terrible Idea

A small minority of House Republicans may force a vote on the creation of a national sales tax. This will needlessly give Democrats a political cudgel in exchange for a flawed bill with no hope of passing.

The Fair Tax Act has been introduced by a small handful of Republicans in every Congress since 1999. The bill proposes to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and eliminate the federal income tax. So far, so good. Unfortunately, the bill would replace the income tax with a 30 percent national sales tax on all goods and services and establish a giant new entitlement program. Problem.

Several, in fact. Replacing our current tax code with a national sales tax would create a system of double taxation on retirees. Take, for example, a 65-year-old who has spent a lifetime saving after-tax income and has retired, expecting to draw down that income without paying further taxes. Instead, they would now face a 30 percent sales tax on everything they buy. Representatives seeking reelection may want to remember that people over the age of 65 tend to vote.

The Fair Tax Act would also strip any work requirements from the tax code—an approach that is completely antithetical to conservative principles. Under the bill’s plan, all households would receive a monthly check from the federal government regardless of earned income. Americans are still living with the negative effects that pandemic stimulus checks had on the labor market and supply chains; this plan would make those sorts of payments a permanent feature. In all but name, in fact, the Fair Tax’s “prebate” system would establish a universal basic income, one of the left’s favorite policies.

Fair Tax proponents typically frame the prebate as a replacement for the current standard deduction allowed under the federal income-tax code, as well as an advance refund on sales taxes that will be paid. But this argument carries little weight given that these payments would be untethered from taxpayers’ actual consumer spending. On its face, it’s hard to see how the prebate system does not amount simply to a huge new entitlement program.

Nor would the Fair Tax Act do anything to reduce the size of government. The bill would hand the job of processing payments to the Social Security Administration. Shuffling responsibilities and personnel from the IRS to the SSA does nothing to shrink wasteful bureaucracy, let alone make it small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Fair Tax proponents make two good points. They understand the need to end the double taxation of savings and investment in the present system, and they want to depoliticize the IRS workforce, whose union makes 95 percent of its political contributions to national Democratic candidates. But both problems are already addressed by other legislation widely supported by Republican House members.

The new Republican House majority’s first vote was to strip the IRS of most of the $80 billion promised by Joe Biden; Republicans have also called for investigations of politicization in the IRS. And an already existing conservative policy goal would enable individual retirement accounts to offer tax-free savings for all purposes, not just retirement, solves most of the problems with double taxation.

Despite all of these shortcomings, the Fair Tax Act’s lead sponsor, Representative Buddy Carter of Georgia, recently told reporters that as part of a deal to drop their opposition to Kevin McCarthy’s effort to secure the speakership, holdout members in the House had been privately promised an up-or-down vote on the bill. But, luckily, the Fair Tax Act has no hope of passing in the House.

In the 24 years of the Fair Tax proposal’s existence, House Republicans have declined to hold a single hearing or mark-up session in committee, let alone a floor vote. The number of lawmakers sponsoring the bill has actually declined with each Congress, falling from a peak of 76 House Republicans in 2015 to 24 today. The Fair Tax effort is not gaining momentum but losing it.

The bill probably won’t even get a vote in committee: Republican opposition is reportedly so strong that Carter is likely to soft-pedal the bill to avoid the embarrassing spectacle of Republican committee members unanimously rejecting it. But should the bill somehow reach the floor of the House, it is safe to assume that roughly 90 percent of Republicans will vote against it. In addition, the bill would stand no chance in the Senate, and the president has said he would veto it.

None of this has stopped Democrats from seizing the opportunity to claim that Republicans now want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class. President Biden bludgeoned Republicans from the presidential podium a week after it was reported that the bill would receive a vote. “National sales tax—that’s a great idea,” he said sarcastically. “It would raise taxes on the middle class by taxing thousands of everyday items, from groceries to gas, while cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans.”

Later, Biden’s chief of staff openly mocked Carter on Twitter for his statement that if consumers don’t want to pay a 30 percent sales tax on some item, then “don’t buy it. It’s as simple as that.” Democrats are right to be confident they have the winning message there.

In fact, the Fair Tax Act has a long record of proving politically toxic. Back in 2010, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board noted that Democrats had made effective use of the issue against Republican proponents of the Fair Tax: “These Democratic attacks are unfair and don’t mention the tax-cutting side of the proposal, but the attacks do seem to work … voters rightly suspect that any new sales tax scheme will merely be piled on the current code.”

This past election cycle showed how Democrats are still succeeding in tagging mainstream GOP candidates with unrepresentative minority positions on tax policy. Before the midterms, Senator Rick Scott of Florida put out a list of policy ideas that included a remark that all Americans “should have skin in the game” when it comes to federal income taxes. (Currently, only about half of American households pay federal income tax in any given year.)

Even though Scott ultimately dropped the point, his status as chairman of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee gave Democrats what one Democratic operative called a fundraising “godsend,” enabling attack ads that painted all Republicans as plotting to raise taxes on retirees and low- and middle-income Americans. Republican candidates were forced to spend time and money distancing themselves from a proposal they did not support.

Such episodes risk undoing Republicans’ careful work over three decades of creating a clear contrast with the Democrats on taxes: Republicans won’t raise your taxes; Democrats will.

Keep in mind that eight states already have no personal income tax, nine states have a flat-rate income tax, and 10 states have a Republican leadership committed to phasing out personal income tax, first to a flat-rate tax and then to none. These states are paying for these policies with long-term efforts to keep spending below what can be sustainably funded from economic growth and revenues from sales and property taxes. The model for success over the past 10 years is North Carolina. More income-tax-free states will eventually raise the question for voters nationwide: Why do we need a federal income tax?

All of this progress could be undermined if the Fair Tax proponents have their day. Imagine what Democrats will be able to do if they get the opportunity of an actual House vote on a federal sales tax. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has already taken aim at House Republicans in competitive seats in recent elections with negative ads focused on the Fair Tax.

To mitigate the political damage already done, Republicans need to kill the bill. Denounce it. In public. Loudly. This may seem harsh, but it’s no less than the Fair Tax deserves.



Read original article here

New 2023 EV tax incentives: How they work, which cars qualify, and where to get even more savings

Quick facts about federal incentives for electric cars:

  • The government delayed some rules for EV tax credits until March 2023.
  • Select GM
    GM,
    +2.60%
    and Tesla
    TSLA,
    +2.47%
    electric vehicles became eligible (again) for federal tax incentives in January 2023.
  • Many electric cars do not qualify, but we help you find the ones that do.

Consumers considering an electric vehicle right now may want to weigh how tax credits on zero-emissions cars work and how they could affect any upcoming buying decisions.

The Inflation Reduction Act signed in August 2022 includes electric vehicle tax credits provisions set to reshape how Americans buy electric cars and plug-in hybrids.

Read on to learn the impact. We will tell you about the new changes to federal tax incentives for electric cars. The new tax credits can help defray the cost of buying a zero-emission vehicle when combined with state and local rebates.

How the new EV tax credits work

According to Kelley Blue Book research, a new electric car’s average transaction price came in at about $65,000 in November, nearly a 9% jump from a year ago. The industrywide average that includes gas-powered vehicles and electric cars reached about $48,900 in the same timeframe.

