ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

Health

Making Paris Hilton Pay Her Share For Health Care Reform

She can afford to pay higher taxes.

She can afford to pay higher taxes.

With the Senate “cooling” to a proposal to raise money for health care reform by placing a cap on employer-provided (and with the Senate dismissing the Obama administration’s proposal for limiting itemized deductions for the richest Americans), the Senate Finance Committee is scrambling to find alternative sources of revenue.

One of the many options that the committee reportedly has on the table for covering a portion of the $1.5 trillion cost is applying a 1.45 percent Medicare tax to capital-gains and other non-wage income:

The proposal, modeled after a plan released this week by Citizens for Tax Justice, would force people living off investments to contribute taxes to the health-care system, said Steve Wamhoff, legislative director for the Washington research group…“If the only income Paris Hilton gets is capital gains, stock dividends, interest and other types of investment income, currently she is completely exempt from the one big tax we have right now that is dedicated to health care,” Wamhoff said. “We’re saying that probably doesn’t make sense.”

Estimates show that the measure would raise $100 billion over 10 years, but “the proposal is sure to draw fire from Republicans.” “Any proposal that increases the tax on capital income will ignite supply-side conservatives in opposition, as capital gains taxes are enemy number one,” said said Alex Brill, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute. “This is a tax increase that is easy for Republicans to attack.”

It might be an easy tax increase for Republicans to attack, but it should be an easier one for Democrats to defend. The Medicare payroll tax is the “one important tax we already have that is dedicated to funding health care, but it completely exempts wealthy investors whose income takes the form of capital gains, stock dividends, and interest.” Plus, dividends and long-term capital gains are currently taxed at a far lower rate than income earned by other means, with taxpayers in the 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent income tax brackets paying 15 percent. Before the Bush tax cuts of 2003, the capital gains and dividends rate for people in these brackets was 20 percent.

According to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, if this change occurred, “most Americans would either see no tax increase at all or would see a tax increase of less than $100 a year.” More than 64 percent of the increase would be paid by the richest one percent of Americans, and more than 80 percent would be paid by the richest five percent. And for the tax to not unfairly hit moderate income seniors who live off of investment, some sort of senior exemption would need to be included.

Banks Miffed That Treasury Is Rejecting Their TARP Warrant Offers

ap090618011481There’s evidently a bit of a tussle brewing between some Wall Street banks and the Treasury Department over the pricing of stock warrants that the government currently owns. Treasury received warrants — which are the right to buy stock at some point in the future — from the banks in return for TARP money, and I’ve noted before that Treasury could shortchange taxpayers by selling the warrants back to the banks for too low a price.

The banks, though, think Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is expecting prices that are too high:

The Treasury has rejected the vast majority of valuation proposals from banks, saying the firms are undervaluing what the warrants are worth…J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive James Dimon raised the issue directly with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, disagreeing with some of the valuation methods that the government was using to value the warrants.

There are two points to make here. The first is that I’m glad to see Geithner rejecting the banks’ initial offers. The system for selling back the warrants was designed in such a way that it almost guaranteed that the banks would lowball the price. If Geithner is truly telling the banks to take their offers and beat it, that’s an encouraging sign.

Second, this charge from the banks that Treasury is somehow overvaluing the warrants doesn’t hold much water. According to a report released today by the TARP’s Congressional Oversight Panel, Treasury has thus far sold warrants for 66 percent of their value. From the panel’s report:

Treasury has to date sold warrants only from smaller banks. In those sales, liquidity discounts are likely to be a major factor in a way that they are not likely to be for large publicly traded institutions. If, however, liquidity discounts or any other rationales are accepted as a reason for taking only 66 percent of market value for the full group of warrants Treasury holds, the shortfall to taxpayers could be as much as $2.7 billion.

JP Morgan has reportedly “waived its right to buy the warrants and will allow the Treasury to auction them in the public market.” This, in the end, is the best way for Treasury to dispose of the warrants, as it “has the benefit of stopping any speculation about whether Treasury has been too tough or too easy on the banks” and “permits the banks to bid for their own warrants — in direct competition with outsiders.” If the banks really think that Treasury is expecting too much, then they should all waive their buying rights and let Treasury put the warrants on the open market. Then we’d see whose valuation is right.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up