For those that care…
Page 216… Table 14.3 has a summation…
I find this info interesting otherwise I wouldn’t have posted the link. 
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/Tax-Expenditures-FY2015.pdf
Wonkishly interesting, but does not reflect the cost of those tax policies. People make decisions based on the fact those policies are in place. In fact, Congress puts the policies in place for the express purpose of driving that very behavior. Therefore, absent the tax policies people would make different decisions, and the additional taxes collected would not be anywhere near what the “expenditure” table indicates.
What about government spending?
The government gives a company a subsidy and the company spends or invests the money. The tax subsidy circulates in the economy and tax revenues result lessening the expense of the subsidy.
Now if the company or individual takes a subsidy or tax break and spends or invests overseas…
@dstark, are you driving at something? For example, that they’ll eventually start taxing us on the value of our medical coverage?
Aren’t there exceptions?
If capital gains tax rates are 15 percent and they are increased to 20 percent, is there going to be a change of behavior leading to fewer capital gains?
That is not what history says.
I find the stepped up basis of capital gains at death interesting.
I am dealing with this now. My parents have an apartment building. If they sell it now, they owe $300,000 in capital gains taxes. But if they don’t sell and die, the capital gains tax goes away. If this tax break did not exist, the apartment building would be sold now and the government would get the tax revenues. Instead the government is not going to get the tax revenues.
@VeryHappy, I don’t have a crystal ball. 
The answer to your second question is no.
@dstark Your point about your parents’ building is just one of the many problems in our current tax code. It is a mess. A better tax code would have lots of very small taxes. For example, I think we should tax wealth on larger estates at one or two percent a year. This forces the Zuckerburgs and Buffets to pay their fair share, since they never have any realized income from their corporate income. As part of having an annual wealth tax, we ought to dramatically reduce the death tax.
@EarlVanDorn, I understand your sentiments.
A wealth tax scares me.
Maybe it starts out at a very high wealth number…but. I can see the tax bracket creeping down over time.
I think the wealth tax is going to be hard to administer.
And 2 percent a year is very high. Over time the tax is very large.
You are worth $2 million and you pay $40,000 a year. Then the market crashes 50 percent and you are worth $1 million less the $40,000. Plus you have to pay another 2 percent.
The stock market sucked last year. Bond market sucked. Hedge funds sucked. And on top a 2 percent wealth tax?
Plus there are liquidity issues with a wealth tax.
I would like to tax the wealth when people die. There are too many trusts, and loopholes.
I also wish the capital gains tax was more effective.
I do agree with you on the Zuckerbergs and the Buffetts. Zuckerberg pays himself $1 a year…but he has $90+ million in a roth ira. I find something wrong with this.
There is a study that was released today. In 1986 Reagan pushed through with democrat and republican support a tax system where capital gains and wages had the same income tax rates. That changed a few years later. This change is one of the bigger drivers of income and wealth inequality.
@dstark I really don’t think we should start imposing a wealth tax until we hit estates of about $10 million. But it’s no harder to administer than the estate tax, and people file financial statements with their banks every year. In fact, it might make our banks more stable, as people will quit lying to the banks!
The big money people simply put their money in a corporation, where it can be shielded somewhat from taxation. Then it grows and grows and grows, tax free. That’s why I’d like a wealth tax, and as I said, I’d like to couple it with a MAJOR decrease in the death tax. So you could view it as a death tax that’s just paid a little at a time!
Welath tax? What a bunch of bs. Taxing a virtual gain vs taxing a real gain… I am all for the latter.
I think last year, Only 5200 estates, are subject to an estate tax. This is about .2 percent of the estates with a death.
If a couple has a net worth of $10 million there is no estate tax. If there is a 2 percent wealth tax, that is $200,000 a year.
Let’s say as an example that a couple has that amount of wealth for 20 years…that wealth tax comes to $4 million.
That is indeed an interesting list.
CF,
That’s your only comment?
Knowing some people who suffered great financial losses (and one who took own life over it!) due to taxation of stock options during the dot com market crash, I am completely against any virtual gain tax.
“@dstark, are you driving at something? For example, that they’ll eventually start taxing us on the value of our medical coverarage?”
@VeryHappy, I personally think that is very likely. Remember how not too long ago, they started listing the value of our healthcare insurance on our W-2’s?
When they put something on a tax form, I sure don’t buy that it is purely so we will know the cost of our healthcare insurance. They would love to tax it, and who can blame them? Such a large and tempting pot of money, and employer based coverage would be far less attractive.
BunsenBurner, I agree with you.
I tried to get where you are by using examples but your directness is better.
What’s the date of the report? It shows the cost of the AOTC in 2019 as zero, but it was recently made permanent.
Reread the beginning of the report. You can get a general idea of the date.
I don’t think we’re allowed to say here whether we think taxing employer-paid health insurance premiums is a good idea.
“I don’t think we’re allowed to say here whether we think taxing employer-paid health insurance premiums is a good idea.”
I don’t know why not. However, I didn’t say whether I thought it was a good idea or not, if you’re referring to my post, but I know many of the powers that be would love to do so. Any big pot of money is attractive, as long as they don’t lose too many votes.