  • Extends $7,500 tax credit. The Inflation Reduction Act extends the current incentives of up to $7,500 in tax credits for select electric cars, plug-in hybrids, and hydrogen-powered vehicles that meet its qualifications. The federal government continues to update the list of qualifying vehicles.
  • Discount up front. In the future, it’s possible you can qualify to get your EV tax credit at the time of purchase on new vehicles, though if the dealership does not offer it immediately, you can still request the credit on your taxes.
  • Caps EV price tags. The new incentives restrict qualifying vehicles to low-emissions trucks, SUVs, and vans with manufacturer’s suggested retail prices of up to $80,000 and cars up to $55,000.
  • No limits for manufacturers. As of Jan. 1, 2023, manufacturers like GM and Tesla were no longer limited on incentives to the first 200,000 EVs sold, which was the case under the old tax credits.
  • Used electric vehicle rebate. Anyone considering a used electric car under $25,000 could obtain a new $4,000 tax credit, subject to income and other limits. To qualify, used cars must be two model years old. The vehicle also must be purchased at a dealership. The vehicle also only qualifies once in its lifetime. Purchasers of used vehicles can only qualify for one credit every three years, and to qualify, individuals must make $75,000 or less, or $112,500 for heads of households and $150,000 for joint return filers. The credit ends in 2032.
  • Income caps to qualify. The rebates are limited to individuals reporting adjusted gross incomes of $150,000 or less on taxes, $225,000 for those filing as head of household, and $300,000 for joint filers.
  • Ineligible cars become eligible. Additionally, the measure allows carmakers like Tesla and General Motors, which had run out of available credits under the old plan, to be eligible for them again in January 2023. However, many of their products would still not qualify due to car price caps.
  • New rules on manufacturing locations. To qualify for the subsidy, electric car batteries must be manufactured in the U.S., Canada, or Mexico, while the batteries’ minerals and parts must also come from North America to qualify. Cars with Chinese-made battery components would be ineligible. These rules render many current EVs ineligible. This requirement phases in over time. That means some cars eligible now could become ineligible over time unless manufacturers change their supply chains. However, the U.S. Treasury Department delayed until March the regulations that govern where battery minerals and parts must be sourced.
  • Some leased vehicles may qualify.
  • Hydrogen fuel-cell cars remain eligible. The $7,500 credit also applies to hydrogen fuel-cell cars like the Toyota Mirai or Hyundai Nexo. However, those make sense only for buyers who live near one of America’s few hydrogen refueling stations. Those stations are mostly concentrated in California. 

Learn more: What is EV, BEV, HEV, PHEV? Here’s your guide to types of electric cars

What the old EV tax credits provided

Before the Inflation Reduction Act, buyers could claim a tax credit on just the first 200,000 electric cars a manufacturer sold. That meant that the most popular models lost the credit. The incentive did not restrict income or purchase prices.

The old tax credits also applied to plug-in hybrids and fuel cell vehicles, but not used vehicles.

President Biden signed the act into law on Aug. 1, 2022. Most of its provisions kicked in on Jan. 1, 2023. That created a brief window when the law required qualifying cars to be built in North America, but the 200,000-car-per-manufacturer limit still applied. If you bought an electric car between Aug. 16, 2022, and Jan. 1, 2023, it qualified for a credit only if it was built in North America by a manufacturer that hadn’t sold 200,000 or more qualifying cars.

Tesla and General Motors’ electric car tax credits were reinstated in January. So if you have your heart set on a Tesla Model 3 or perhaps a Cadillac Lyriq, now is the time to act.

Also see: 2.1 million EVs and plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads, and here’s how much gas they’ve saved

List of 2023 electric vehicles that qualify

According to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, this is the latest list of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles that qualify if purchased after Jan. 1, 2023. The site notes that several manufacturers had yet to submit information on specific eligible makes and models and for users to check back for updated information.

Vehicle MSRP Limit
Audi Q5 TFSI e Quattro PHEV $80,000
BMW
BMW,
+0.07%
330e
$55,000
BMW X5 eDrive 45e $80,000
Ford
F,
+2.69%
Escape PHEV
$80,000
Ford E-Transit $80,000
Ford F-150 Lightning $80,000
Ford Mustang Mach-E $55,000
Lincoln Aviator Grand Touring $80,000
Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring $55,000
Chevrolet Bolt EV $55,000
Chevrolet Bolt EUV $55,000
Cadillac Lyriq $55,000
Nissan
NSANY,
+2.85%
Leaf
$55,000
Rivian
RIVN,
-0.97%
R1S
$80,000
Rivian R1T $80,000
Chrysler Pacifica PHEV $80,000
Jeep Wrangler 4xe $80,000
Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe $80,000
Tesla Model 3 $55,000
Tesla Model Y 7-Seat Variant $80,000
Volkswagen
VWAGY,
+2.00%
ID.4
$55,000
Volvo
VLVLY,
+3.20%
S60 T8 Recharge PHEV
$55,000
State and local incentives near you

Though the federal government’s effort makes up the lion’s share of government EV discounts, some states and local governments offer incentive programs to help new car buyers afford something more efficient. These can be tax credits, rebates, reduced vehicle taxes, single-occupant carpool-lane access stickers, and exemptions from registration or inspection fees.

States like California and Connecticut offer broad support for electric vehicle buyers. However, Idaho, Kentucky, and Wyoming are among the states offering no support to individual EV buyers. The U.S. Department of Energy maintains an interactive list of state-level incentives, while Plug In America posts an interactive map of EV incentives.

Also read: What California’s ban on gas cars could mean for you—even if you don’t live there

Your electric utility may help

Lastly, it’s not just governments that can help you with the cost of a new EV. Some local electric utilities provide incentive programs to help buyers get into electric vehicles. After all, they’re among the ones that benefit when you turn your fuel dollars into electricity dollars.

Read: 3 reasons the Hyundai Ioniq 6 makes the Tesla Model 3 seem a bit boring

Some offer rebates on cars. Others offer discounts on chargers or install them free when you sign up for off-peak charging programs.

For example, the Nebraska Public Power District offers a $4,000 rebate to customers who purchase a new electric car.

This story originally ran on KBB.com

Read original article here

Unanswered questions about Trump’s tax returns


New York
CNN
 — 

After years of legal battles, pontificating and theorizing, former President Donald Trump’s tax returns from 2015 to 2020 are now part of the public record. Many critics and political opponents have theorized that Trump fought the public disclosure of his tax returns because they potentially provided evidence of illegal or politically damaging behavior.

It’s not immediately clear that they do either.

However, Trump’s tax returns raise numerous questions about the former president’s finances, his business activities, foreign ties and his charitable donations, among other issues.

Trump broke with decades of tradition in becoming the first elected president since Nixon to refuse to disclose his tax returns to the public When Democratic lawmakers demanded them, Trump fought for years to keep them private, taking the battle to the Supreme Court – a legal fight he ultimately lost.

