He did it! Bush signed it today, May 28, 2003

The Tax Cut 2003

(written May 2003 by Hugh Chou)

Okay, now that the deed is done let's see what is left in the bill and what the $350 billion plan means for those of us little people with less than $10 million of stock holdings...

The cornerstone of Bush's proposal was getting rid of income taxes paid on dividend income. Well, that didn't quite happen. Instead all dividends and corporate capital gains will be taxed like long term capital gains. So instead of paying 27% you pay 15%, or instead of 15% you pay 5%. They say the vast majority of the US population earned less than $1,000 in dividends income. At a typical dividend yield of 2%, that would come from holdings of $50,000 or so. The net tax savings would be at most 12% of those dividends, or less than $120 from holdings of $50,000. Now, I don't know about you, but if saving $120 from your holdings of $50,000 makes you want to run out and "spur the economy"* you must be easily excited. Is income tax on dividend income "fair"? No, it is not since it is in fact double taxation. There is plenty in the current IRS tax codes that isn't "fair". But should reducing dividend income tax really be the most important thing to change in the current tax code? I cannot imagine why.

Another change is the reduction of tax rates to the minimums set in the tax law of 2001. That means all rates 27% and greater drop 2% to 3.6%. The first 10% and 15% bracket ranges are increased slightly to $6,000/$12,000 and $28,400/$56,800 respectively for single and joint filers. Okay, that makes some sense and is actually reasonable fair. It would be nicer if we could actually afford it, but that is a different topic. Here are some typical tax savings calculated at H&R Block.

The bill addresses the "marriage penalty" by increasing the standard deduction to $9,500, and increasing the 15% married bracket to incomes up to $56,800. That's great but if you always itemize that might not make a difference or may actually make you not "itemizable" at all anymore. For married couples with less than $9,500 in total state and local taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions, that will indeed be the case. That means in this case your mortgage interest and charitable contributions are, in fact, no longer deductible. Your "deductible" mortgage interest and charitable deductions may very well save you very little or no tax at all. With such a high standard deduction now, I have written up a new calculator to figure out your overall deductibility and show how much you now save in taxes with mortgage interest and contributions.

The child credit has also been boosted from $600 to $1,000 so you get an extra $400 per offspring. As any parent should know that is nice but does not cover much in the way of child expenses these days. ("Dad, I was such a great student I won a special field trip on Friday! It costs $20.") In any case the IRS is actually going to mail out checks to every eligible parent within income limits. What will I do with my $800 check? How will I "spur the economy"* with it? Maybe I'll gas up the minivan and pay the air conditioning bills for the summer. That might cover it.

Some ideas that were scrapped were the Lifetime Savings Account and Retirement Savings Account to replace IRA's and such. They sounded nice but would really have only helped the affluent and the well-disciplined middle class to save more. Frankly these sounded a lot more useful than the restructuring of taxation on dividends, but what do I know, I'm not a politician (who are all obviously experts on taxation and stimulating the economy).

What I found truly interesting was an article that shows what taxes are really hurting working families -- payroll taxes especially on two-income families. People pay a lot of taxes on benefits they will never receive there, and many pay much more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.

But the question remains, is now the time to reduce federal revenues? Can we truly afford tax cuts right now, with increasing spending fighting terrorism and rebuilding Iraq? And will these tax cuts that primarily help the wealthy truly help the economy as a whole? I do not know the answers to these questions, but I am afraid many in Washington do not either.

Repeat after me,
Tax cuts spur the economy*
Tax cuts spur the economy*
Tax cuts spur the economy*
Maybe if we say it enough times it will actually come true...

Update: November 2003

Wow, enough people must have been chanting! The GDP numbers are up, the stock market is taking off, consumer confidence is way up while interest rates and inflation are staying low. Maybe those politicians really do know what they are doing! There is a first time for everything. Wouldn't that be great if they actually passed something that worked out well for everyone? Now if they can only do something about unemployment. It is hard to enjoy an economic recovery when you are out of work!

A complete irrelevant side note

What is it with this phrase "spur the economy"? And why is it so readily used? I know what it means to "stimulate" or "grow" or "boost" the economy, but why do politicians love to overuse the word "spur"? It gives this sense that you must inflict pain to make something go faster. Or perhaps we are proceeding in haste by kicking the horse too hard. I know I sure would not want to be "spurred".

Back to Calculators
Hugh Chou