Comparison of Tax Rates & Income of Past/Present Presidential Candidates

Throughout the month of January, one of the biggest questions in the race for the GOP presidential nomination was if, and when, Mitt Romney would release his tax returns. Starting at a January 16 GOP debate, and culminating in a disastrous (for Romney) debate 3 days later, Romney was assailed on all sides for hiding his wealth by refusing to release his tax returns. (Romney’s initial position, which may well have cost him the South Carolina primary, was that he would probably release them in April). In the end, he eventually was forced to succumb and released a tax return for 2010 and an estimated return for 2011; returns that showed incomes in excess of $20 million a year and effective tax rates of around 14%.

While the media has given a substantial amount of attention to this issue in the past week, little analysis has been carried out comparing Romney’s tax rates and total income with that of past presidential contenders. To fill this gap—and in so doing, hopefully put Romney’s wealth in context with that of past candidates—we scoured the internet for tax returns of contenders starting from the 1988 presidential election.

First some notes on methodology: (1) where possible, we relied on tax returns from two years before each election—the exceptions being Dukakis (1987), Bush (1987), and Kerry (2003); (2) for Kerry (2003) and McCain (2006), both of whom filed separately from their wives, we combined total income and total taxes with that of their wives as if they had filed combined tax returns; and (3) we excluded sitting presidents.

The first chart, below, compares tax rates (total tax divided by total income) for the 11 candidates in our sample (Democrats are in blue, Republicans in red). Perhaps contrary to what many would guess, Romney doesn’t set the mark for the lowest effective tax rate: in 2003, John Kerry and his wife paid even less, with a tax rate of just 13.15% compared to Romney’s 13.89%. That said, Romney’s tax rate is around half that of other recent contenders, including Gingrich (31.45% in 2010), Obama (27.99% in 2006), and McCain (28.69% in 2006). (These results are also consistent when looking at other tax returns not included in this sample).

 

 

So clearly, Romney has some rivals when it comes to the competition for the lowest tax rate. But how about when it comes to his vast income? The next chart compares the incomes of the 11 candidates, adjusted for inflation to represent 2011 dollars. Once again, Romney ends up in second place, with his $22.3 million income in 2010 falling just short of George W. Bush’s income from 1998 (adjusted for inflation) of $25.5 million. However, both of these candidates’ incomes far exceeded all other candidates: for example, Romney’s income in 2010 is approximately 20 times that of Obama (2006), 3 times that of McCain (2006), and a whopping 104 times that of Dukakis (1997).

NOTE: We used the BLS inflation calculator to adjust incomes to 2011 dollars.

 

In short, by any measure, Romney is one of the richest candidates ever to run for office. And while a lack of data prevented us from looking at the net worth of candidates, we would certainly expect similar results on this measure as well. (Romney himself estimates his net worth to be in the range of $150 million to $200 million). In an election that will certainly bring attention to the growing income inequality in the U.S., Romney’s wealth—and what it means for his ability to represent the average American—is an issue we’re sure to hear more of.

 

Sources: “An Embarrassment of Riches in Campaign ’88: Bush, Dukakis and their running mates are men of wealth,” Newsday, August 21, 1988; “CAMPAIGN ’96 : Tax Returns Show That Doles Are Millionaires,” Los Angeles Times, January 20, 1996; “John Kerry’s Bright Financial Picture,” National Review, April 14, 2004; “1998 Taxes: Clintons’ Tax-Exempt Income Declines,” The Bond Buyer, April 15, 1999; Tax History Project, accessed January 28, 2012.

 

2012 State of the Union Address: Obama’s Specific Policy Proposals

Last night, President Obama made his third State of the Union (SOTU) address, which focused in large part on the issue of economic fairness in the U.S. Like most SOTU addresses, much of his speech focused on broad goals for the coming year. However, perhaps more so than previous years, the President also called for a number of specific policies to be enacted. In this article, we provide a brief recap of these policies, dividing them by theme.