He frequently claimed during his 2016 presidential candidacy that he couldn’t release his taxes because they were being audited, a claim that was debunked last week when the House Ways and Means Committee disclosed that Trump’s 2015 and 2016 taxes weren’t audited until 2019.

For now, the thousands of pages of documents offer only more questions about what Trump’s finances, and may offer potential avenues for new investigations.

Trump reported having foreign bank accounts, including a bank account in China between 2015 and 2017, his tax returns show.

The tax returns do not show what the bank account was used for or how much money passed through it or to whom. The New York Times first reported about Trump’s Chinese account in 2020, and Trump Organization lawyer Alan Garten told the Times that the account was used to pay taxes on the Trump International Hotels Management’s business push in the country.

Trump did not report the Chinese bank account in personal financial disclosures when he was president, likely because it was listed under his businesses. Yet he may have still been required to report accounts to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

Trump’s companies and business interests span the globe. On his tax return, Trump listed business income, taxes, expenses or other notable financial items from or in Azerbaijan, Panama, Canada, India, Qatar, South Korea, the United Kingdom, China, the Dominican Republic, United Arab Emirates, the Philippines, Grenada, US territory Puerto Rico, Georgia, Israel, Brazil, St. Maarten, Mexico, Indonesia, Ireland, Turkey and St. Vincent.

But the tax returns don’t explain what business ties he had in those countries and with whom he might have been working while he was president.

Unlike previous presidents, Trump declined to divest his business interests while he was in office. Critics said his many foreign holdings compromised his ability to act independently as a politician.

During his presidency, Trump pledged he would donate the entirety of his $400,000 salary to charity each year. He frequently boasted about donating parts of his quarterly paycheck to various government agencies.

If he donated his 2020 salary, he didn’t claim it on his taxes. Among the six years of tax returns the House Ways and Means Committee released, 2020 was the sole year in which Trump listed no donations to charity.

That doesn’t mean his salary wasn’t donated, but it’s unclear if he made good on his promise in 2020.

In each year of Trump’s presidency, Trump claimed that he had loaned three of his adult children – Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Eric – undisclosed sums of money on which he collected interest.

The tax returns don’t say how much he lent them or why he gave them loans in the first place.

Between 2017 and 2020, Trump claimed he received exactly $18,000 in interest on a loan he gave his daughter Ivanka Trump and $8,715 in interest from his son Donald Trump, Jr.. In 2017 to 2019, Trump said he received exactly $24,000 from his son Eric Trump, and Eric paid him $19,605 in interest in 2020.

The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said the loans and the amounts of claimed interest could indicate Trump was disguising gifts to his children. If the interest Trump claims to have charged his children was not at market rate, for example, it could be considered a gift for tax purposes, requiring him to pay a higher tax rate on the money.

Trump entered the US presidency with a vast web of business holdings, including hundreds of limited liability companies, corporations and partnerships with operations both domestically and overseas.

The massiveness and intricacy of his business operations – including companies nested within each other like Matryoshka dolls – brought a level of complexity not seen before in the US presidency and spurred concern about potential conflicts of interest, especially with foreign entities.

Friday’s public release of Trump’s 2015 to 2020 personal and business tax filings may shed some additional light as to how those operations evolved during and shortly after his time in office. But they don’t spell out where money was going and to whom.

Since 1977, the Internal Revenue Service has had a policy of auditing every president’s personal tax returns while they are in office. But the IRS didn’t do any examination of Trump’s tax returns until the Ways and Means Committee requested an audit in April of 2019.

When the committee asked Treasury Department representatives about the apparent lapse, they declined to provide information about the actual operations of the mandatory audit program, according to the committee’s report.

It remains unclear whether Trump received special treatment or, as the committee noted, the IRS was hamstrung by an acute lack of resources.

The lack of an audit looks especially suspect after representatives for Trump’s predecessor and successor said they had been subjected to annual audits by the IRS. A Biden White House spokesman told the AP that the IRS audited Biden in both 2020 and 2021. Representatives for former President Barack Obama told the New York Times that the IRS audited him each year he was in office.

Read original article here

Here’s what tax pros are looking for in Donald Trump’s returns

Former president Donald Trump’s tax returned to be released


Former president Donald Trump’s tax returned to be released

00:16

Donald Trump’s tax returns, long the subject of speculation and a bitter legal fight, are set to be made public. After last week releasing a summary of the IRS’ efforts to audit the former president, along with some details of his income in recent years, the House Ways and Means Committee plans to release the documents on Friday. 

Whether Americans will learn much from the returns is another question. Trump’s finances are known to be complex, with the IRS itself complaining about the difficulty of examining every entity from which he may have drawn income. 

Here are the areas tax professionals said they plan to focus on once the six years of returns, dating from 2015 to 2020, are released.

What do the returns actually show about his finances?

That could be hard to assess given Trump’s sprawling business empire. The former president is financially linked to more than 400 separate entities, including trusts, limited liability corporations and partnerships, according to House researchers. 

Of these, however, just seven were examined in the Ways and Means Committee’s report earlier this month. Although the returns being disclosed Friday will likely name these entities and list an income or loss for each one, additional details will likely be limited, experts said.

“On his return, there will be a white paper schedule in the back — it may be five or 10 pages long — it’s going to list all these entities,” said Bruce Dubinsky, a forensic accountant and founder of Dubinsky Consulting.

“We’re not going to know what those [entities] are doing. You’re just going see a line, and an amount — could be income, could be a loss — for that year. We would then need those LLC or S corporation returns to see, OK, what’s going on?”

Such a large number of entities makes it more likely that some sources of Trump’s income, losses or wealth could be left out, offering a misleading picture of his tax status. The IRS has highlighted the complexity of performing a comprehensive examination of Trump’s income and tax liability. 

“With over 400 flow-thru returns reported on the Form 1040, it is not possible to obtain the resources available to examine all potential issues,” states an IRS memo cited in the Ways and Means report.

Like all the tax pros interviewed for this story, Dubinsky noted he has no specific knowledge of Trump’s returns and made his assessment based strictly on his knowledge of the tax code and published excerpts of Trump’s finances.


House Ways and Means Committee votes to release portion of Trump’s tax returns

05:27

How much did money Trump make from being famous?

Although Trump early in his career made money chiefly from his family’s real-estate empire, in time he capitalized on his celebrity to generate income, making hundreds of millions from the bestselling “Art of the Deal” and other books, as well as the NBC television hit “The Apprentice.”

“I’m going to look at the schedule Cs, I want to see if there is anything from publishing, book deals, that sort of stuff,” Dubinsky said. “Was he getting royalties on ‘The Apprentice?’ If so, there might be royalties that come in and are reported on the return.”

According to the New York Times, “The Apprentice” alone earned Trump $200 million between 2005 and 2018. If he kept earning royalties while in office, he wouldn’t be the first. Former President Barack Obama also benefited from publishing, although on a much smaller scale. While he was in office, Obama earned twice as much from book royalties as from his presidential salary, Forbes has calculated.

How charitable is Trump?

The charitable activities of the businessman-turned-president are sure to garner considerable interest, said E. Martin Davidoff, founder and managing partner of Davidoff Tax Law.

