Overview: The proposed tax changes will provide miniscule or no tax breaks for the middle class, and for some taxes could actually increase; however, the new laws would provide solid incentives for the low wage worker to remain in a low-wage situation, and monumental tax breaks for the upper-middle class, small business owners, and for the wealthy (as expected). Yeah, a big win for the highly technical upper-middle class, without whom this country would collapse; and Boooo for additional breaks for the wealthy – I guess we’ll have to buy another Yacht, huh, Buffy.
Reduced Business Tax Rates:
Bottom Line: A significant small business and corporate tax rate change is on the docket; the details are still unclear, but overall this looks incredibly good for business owners (almost unbelievable). If this occurs, all small businesses and large businesses will go into turbo restructuring mode, and for good reason. As proposed, the new business tax rates will significantly reduce tax on most, if not all, businesses.
Yeaaaaah for all small business owners who risk it all in going it on their own. You deserve a break, dudes and dudetts. No risk, no reward, baby – small business owners are America at its very best!
Tax Rate Change:
Bottom line: A sneaky, higher effective tax rate on the middle class. Boooo. Without a more technical examination, from afar, the proposed new tax rates appear to be somewhat benign for the middle class (same as usual), but look again, a middle class tax rate-shark is approaching, and fast! Button your hatches, bitches.
Doubled Standard Deduction:
Bottom Line: A direct huge win for low-wage earners and non-homeowners, and an (indirect but mammoth) win for wealthy taxpayers. For middle class homeowners, a minimal win for those with 1 child or none, a wash for homes with two children, and fewer tax breaks for couples with 3+ children. Why? Although the deduction is going up, it is being countered by an elimination of personal exemptions. Deductions and exemptions provide the same tax benefit, so when you lose the current $4,200 exemption per child and the standard deduction is static per household, more children means fewer tax breaks in future years.
If you hit the poly-fecta as 1) non-homeowner, 2) $65K income or less, 3) living in a tax free state, and 4) 1 or no children, the new standard deduction provision will provide a significant tax benefit vs the existing tax scheme.
Child Tax Credit Increase:
Great for those with low household income and children; but unless the income threshold for claiming the credit increase SIGNIFICANTLY, not much help to most of the middle class. The CTC is not the same as the credit for childcare expense…two separate credits, the childcare credit, however, is available regardless of income level, so let’s hope they leave that as-is or increase it to help young parents.
Alternative Minimum Tax Repeal
Bottom Line: A huge and double-huge win for the upper middle class and wealthy. The numbers are highly technical, but the end result will be significantly less tax paid by these two groups. This change, $-for-$, will be the most significant as compared to all other items in this tax reform package. Sorry middle-class, you don’t get to eat at this table.
Estate Tax Eliminated:
Bottom Line: A huge and double-huge win for decedents of the wealthy. The numbers are highly technical, but the end result will be significantly less tax paid by those who inherit cash and assets in excess of 5.5 million.
Multinational Tax Exemption:
Bottom Line: Multinational tax exemption will bringing money back into the US, but likely will not significantly improve wages or create jobs. Jobb stagnation is an education and skills problem, and a product of our stay-poor indigent incentive system; the problem is not a tax or related issue. A large pool of high paying technical jobs and more money to pay high tech workers will not incentivize low wage workers to educate themselves, especially when they are so highly incentivized to remain poor. It is almost too hard to work and educate your way out of poverty; it makes you jaded and wears on your youth, it makes you want to give up at times, as so many do. If you’ve never been up against poverty, you’ll never understand the Everest-like climb to middle class status that lays before many unfortunate white and black and brown and all other impoverished Americans.
Contributions: Monies invested into a Roth IRA.
Original Contribution Date: January 1st of the original (first) Roth IRA contribution year.
Earnings (gains): Capital gains, passive income or dividends earned from a Roth investment.
Over the past few years, Bill’s wife, Julie, contributed $50,000 to her Roth IRA; since inception on 12/4/12, earnings from the investment total $36,000, for a total account balance to-date of $86,000. Bill received the Roth in a divorce settlement and immediately made withdrawals from the account. Note that had Julie not been ordered to give her IRA to Bill, the following guidance would be exactly the same for withdrawals made by Julie.
