You may also like
-
It's not just famous people who have to think about choices.
-
Despite what people thought at first, the years of the pandemic were good for state and local tax collections. The big jumps in 2021 and 2022 haven't carried over into 2023, but most states' earnings are still strong and well above levels before the pandemic, even when inflation is taken into account.
-
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) changes more than 60 tax rules every year to account for inflation. This stops something called "bracket creep." People move into higher tax brackets or lose value from credits and benefits when inflation rises instead of their real income rising. This is called "bracket creep."
-
Early property taxes were generally paid by farmers and were imposed mostly on land throughout the medieval era. These days, property taxes are also imposed on assets such as real estate, and they are paid periodically by individuals or organizations.
-
Interest rates are predicted to go down as inflation goes down, but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that the government's interest costs will almost double over the next ten years, reaching 3.6% of GDP in 2033.
-
As the race for president in 2024 gets under way, candidates are starting to make plans for how they would handle taxes. Getting the government corporate tax rate down from 21% to 15% is a tax plan that both former President Donald Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence supported.
-
A lot of new information about a draft multilateral tax deal was made public by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) last week. The dump of documents has to do with OECD Pillar 1, Amount A, which is a plan to change where big multinational businesses pay taxes on their profits.
-
For many years, the European Union (EU) has been trying to make a single business tax base. The European Commission's recent 'Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation' (BEFIT) proposal and two related proposals on transfer pricing are the next steps in its legislative efforts to make the CCTB (common corporate tax base) and CCCTB (common consolidated corporate tax base) proposals law.
-
This week, we released our yearly State Business Tax Climate Index, which looks at how taxes are set up. Readers can compare state tax systems across more than 120 factors, making it a very useful diagnostic tool.
-
Prices that are marked up by a certain amount may not be taxed, but buyers still feel like they are. A clause added at the last minute to Pennsylvania bill HB 1300 would raise the minimum markup on cigarettes sold in the state.
Social Security History
Background Since a pair of 1938 Treasury Department Tax Rulings, and another in 1941, Social Security benefits have been explicitly excluded from federal income taxation. (A revision was issued in 1970, but it made no changes in the existing policy.) This changed for the first time with the passage of the 1983 Amendments to the Social Security Act. Beginning in 1984, a portion of Social Security benefits have been subject to federal income taxes.
The three Treasury Rulings (see below) established as tax policy the principle that Social Security benefits were not subject to federal income taxes. This was special treatment for Social Security benefits since most private pensions are partly taxable. In most private pensions, an amount of the pension equal to the contributions made by the worker are tax-free. The amount of such private pensions which exceeds the amount of the worker's contributions, is usually subject to federal income taxes.
A slightly different, and more complicated, way of saying essentially the same thing is that the portion of pension benefits not subject to taxation is that on "after-tax income." For a worker, his entire pay is subject to federal income taxes, including that part that is subject to Social Security payroll taxes, and so, in the sometimes confusing parlance of tax policy, this is said to all be "after-tax income." His employer, however, is allowed to deduct his portion of the Social Security payroll tax from his taxable income. So Social Security payments made by the employer are considered "before-tax income" (and hence, not taxable). So the value of the "before-tax income" received by the beneficiary (i.e., the employer's contribution) is potentially taxable. Or to say it the other way, only that portion of the worker's "after-tax income" on which he paid payroll taxes, is not taxable.
Yet another way of describing this idea is to use "exclusion ratios," which is how the Treasury Department defines the taxable portion of a pension benefit. In all of these ways of describing it, the basic idea is the same: the pension recepient is generally liable for taxes on that portion of his benefits that he did not himself contribute.
Treasury's underlying rationale for not taxing Social Security benefits was that the benefits under the Act could be considered as "gratuities," and since gifts or gratuities were not generally taxable, Social Security benefits were not taxable. It is likely that Treasury took this view owing to the structure of the 1935 Act in which the taxing provisions and the benefit provisions were in separate Titles of the law. Because of this structure, one could argue that the taxes were just a form of revenue-raising, unrelated to the benefits. The benefits themselves could then be seen as a "gratuity" that the federal government paid to certain classes of citizens. Although this was clearly not true in a political and moral sense, it could be construed this way in a legal sense. In the context of public policy, most people would hold the view that the tax contributions created an "earned right" to subsequent benefits. Notwithstanding this common view, the Treasury Department ruled that there was no such necessary connection and hence that Social Security benefits were not taxable.