“I might look at his personal returns just out of curiosity — I’ve never seen the tax returns of a billionaire,” Davidoff said. “What does he deduct? How much is he giving to charity? That would be an interesting thing because that could be a very big deduction.”

Davidoff expects to see some limited information on the types of charitable contributions.

“You’ll know whether it’s cash or property because there are two separate forms for doing that and two separate line items for schedule E,” he said. “If he gave away appreciated stock, if he gave away real estate, that’ll be listed out — that’s required in the detail.”

As for exactly where Trump directed his charitable contributions, that may not be clear, tax experts said. Although many people do list recipients of charity on their returns, it’s not required. Meanwhile, many ultra-rich individuals form a charitable trust or a private foundation to keep the details of their giving under wraps. 

Another question likely to remain un-answered for now is whether Trump accurately claimed the value of all his donations, tax pros said. One issue the Ways and Means committee brought is up whether a type of deduction known as a conservation easement that Trump reported as being worth $21 million was truly worth that much.

“The IRS allows that deduction, but the IRS may be questioning the value of it. And we won’t know the outcome until the audits are done,” Dubinsky said.

How lucrative is it to be a real estate developer?

Previously published excerpts of Trump’s returns have focused on years in which he reported large financial losses. In the 1980s and 90s, the Times concluded, Trump “appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer.”

Trump’s longtime accountant also recently testified at the Trump Organization’s recent criminal trial that the real estate developer reported losses on his tax returns every year for a decade, including nearly $700 million in 2009 and $200 million in 2010.

Many have questioned the fairness of a self-proclaimed billionaire being allowed to avoid income-tax liability, with one columnist calling it a “national disgrace.” But tax pros underline that this reflects questions about the tax code, which offers a range of ways for wealthy Americans, including real estate moguls, to legally shelter their income.

“The obvious question is, how does a guy pay such a small amount in tax when he’s so wealthy? By design, real estate shelters income,” Davidoff said.

“If I have real estate and there’s positive cash flow, the depreciation on that real estate shelters some of that income,” he added. “The obvious question people will have is, why is the amount he is paying so low? That’s the tax laws.”

For example, depreciation is an artificial calculation designed to account for the fact that assets like buildings lose value over time. Dubinsky illustrated it with an example of a developer who builds a project worth $50 million, and — as is common — puts up $1 million of his own money for the project, while borrowing the rest.

“One-thirtieth of that building gets written off every year,” Dubinsky said. “If I have no income from that building in the first year and I’ve got operating expenses, I’ve now got a loss. [And] I’ve got all the interest I’m paying on it.”

These tax breaks — deliberately designed to incentivize real estate projects — might seem alien to most people whose main source of income is their job.

“The average person doesn’t do that,” Dubinsky said. “They’re getting a W-2 for $85,000. And they’re like, ‘Well, I’m paying tax on $85,000. Why isn’t this guy that’s making billions, or supposedly worth billions, paying his fair share?’ I mean, I hate to come back to it. But unfortunately that’s the way the tax code was crafted.”

—The Associated Press contributed to this story

Read original article here

What to know as record 8.7% Social Security COLA goes into effect

Kathrin Ziegler | Digitalvision | Getty Images

As inflation has kept prices high in 2022, Social Security beneficiaries may look forward to a record high cost-of-living adjustment in 2023.

“Your Social Security benefits will increase by 8.7% in 2023 because of a rise in cost of living,” the Social Security Administration states in the annual statements it is currently sending to beneficiaries.

The 8.7% increase will be the highest in 40 years. It is also a significant bump from the 5.9% cost-of-living increase beneficiaries saw in 2022.

The increase is “kind of a double-edged sword,” according to Jim Blair, a former Social Security administrator and co-founder and lead consultant at Premier Social Security Consulting, which educates consumer and financial advisors on the program’s benefits.

More from Personal Finance:
Why more workers need access to retirement savings
If you’re unretiring, avoid this Social Security surprise
Why long Covid may be ‘the next public health disaster’

“It’s good for people on Social Security,” Blair said. “It’s not so good for the economy with inflation.”

Social Security benefit checks will reflect the increase starting in January.

The average retiree benefit will go up by $146 per month, to $1,827 in 2023 from $1,681 in 2022, according to the Social Security Administration The average disability benefit will increase by $119 per month, to $1,483 in 2023 from $1,364 in 2022.

What’s more, standard Medicare Part B premiums will go down by about 3% next year to $164.90, a $5.20 decrease from 2022. Medicare Part B covers outpatient medical care including doctors’ visits.

Monthly Part B premium payments are often deducted directly from Social Security checks. Due to the lower 2023 premiums, beneficiaries are poised to see more of the 8.7% increase in their monthly Social Security checks.

“The good news about these letters is people are realizing 100% of the 8.7% lift,” said David Freitag, a financial planning consultant and Social Security expert at MassMutual.

“Of course, the economy is inflated at a frightful rate, but this represents the value of cost-of-living adjusted benefits from Social Security,” Freitag said.

Few other income streams in retirement offer cost-of-living adjustments, he noted.

What to look for in your Social Security statement

Justin Paget | Digitalvision | Getty Images

If you’re wondering how much more you stand to see in your checks, the personalized letter from the Social Security Administration will give you a breakdown of what to expect.

That includes your new 2023 monthly benefit amount before deductions.

It will also tell you your 2023 monthly deduction for premiums for Medicare Part B, as well as Medicare Part D, which covers prescription drugs.

The statement will also show your deduction for voluntary tax withholding.

The good news about these letters is people are realizing 100% of the 8.7% lift.

David Freitag

financial planning consultant and Social Security expert at MassMutual

After those deductions, the statement shows how much will be deposited into your bank account in January.

Of note, you do not necessarily have to be receiving Social Security checks now to benefit from the record 2023 increase, Blair noted.

“The good news is you don’t have to apply for benefits to receive the cost-of-living adjustment,” Blair said. “You just have to be age 62 or older.”

When you may pay Medicare premium surcharges

If your income is above a certain amount, you may pay a surcharge called an income related monthly adjustment amount, or IRMAA, on Medicare Parts B and D.

This year, that will be determined by your 2021 tax returns, including your adjusted gross income and tax-exempt interest income. Those two amounts are added together to get your modified adjusted gross income, or MAGI.

In 2023, those IRMAA premium rates kick in if your modified adjusted gross income is $97,000.01 or higher and you filed your tax return as single, head of household, qualifying widow or widower or married filing separately; or $194,000.01 or higher if you are married and filed jointly.

Notably, just one dollar over could put you in a higher bracket.

“It’s important for everyone to make sure that the amount of adjusted gross income that they’re using for the IRMAA surcharges agrees with what they filed on their tax return two years ago,” Freitag said.

If the information does not match, you “absolutely need to file an appeal,” he said.

Because the IRMAA surcharges can be extremely significant, that is an area to watch for errors, Freitag said.

When to appeal your Medicare surcharges

If your income has gone down since your 2021 tax return, you can appeal your IRMAA.

That goes if you have been affected by a life changing event and your modified adjusted gross income has moved down a bracket or below the lowest amounts in the table.