At any time, Bill can withdraw up to $50,000 (Julie’s total contribution), tax and penalty free. Brokers, by law, are required to report distributions in chronological order as: contribution amount first (always tax and penalty free), earnings second (see below for tax and/or penalty exemptions).
To cover his expenses, Bill needs to immediately withdraw both the original contribution of $50K and the $36,000 earnings that have accrued; again, the first $50K will automatically be reported tax and penalty free. Bill can withdraw the additional $36K earnings tax and penalty free, but only when two hurdles, both “A” and “B” below, are met:
A. The date of his wife’s first Roth contribution was > 5 years from the date of Bill’s first withdrawal of
the $36,000 earnings.
Bill’s wife opened her first Roth on 12/4/2012. Today’s date is 7/17/17. Although less than 5
years since her first Roth contribution, Bill would pass the 5 year rule.
Why? Because the IRS considers a Roth contribution anytime 1/1/12 through 4/15/13, to have originated
on 1/1/12 (retro start date). Therefore the 5 year clock began ticking as of 1/1/12 and the five year
rule was met on 1/1/17. A withdrawal of earnings on 7/17/17 would pass the 5 year rule.
B. Although Bill has passed the crucial 5 year test, one more hurdle must be passed for the $36,000 earnings
distribution to be tax and penalty free.
1. Bill was 59 ½ or older on the date or withdrawal, or
2. Bill is disabled (would need confirmation from the SSA), or
3. Bill uses the earnings for a first time home purchase (restricted to a maximum of $10,000)
• If both “A” and “B” above are satisfied, Bill can withdraw the $36,000 earnings tax and penalty
free. Again, “A” and “B” are not required for exemption of the first $50K withdrawn.
• When the 5 year rule has not been met, TAX would be due on the $36,000 earnings withdrawn, even if Bill
is over the age of 59 1/2.
When the 5 year rule is not met, tax will always be due on withdrawn earnings; however, the 10% early
withdrawal penalty can be waived in certain situations (see below).
Tom opened his first Roth on 9/4/14 when he was 57 years old; therefore, his 5 year clock began 1/1/14 (retro start date). On 5/5/17, Tom’s contribution balance was $15,000, with an earnings balance of $3,000 for a total of $18,000 total Roth balance.
At any time Tom could withdraw up to $15,000 with no penalty or interest being incurred. Although on 5/5/17 Tom is over the age of 59 ½, 5 years has not passed since Tom’s first Roth contribution date of 1/1/14 (retro date); therefore amy amount of Tom’s $3,000 Roth earnings, if withdrawn before 1/1/19, would be subject to tax (at the taxpayer’s tax bracket rate) and the 10% early-withdrawal penalty.
Note: when the 5 year rule has not been met, being disabled would not relieve Tom from owning tax or penalty on his $3,000 Roth earnings.
The 5 year test is the first, and most important, hurdle – without passing this test, and with no exceptions, Tom would owe tax on all amounts withdrawn in excess of his original Roth contribution.
When the 5 year rule is not met, tax will always be due on withdrawn Roth earnings; however, the 10% early withdrawal penalty can be waived under the following circumstances:
• The distributions are part of a series of substantially equal payments (minimum five years or until the
Roth IRA owner reaches age 59½, whichever is longer).
• When used to pay out-of-pocket medical expenses in excess of 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).
• When used to pay medical insurance premiums after losing your job.
• When used to pay qualified higher education expenses (for yourself or eligible family members).
• The distribution is due to an IRS levy of the qualified plan.
• The distribution is a qualified reservist distribution.
• The distribution is a qualified disaster recovery assistance distribution.
• The distribution is a qualified recovery assistance distribution.