Tax Reform / Deficit Reduction

  • Remove tax deductions for companies that outsource jobs.
  • Introduce a “basic minimum tax” for every multinational company, so as to prevent them from evading taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas.
  • Double the tax deduction for high-tech American manufacturers that make their products in the U.S.
  • Make the tax code fairer, including the adoption of the Buffett Rule: if you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.
  • End tax subsidies and deductions for individuals earning more than $250,000 a year.
  • Extend the payroll tax cut (set to expire in February 2012).

Trade

  • Create a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices.

Jobs / Job Training

  • Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting financing.
  • Expand tax relief to small businesses.
  • Provide resources to community colleges to become community career centers.
  • Reduce the maze of confusing job-training programs and create one website where unemployed workers can go for information.

 Education

  • Grant schools more flexibility to keep good teachers on the job, reward the best ones, and replace ineffective ones.
  • Call on every state to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18.
  • Extend the tuition tax credit for college loans.
  • Double the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.

 Immigration

  • If comprehensive immigration reform is unachievable this year, at least pass legislation that allows young people who “staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country” a path to citizenship.

Energy

  • Safely develop natural gas resources.
  • End subsidies for Big Oil.
  • Pass clean energy tax credits.
  • Allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes.
  • Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings.

 Infrastructure

  • Clear away red tape that delays construction projects and increase infrastructure spending (using money previous spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Housing Market:

  • Give every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage by financing at historically low interest rates. Pay for this by introducing a small fee on the largest financial institutions.

 Consumer Protection

  • Establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments.
  • Create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis.

Government Reform

  • Ban insider trading by Members of Congress.
  • Prevent those who bundle campaign contributions for Congress from lobbying Congress.
  • Reform Senate rules to force an up or down vote on all judicial and public service nominations within 90 days.
  • Consolidate the federal bureaucracy to improve the responsiveness of the Executive branch.

Foreign Policy

  • Prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon using all options available.
  • Pass legislation that secures the country from the growing danger of cyber threats.
  • Create a Veteran Jobs Corps that will help communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters.

For the United States, the Flat Tax is Not a New Idea

In the run-up to the Republican primaries, the idea of implementing a flat-tax has gained traction among many of the major candidates: from Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, to the competing “optional” flat-tax plans of Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. Similar to Steve Forbe’s initial plan in the 1990s, these proposals would scrap the current federal tax code and replace it with one based on an across-the-board tax rate for everybody.

While most reports analyzing these plans suggest that they are novel approaches to funding the government, the flat tax has, in fact, long been utilized in the United States. For more than 75 years, the U.S. has had a capped flat tax that funds Social Security, and for more than 30 years has had an open-ended flat tax that funds parts of Medicare.

A flat tax is simply a single-rate tax on all income regardless of level or type.  The government funds Social Security and Medicare with a special version of a flat tax called a payroll tax that is collected only on earned income.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2008, these flat taxes accounted for 36 percent of federal revenue, about three times corporate tax revenues and almost as much as individual income tax revenues.

The candidates are correct in that flat taxes are extremely effective.  In fact, payroll taxes not only fully support Social Security and most Medicare payments, they also support all of the overhead expenses of these programs. They are effective because, like sales taxes, they are based on a simple economic transaction (a sale, a payment for hours worked) and there are very few legal ways to get out of paying them.  Further, they are collected in a mostly painless way since they are deducted from payroll checks (so there is no need to file a tax return) and everyone pays the same rate no matter what kind of income they have.

The proposals put forward thus far are extensions of these taxes that remove the limits on amounts and types of income subject to the tax. And that may well be the biggest limitation of the idea of imposing a flat tax structure for income taxes: if all income, earned and unearned, produced in every economic transaction were taxed, the flat tax could be a simple efficient solution to taxation.  However, if certain income is excluded, then the complexity of the income tax code would likely remain and the flat tax would simply lower income tax rates and, as a result, revenue.

Source: Office of Management and Budget (www.omb.gov)