Qualifying life changing events, according to the Social Security Administration, include marriage; divorce or annulment; death of a spouse; you or your spouse reduced your work hours or stopped working altogether; you or your spouse lost income on from property due to a disaster; you or your spouse experienced cessation, termination or reorganization of an employer’s pension plan; or you or your spouse received a settlement from an employer or former employer due to bankruptcy, closure or reorganization.

To report that change, beneficiaries need to fill out Form SSA-44 with appropriate documentation.

How higher benefits could cost you

Andrew Bret Wallis | The Image Bank | Getty Images

As your Social Security income goes up with the 8.7% COLA, that may also push your into a different IRMAA or tax bracket, Freitag noted.

That calls for careful monitoring of your income, he said.

Keep in mind that two years in the future you may get exposed to IRMAA issues if you’re not careful.

In addition, more of your Social Security benefits may be subject to income taxes. Up to 85% of Social Security income may be taxed based on a unique formula that also factors in other income.

It is a good idea to have taxes withheld from Social Security benefits in order to avoid a tax liability when you file your income tax returns, according to Marc Kiner, a CPA and co-founder of Premier Social Security Consulting.

“Do it as soon as you can,” Kiner said of filling out the voluntary withholding request form.

To better gauge how IRMAA or taxes on benefits may affect you going forward, it may help to consult a tax advisor or CPA who can help identify tax-efficient strategies, Freitag said.

Read original article here

Fact check: Biden’s midterms message includes false and misleading claims


Washington
CNN
 — 

President Joe Biden has been back on the campaign trail, traveling in October and early November to deliver his pitch for electing Democrats in the midterm elections on Tuesday.

Biden’s pitch has included claims that are false, misleading or lacking important context. (As always, we take no position on the accuracy of his subjective arguments.) Here is a fact-check look at nine of his recent statements.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

Biden said at a Democratic fundraiser in Pennsylvania last week: “On our watch, for the first time in 10 years, seniors are going to get the biggest increase in their Social Security checks they’ve gotten.” He has also touted the 2023 increase in Social Security payments at other recent events.

But Biden’s boasts leave out such critical context that they are highly misleading. He hasn’t explained that the increase in Social Security payments for 2023, 8.7%, is unusually big simply because the inflation rate has been unusually big. A law passed in the 1970s says that Social Security payments must be increased by the same percentage that a certain measure of inflation has increased. It’s called a cost-of-living adjustment.

The White House deleted a Tuesday tweet that delivered an especially triumphant version of Biden’s boast, and press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre acknowledged Wednesday that the tweet was lacking “context.” You can read a more detailed fact check here.

Biden said at a Democratic rally in Florida on Tuesday: “And on my watch, for the first time in 10 years, seniors are getting an increase in their Social Security checks.”

The claim that the 2023 increase to Social Security payments is the first in 10 years is false. In reality, there has been a cost-of-living increase every year from 2017 onward. There was also an increase every year from 2012 through 2015 before the payment level was kept flat in 2016 because of a lack of inflation.

The context around this Biden remark in Florida suggests he might have botched his repeat campaign line about Social Security payments increasing at the same time as Medicare premiums are declining. Regardless of his intentions, though, he was wrong.

Biden repeatedly suggested in speeches in October and early November that a new law he signed in August, the Inflation Reduction Act, will stop the practice of successful corporations paying no federal corporate income tax. Biden made the claim explicitly in a tweet last week: “Let me give you the facts. In 2020, 55 corporations made $40 billion. And they paid zero in federal taxes. My Inflation Reduction Act puts an end to this.”

But “puts an end to this” is an exaggeration. The Inflation Reduction Act will reduce the number of companies on the list of non-payers, but the law will not eliminate the list entirely.

That’s because the law’s new 15% alternative corporate minimum tax, on the “book income” companies report to investors, only applies to companies with at least $1 billion in average annual income. (There are lots of nuances; you can read more specifics here.) According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the think tank that in 2021 published the list of 55 large and profitable companies that avoided paying any federal income tax in their previous fiscal year, only 14 of these 55 companies reported having US pre-tax income of at least $1 billion in that year.

In other words, there will clearly still be some large and profitable corporations paying no federal income tax even after the minimum tax takes effect in 2023. The exact number is not yet known.

Matthew Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said in a Thursday email that the new tax is “an important step forward from the status quo” and that it will raise substantial revenue, but he also said: “I wouldn’t want to assert that the minimum tax will end the phenomenon of zero-tax profitable corporations. A more accurate phrasing would be to say that the minimum tax will *help* ensure that *the most profitable* corporations pay at least some federal income tax.”

Biden said at the Tuesday rally in Florida: “Look, you know, you can hear it from Republicans, ‘My God, that big-spending Democrat Biden. Man, he’s taken us in debt.’ Well, guess what? I reduced the federal deficit this year by $1 trillion $400 billion. One trillion 400 billion dollars. The most in all American history. No one has ever reduced the debt that much. We cut the federal debt in half.”

Biden offered a similar narrative at a Thursday rally in New Mexico, this time saying, “We cut the federal debt in half. A fact.”

There are two significant problems here.

First: Biden conflated the debt and the deficit, which are two different things. It’s not true that Biden has “cut the federal debt in half”; the federal debt (total borrowing plus interest owed) has continued to rise under Biden, exceeding $31 trillion for the first time this October. Rather, it’s the federal deficit – the annual difference between spending and revenue – that was cut in half between fiscal 2021 and fiscal 2022.

Second, it’s highly questionable how much credit Biden deserves for even the reduction in the deficit. Biden doesn’t mention that the primary reason the deficit plummeted in fiscal years 2021 and 2022 was that it had skyrocketed to a record high in 2020 because of emergency pandemic relief spending. It then fell as expected as the spending expired as planned.

Dan White, senior director of economic research at Moody’s Analytics – an economics firm whose assessments Biden has repeatedly cited during his presidency – told CNN’s Matt Egan in October: “On net, the policies of the administration have increased the deficit, not reduced it.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group, says the administration’s own actions have significantly worsened the deficit picture. (David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Funds, told Egan that the Biden administration does deserve credit for the economic recovery that has boosted tax revenues.)

Biden said at the Florida rally on Tuesday: “Unemployment is down from 6.5 to 3.5%, the lowest in 50 years.” He said at the New Mexico rally on Thursday: “Unemployment rate is 3.5% – the lowest it’s been in 50 years.”

But Biden didn’t acknowledge that September’s 3.5% unemployment rate was actually a tie for the lowest in 50 years – a tie, specifically, with three months of Trump’s administration, in late 2019 and early 2020. Since Biden uses these campaign speeches to favorably compare his own record to Trump’s record, that omission is significant.

The unemployment rate rose to 3.7% in October; that number was revealed on Friday, after these Biden comments. The rate was 6.4% in January 2021, the month Biden took office.

During an on-camera discussion conducted by progressive organization NowThis News and published online in late October, Biden told young activists that they “probably are aware, I just signed a law” on student debt forgiveness that is being challenged by Republicans. He added: “It’s passed. I got it passed by a vote or two, and it’s in effect.”

Biden’s claims are false.