By: Troy Bryant, CEO, Doorstep Mobile Tax
Likely Effects of a Higher Minimum Wage:
1. More productive workers will keep their job; poor performers will lose jobs:
Employers mandated with a higher minimum wage will most certainly move quickly to dismiss underperforming employees and assign additional tasks to more motivated workers. Some employers may elect to pay a few hours of overtime to a more select workforce and eliminate other workers; while in companies where a substantial number of minimum wage employees currently enjoy overtime, employers may opt to hire additional workers, eliminate overtime and potentially reduce full-time status for others. Regardless of the method used, aggressive employers will push back against the new wage laws, crunch numbers and adjust as necessary to optimize employee cost. Many minimum wage workers, likely most of them, will suffer the consequences. Since higher minimum wages will most certainly affect a sudden decrease in job openings, those who keep their jobs will be forced to succumb to employers’ stricter demands or face potential job loss.
2. Although thinning out his or her employee base, reducing overtime or other direct employee cost adjustments will help to offset the effect of higher minimum wages, head count adjustments alone will not fully reduce the sting of a higher minimum wage. As a result, technology innovators, from fast food to janitorial, retail and manufacturing suppliers, will aggressively begin to offer new innovations for automating tasks currently performed by minimum wage workers. Currently the threshold for some of these technologies may not be cost effective for a business owner to implement. However, with the proposed wage hike, these new technologies may be more cost effective than paying a much higher minimum wage.
Note: An increase from $7.25/hour to only $12/hour for a 40 hour work week, per employee, plus the increase in employer FICA tax matching would increase an employers WEEKLY per employee cost by approximately $220 (would be slightly higher or lower based on employers’ State). Wow, imagine how much of an immediate negative impact this would have on a business with low gross margins and a significant number of minimum wage employees!
3. Some businesses would likely move from a higher minimum wage state into a lower minimum wage state, or move operations to another country. This would not likely be a viable option for the fast food and other retail industries. However, although the minimum wage argument has focused on “fast food” and “retail” workers, a significant number of minimum wage workers do not work in fast food or retail; therefore, moving operations would likely upset the economies of states adopting higher wages, and provide a boost for states that maintain a lower minimum wage.
4. Skilled and semi-skilled workers currently earning the equivalent of the proposed minimum wage (or wages near to the proposed increased minimum wage) will become disgruntled and demand higher pay, further affecting an employer’s move to offset the sudden new expense by reducing head count and further implementation of new technology to replace workers.
5. Currently, minimum wage workers at $7.25/hour earn about $14,500 per year gross salary ($29,000 for married couples) before deductions for social security and medicare, based on a 40 hour work week and 50 weeks worked per year). Current workers earning at or near this amount receive substantial “earned income” and “child tax credits”, which means that they pay NO income tax; the tax credits often total near $10,000 per couple, per year (and approach $6,000 for single parents). Although these “Credits” are reported on the tax return as a “Refund”, in fact this is free money given by the government to low wage workers. As a direct result of their “low wage” status, these workers are also eligible for food stamps, subsidized housing, SNAP Cash (free $300/mo cash), free healthcare, free or deeply discounted education costs and other benefits. By earning higher wages many will no longer qualify for substantial tax credits and other freebies. As well, many will likely owe a small amount of income tax.
6. Prices for goods and services will increase. Although a substantial minimum wage increase may result in increased consumer prices, it is unlikely that such an increase will be significant, as doing so will be perceived as “to risky” for most business owners – why panic and risk losing customers to competitors who do not increase their prices? Therefore, it is likely that the first move by most business owners will be to cut costs, and not to pass on the added wage expense to their customers.
Conclusion: Initially increasing minimum wage for unskilled workers will have significantly negative consequences for both workers and employers with little impact on consumer prices. However, potential loss of low-wage jobs, tax credits and other incentives for minimum wage workers, may act as a wakeup call for the unskilled work force, hopefully prompting an enrollment boost at vocational schools and colleges.
Should the impact of higher minimum wages reduce the number of available minimum wage job openings, unskilled workers seeking higher-level vocational training or a college degree, over the long term, should have a positive effect on the overall economy… but don’t count on it! Lazy is as lazy does! It is more likely that policy makers will adjust tax credits and other freebies so that, in the end, those who remain employed will enjoy no real increase or decrease in his or her standard of living. Of course, fewer minimum wage workers will most surely be employed.
Likely winners from increased minimum wages: technology innovators (startups), business strategists and the government.
Likely losers from increased minimum wages: many (but not all) low-wage and semi-skilled workers. Regardless, such a change will be a paradigm shift.