He created his student debt forgiveness initiative through executive action, not through legislation, so he didn’t sign a law and didn’t get it passed by any margin. Since Republicans opposed to the initiative, including those challenging the initiative in court, have called it unlawful precisely because it wasn’t passed by Congress, the distinction between a law and an executive action is a highly pertinent fact here.

A White House official told CNN that Biden was referring to the Inflation Reduction Act, the law narrowly passed by the Senate in August; the official said the Inflation Reduction Act created “room for other crucial programs” by bringing down the deficit. But Biden certainly did not make it clear that he was talking about anything other than the student debt initiative.

Biden correctly noted on various occasions in October that gas prices have declined substantially since their June 2022 peak – though, as always, it’s important to note that presidents have a limited impact on gas prices. But in an economic speech in New York last week, Biden said, “Today, the most common price of gas in America is $3.39 – down from over $5 when I took office.”

Biden’s claim that the most common gas price when he took office was more than $5 is not even close to accurate. The most common price for a gallon of regular gas on the day he was inaugurated, January 20, 2021, was $2.39, according to data provided to CNN by Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. In other words, Biden made it sound like gas prices had fallen significantly during his presidency when they had actually increased significantly.

In other recent remarks, Biden has discussed the state of gas prices in relation to the summer peak of more than $5 per gallon, not in relation to when he took office. Regardless, the comment last week was the second this fall in which Biden inaccurately described the price of gas – both times in a way that made it sound more impressive.

You can read a longer fact check here.

Biden has revived a claim that was debunked more than 20 months ago by The Washington Post and then CNN. At least twice in October, he boasted that he traveled 17,000 miles with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

“I’ve spent more time with Xi Jinping of China than any world leader has, when I was Vice President all the way through to now. Over 78 hours with him alone. Eight – nine of those hours on the phone and the others in person, traveling 17,000 miles with him around the world, in China and the United States,” he told a Democratic gathering in Oregon in mid-October.

Biden made the number even bigger during a speech on student debt in New Mexico on Thursday, saying, “I traveled 17-, 18,000 miles with him.”

The claim is false. Biden has not traveled anywhere close to 17,000 miles with Xi, though they have indeed spent lots of time together. Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler noted in 2021 that the two men often did not even travel parallel routes to their gatherings, let alone physically travel together. The only apparent way to get Biden’s mileage past 17,000, Kessler found, is to add the length of his flight journeys between Washington and Beijing, during which, obviously, Xi was not with him.

A White House official told CNN in early 2021 that Biden was adding up his “total travel back and forth” for meetings with Xi. But that is very different than traveling “with” Xi as Biden keeps saying, especially in the context of a boast about how well he knows Xi – and Biden has had more than enough time to make his language more precise.

Biden claimed at the Thursday rally in New Mexico that under Trump, Republicans passed a $2 trillion tax cut that “affected only the top 1% of the American public.”

Biden correctly said in various October remarks that the Trump tax cut law was particularly beneficial to the wealthy, but he went too far here. It’s not true that the Trump policy “only” affected the top 1%.

The Tax Policy Center think tank found in early 2018 that Trump’s law “will reduce individual income taxes on average for all income groups and in all states.” The think tank estimated that “between 60 and 76 percent of taxpayers in every state will receive a tax cut.” And in April 2019, tax-preparation company H&R Block said two-thirds of its returning customers had indeed paid less in tax that year than they did the year prior, The New York Times reported in an article headlined “Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut.”

The Tax Policy Center did find in early 2018 that people at the top would get by far the biggest benefits from Trump’s law. Specifically, the think tank found that the top 1% of earners would get an average 3.4% increase in after-tax 2018 income – versus an average 1.6% income increase for people in the middle quintile, an average 1.2% income increase for people in the quintile below that and just an average 0.4% income increase for people in the lowest quintile. The think tank also found that the top 1% of earners would get more than 20% of the income benefits from the law, a bigger share than the bottom 60% of earners combined.

The distribution could get even more skewed after 2025, when the law’s individual tax cuts will expire if not extended by Congress and the president. If there is no extension – and, therefore, the law’s permanent corporate tax cut remains in place without the individual tax cuts – the Tax Policy Center has estimated that, in 2027, the top 1% will get 83% of the benefits from the law.

But that’s a possibility about the future. Biden claimed, in the past tense, that the law “affected” only the top 1%. That’s inaccurate.

This wasn’t the first time Biden overstated his point about the Trump tax cuts. The Washington Post fact-checked him in 2019, for example, when he claimed “all of it” went to the ultra-rich and corporations.



Read original article here

Trump tax returns: Chief Justice John Roberts puts temporary hold on release of records to Congress



CNN
 — 

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to temporarily put on hold a lower court order requiring the release of former President Donald Trump’s tax returns by the Internal Revenue Service to a Democratic-led House committee.

The tax returns had been set to be turned over to the House Ways and Means Committee later this week.

Roberts asked for a response by November 10.

The “administrative stay” is temporary in nature and does not always reflect the final disposition of the dispute. It is a move often made when a deadline approaches to preserve the status quo and give the justices more time to act.

In a flurry of Trump related emergency petitions in recent days the justice with jurisdiction over the lower courts have decided to issue such temporary relief.

Justice Elena Kagan, for example issued such a stay on October 26 temporarily blocking a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attacks for phone and text records of Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward.

Justice Clarence Thomas froze an order on October 24 requiring the testimony of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham before a Georgia grand jury.

Roberts supervises the lower court that issued the order in the Trump IRS case, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The congressional effort is one that stands to provide the Democratic-led House the most direct avenue to the long-sought tax information.

The committee chairman Richard Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat, first sought the tax returns from the IRS in 2019, and the IRS, under the Trump administration, initially resisted turning them over. The case moved slowly until 2021, when, under the Biden administration, the Justice Department changed its legal posture and concluded the IRS was obligated to comply with the committee’s request. A Trump-appointed judge ruled in the House’s favor late last year and the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to reverse that ruling, most recently with the full appeals court declining last week to take up the case.

A separate legal case concerning the House Oversight Committee’s pursuit of Trump tax information from his then-accounting firm ended in a settlement earlier this year, after a trip to the Supreme Court in 2020. In bringing the dispute with the Ways and Means committee to the Supreme Court, Trump is arguing that lower courts have run afoul of that 2020 case, known as Mazars.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Read original article here

Social Security COLA will be 8.7% in 2023, highest increase in 40 years

Azmanjaka | E+ | Getty Images

Amid record high inflation, Social Security beneficiaries will get an 8.7% increase to their benefits in 2023, the highest increase in 40 years.

The Social Security Administration announced the change on Thursday. It will result in a benefit increase of more than $140 more per month on average starting in January.

The average Social Security retiree benefit will increase $146 per month, to $1,827 in 2023, from $1,681 in 2022.

The Senior Citizens League, a non-partisan senior group, had estimated last month that the COLA could be 8.7% next year. 

More from FA Playbook:

Here’s a look at other stories impacting the financial advisor business.

The confirmed 8.7% bump to benefits tops the 5.9% increase beneficiaries saw in 2022, which at the time was the highest in four decades.

The last time the cost-of-living adjustment was higher was in 1981, when the increase was 11.2%.

Next year’s record increase comes as beneficiaries have struggled with increasing prices this year.

“The COLAs really are about people treading water; they’re not increases in benefits,” said Dan Adcock, director of government relations and policy at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

“They’re more trying to provide inflation protection so that people can maintain their standard of living,” Adcock said.

How much your Social Security check may be

Beneficiaries can expect to see the 2023 COLA in their benefit checks starting in January.

But starting in December, you may be able to see notices online from the Social Security Administration that state just how much your checks will be next year.

Two factors — Medicare Part B premiums and taxes — may influence the size of your benefit checks.

The standard Medicare Part B premium will be $5.20 lower next year — to $164.90, down from $170.10. Those payments are often deducted directly from Social Security benefit checks.

“That will mean that beneficiaries will be able to keep pretty much all or most of their COLA increase,” Mary Johnson, Social Security and Medicare policy analyst at The Senior Citizens League, told CNBC.com this week.

That may vary if you have money withheld from your monthly checks for taxes.

To gauge just how much more money you may see next year, take your net Social Security benefit and add in your Medicare premium and multiply that by the 2023 COLA.

“That will give you a good idea what your raise will be,” said Joe Elsasser, an Omaha, Nebraska-based certified financial planner and founder and president of Covisum, a provider of Social Security claiming software.

How the COLA is tied to inflation

The COLA applies to about 70 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries.

The change is based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, or CPI-W.

The Social Security Administration calculates the annual COLA by measuring the change in the CPI-W from the third quarter of the preceding year to the third quarter of the current year.

Benefits do not necessarily go up every year. While there was a record 5.8% increase in 2009, the following two years had 0% increases.

“For seniors, because they spend so much on health care, those years were difficult,” Adcock said.

A similar pattern may happen if the economy goes into a recession, according to Johnson.

What the COLA means if you haven’t claimed benefits yet

If you decide to claim Social Security benefits, you will get access to the record-high COLA.

But you will also have access to it if you wait to start your benefit checks at a later date, according to Elsasser.

If you’re 62 now and don’t claim, your benefit is adjusted by every COLA until you do.

The amount of the COLA really should not influence claiming.

Joe Elsasser

CFP and president of Covisum

What’s more, delaying benefits can increase the size of your monthly checks. Experts generally recommend most people wait as long as possible, until age 70, due to the fact that benefits increase 8% per year from your full retirement age (typically 66 or 67) to 70. To be sure, whether that strategy is ideal may vary based on other factors, such as your personal health situation and marital status.

“The amount of the COLA really should not influence claiming,” Elsasser said. “It doesn’t hurt you or help you as far as when you claim, because you’re going to get it either way.”

How a record-high increase may impact Social Security’s funds

Social Security’s trust funds can pay full benefits through 2035, the Social Security Board of Trustees said in June.

At that time, the program will be able to pay 80% of benefits, the board projects.

Tetra Images | Tetra Images | Getty Images

The historic high COLA in 2023 could accelerate the depletion of the trust funds to at least one calendar year earlier, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Higher wages may prompt workers to contribute more payroll taxes into the program, which may help offset that. In 2023, maximum taxable earnings will increase to $160,200, up from $147,000 this year.

What could happen to future benefit increases

While 2023 marks a record high COLA, beneficiaries should be prepared for future years where increases are not as high.

If inflation subsides, the size of COLAs will also go down.

Whether the CPI-W is the best measure for the annual increases is up for debate. Some tout the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, or CPI-E, as a better measure for the costs seniors pay. Multiple Democratic congressional bills have called for changing the annual increases to that measure.

Read original article here

U.K. Scraps Plan to Cut Income-Tax Rate for Top Earners

LONDON—The U.K. government backtracked on a key part of its broad tax-cut plan after facing a backlash from financial markets and a rebellion in its own ranks, sending the pound higher on Monday but marking a major setback for new Prime Minister Liz Truss and her economic agenda.

U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer

Kwasi Kwarteng

shelved an initiative to cut the top rate of income tax from 45% to 40%, more than a week after a broader fiscal plan to stoke growth through tax cuts and new spending forced an emergency intervention by the Bank of England to prevent a financial crisis.

Ms. Truss, who based her nascent leadership on a sweeping revamp of the British economy, defended the measure as recently as Sunday but eventually buckled under the pressure of international investors who balked at the scale of unfunded tax cuts and Conservative Party lawmakers shocked by polls showing they faced a near total wipeout at the next general election.

The pound rallied 1.3% against the dollar and bought $1.13 in late Monday trading—a higher rate than before the tax plans were unveiled last week. U.K. borrowing costs mostly fell, with the yield on the 10-year gilt slipping 0.21 percentage point to 3.93%, although yields were still far higher than before the plans.

“I know the plan put forward only 10 days ago has caused a little turbulence. I get it,” Mr. Kwarteng, the U.K.’s Treasury chief, told party members gathered at an annual conference on Monday. He said he hoped getting rid of the planned cut to the 45% rate would allow people to focus on the rest of the government’s pro-growth agenda.

He also sought to reassure financial markets: “There is no path to higher sustainable growth without fiscal responsibility.”

U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss, at the annual Conservative Party conference on Sunday. She defended the package in a BBC interview that day.



Photo:

oli scarff/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Under pressure from lawmakers, Mr. Kwarteng late Monday decided to bring forward the Office for Budget Responsibility analysis of public finances to October from Nov. 23. The report is seen as key to providing transparency to the market about whether and when the government program will generate growth.

Still, political analysts said the chaos of the past week marked a rocky start to Ms. Truss’s tenure and raised questions over whether she can hold her party together as she seeks to implement spending cuts to help fund the plan’s remaining tax cuts and reassure markets about the scale of government debts.

U.K. bookmakers Oddschecker on Monday placed the odds of Ms. Truss being forced out of leadership at 4-1, compared with 66-1 last week. “One of the most incompetent, catastrophic debuts in political leadership I’ve seen,” wrote Brian Klaas, an associate professor of global politics at University College London, on Twitter.

The move to slash the top income-tax rate was a small part of a much bigger stimulus announced on Sept. 23 that paired large subsidies to help homeowners and businesses cope with rising energy costs along with the biggest tax cuts in a generation, a package funded by borrowing that raised alarm among investors.

The most controversial part of the plan was the move to cut the highest rate of income tax on the wealthy at a time when high inflation is cutting into real wages and a recession looms.

Conservative Party lawmakers had lined up to criticize the abolition of the tax. On Sunday,

Michael Gove,

a former senior cabinet minister, said it was morally wrong. The growing list of rebels meant the government would likely have struggled to get the top-rate tax cut voted through Parliament.

Despite the change, questions remain about the plan’s economic viability. The change will affect only £2 billion, the equivalent of $2.23 billion, out of an initial package of tax cuts that totaled £45 billion in foregone revenue for the government, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, an independent think tank. It estimated the British government would still require an additional £72.4 billion in debt issuance this financial year.

This is “a rounding error in the context of the public finances,” said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS. “The chancellor still has a lot of work to do if he is to display a credible commitment to fiscal sustainability.”

Still, the move to roll back the tax cut was welcomed by some investors as an important signal that the government was responding to market concerns about the plan’s impact on inflation and debt at a time of rising interest rates and financial uncertainty.

“It’s a first step in restoring credibility that was lost after the fiscal statement,” said

Cathal Kennedy,

U.K. economist at RBC Capital Markets.

Government officials on Monday said they intended to press ahead with other measures announced in the mini-budget, including a reduction in the lowest rate of income tax that economists estimated was set to cost much more than the removal of the highest rate in lost revenues. Other controversial measures remain, including scrapping a cap on banker bonuses imposed after the 2008 financial crisis.

The International Monetary Fund gave a rare rebuke of the initial plan, saying it risked further fueling inflation that the BOE sees hitting 11% later this year. On Friday, ratings agency S&P lowered its outlook on U.K. sovereign debt to negative, citing risks to the country’s economy.

Political analysts said the Truss government was likely bowing to political reality as much as economic reality.

“This move is rather symbolic, being less about the amount of money it will save and more about the poor signal it had delivered of ideological tax cuts,” said

Chris Turner,

an analyst at ING Bank. “The move looks driven by a backlash from her own party and perhaps the threat of a sovereign rating downgrade.”

The top-rate tax cut had threatened to completely overshadow the annual Conservative Party conference that is currently under way in Birmingham. The conference, normally a three-day show of devotion to the party leader, is instead turning into a more somber event as the Tories brace for a difficult few years ahead of an election in 2024.

A series of opinion polls after the plan pointed to a big loss of support for the Conservative Party among voters as it approached the gathering.

At the conference,

Chris Philp,

a senior Treasury minister, said he expected the party to support the rest of the tax-cutting package and argued that the U.K. government had a strong balance sheet. “We think they are the right plans because ultimately those plans are what make our economy competitive,” he said.

Turmoil in the U.K. Economy

Monday’s announcement is the latest step to stem the fallout from the fiscal plan. Last week, after coming under pressure from the BOE, the government announced the Office for Budget Fiscal Responsibility, an independent public finances watchdog, will in November lay out the full cost of the package and whether it will generate the 2.5% a year of economic growth the government promises. The government had resisted having the watchdog score the plan.

Mr. Kwarteng also promised on Monday that no new tax cuts would be coming. Both steps were also welcomed by investors.

“That’s quite a shift,” said Chris Jeffery, head of interest rates and inflation at Legal & General Investment Management.

The government said it would outline other steps to pay for the tax cuts in November, including likely spending restrictions such as making below-inflation increases to unemployment benefits. In the meantime, the government is hoping to win over doubters with a drumbeat of new announcements of regulatory reforms to make everything from agriculture to child-care provision more competitive.

Worries about the impact of tax cuts on government borrowing helped push yields on government bonds sharply higher early last week. On Wednesday, the BOE stepped in to halt the surge and the threat of significant harm to some pension funds, announcing that it would buy up to £65 billion of government bonds in a series of daily auctions.

When the bank intervention ends in mid-October, yields could rise again, but not as quickly as in recent days, said Orla Garvey, a fixed-income portfolio manager at

Federated Hermes.

The top-rate tax cut had threatened to overshadow the annual Conservative Party conference that is currently under way in Birmingham.



Photo:

oli scarff/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Write to Paul Hannon at paul.hannon@wsj.com, Max Colchester at max.colchester@wsj.com and Anna Hirtenstein at anna.hirtenstein@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Prince William just inherited a 685-year old estate worth $1 billion


London
CNN Business
 — 

Royal wills are never made public. That means what happens to much of the Queen’s personal wealth following her death last week will remain a family secret.

Forbes estimated last year that the late monarch’s personal fortune was worth $500 million, made up of her jewels, art collection, investments and two residences, Balmoral Castle in Scotland and Sandringham House in Norfolk. The Queen inherited both properties from her father, King George VI.

“[Royal wills] are hidden, so we have no idea actually what’s in them and what that’s worth, and that’s never ever made public,” Laura Clancy, a lecturer in media at Lancaster University and author of a book on royal finances, told CNN Business.

But the vast bulk of the Royal family’s wealth — totaling at least £18 billion ($21 billion) in land, property and investments — now passes along a well-trodden, centuries-old path to the new monarch, King Charles, and his heir.

Diana’s private secretary on William’s future after Elizabeth

The line of succession makes Prince William, now the first in line to the British throne, a much wealthier man.

The future king inherits the private Duchy of Cornwall estate from his father. The duchy owns a sprawling portfolio of land and property covering almost 140,000 acres, most of it in southwest England.

Created in 1337 by King Edward III, the estate is worth around £1 billion ($1.2 billion), according to its accounts for the last financial year.

Revenue from the estate is “used to fund the public, private and charitable activities,” of the Duke of Cornwall, its website says. That title is now held by Prince William.

By far the biggest slice of the family’s fortune, the £16.5 billion ($19 billion) Crown Estate, now belongs to King Charles as reigning monarch. But under an arrangement dating back to 1760, the monarch hands over all profits from the estate to the government in return for a slice, called the Sovereign Grant.

The estate includes vast swathes of central London property and the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has the status of a corporation and is managed by a chief executive and commissioners — or non-executive directors — appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of the prime minister.

In the last financial year, it generated net profit of almost £313 million ($361 million). From that, the UK Treasury paid the Queen a Sovereign Grant of £86 million ($100 million). That’s equivalent to £1.29 ($1.50) per person in the United Kingdom.

Most of this money is spent on maintaining the Royal family’s properties and paying their staff.

The Sovereign Grant is usually equivalent to 15% of the estate’s profits. But, in 2017, the payment was bumped up to 25% for the next decade to help pay for refurbishments to Buckingham Palace.

King Charles also inherits the Duchy of Lancaster, a private estate dating back to 1265, which was valued at about £653 million ($764 million) according to its most recent accounts. Income from its investments cover official costs not met by the Sovereign Grant, and helps support other Royal family members.

Despite the vast sums, the monarch and his heir are restricted in how much they can personally benefit from their fortunes.

The King can only spend the Sovereign Grant on royal duties. And neither he nor his heir are allowed to benefit from the sale of assets in their duchies. Any profit from disposals are reinvested back into the estate, according an explainer published by the Institute for Government’s (IfG).

The UK Treasury must also approve all large property transactions, the IfG said.

Still, unlike the Sovereign Grant generated by the Crown Estate, both duchies are private sources of wealth, meaning their owners are not required to give any details beyond reporting their income, the IFG said.

Last year, King Charles, then the Duke of Cornwall, paid himself £21 million ($25 million) from the Duchy of Cornwall estate.

Neither Prince William nor King Charles are obliged to pay any form of tax on their estates, though both duchies have voluntarily paid income tax since 1993, according to the IfG.

That move came a year after the Royal family faced strong criticism for planning to use public money to repair Windsor Castle, which had suffered damage in a fire, Clancy said.

“Of course, voluntary income tax [is] not a fixed rate, and they don’t have to declare how much income they’re making their tax on. So actually it’s just like plucking a figure out of thin air,” Clancy said.

Buckingham Palace did not immediately respond to CNN Business when reached for comment.

Read original article here