WASHINGTON — Nearly 160 million workers will benefit from the extension of the reduced payroll tax rate that has been in effect for 2011. The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 temporarily extends the two percentage point payroll tax cut for employees, continuing the reduction of their Social Security tax withholding rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent of wages paid through Feb. 29, 2012. This reduced Social Security withholding will have no effect on employees’ future Social Security benefits.

Employers should implement the new payroll tax rate as soon as possible in 2012 but not later than Jan. 31, 2012. For any Social Security tax over-withheld during January, employers should make an offsetting adjustment in workers’ pay as soon as possible but not later than March 31, 2012.

Employers and payroll companies will handle the withholding changes, so workers should not need to take any additional action.

Under the terms negotiated by Congress, the law also includes a new “recapture” provision, which applies only to those employees who receive more than $18,350 in wages during the two-month period (the Social Security wage base for 2012 is $110,100, and $18,350 represents two months of the full-year  amount). This provision imposes an additional income tax on these higher-income employees in an amount equal to 2 percent of the amount of wages they receive during the two-month period in excess of $18,350 (and not greater than $110,100).

This additional recapture tax is an add-on to income tax liability that the employee would otherwise pay for 2012 and is not subject to reduction by credits or deductions.  The recapture tax would be payable in 2013 when the employee files his or her income tax return for the 2012 tax year. With the possibility of a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut being discussed for 2012, the IRS will closely monitor the situation in case future legislation changes the recapture provision.

The IRS will issue additional guidance as needed to implement the provisions of this new two-month extension, including revised employment tax forms and instructions and information for employees who may be subject to the new “recapture” provision.  For most employers, the quarterly employment tax return for the quarter ending March 31, 2012 is due April 30, 2012.

Rick Perry is proposing letting Americans choose between their existing income tax rate or a new flat tax of 20 percent, part of a tax and spending reform plan that the Republican presidential candidate is dubbing “Cut, Balance and Grow.”
“The goal of my ‘Cut, Balance and Grow’ plan is to unleash job creation, address the current economic crisis, while at the same time generating a stable source of revenue to address our record deficit and put our fiscal house in order,” Perry, the governor of Texas, said at an event Tuesday in South Carolina.
Perry said people taking up the flat tax can scrap the current code, and it would lower and simplify tax rates to the point that Americans could file their tax returns on a post card, which he pulled out as he spoke.
His plan would also get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax for families, balance the federal budget by 2020, reform entitlements, ban earmarks and impose a cap on federal spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product.
Perry’s proposed flat tax would preserve key tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 a year and would increase the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals. It would also eliminate the tax paid on the country’s largest estates when property owners die and eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits.
He also revived a proposal to allowed young workers to invest part of their payroll taxes into private accounts — a plan that President Bush once pushed until it died in a Republican-controlled Congress.
“The flat tax will unleash growth but growth’s not enough,” Perry said. “We must put a stop to this entitlement culture that risks the financial solvency of this country for future generations. I mean the red flags are alarming.”
He called for corporate tax reform, including a one-time reduced tax rate of 5.25 percent for businesses that bring their profits that are parked overseas back to the U.S.

“The U.S. Chamber (of Commerce) estimates this one-time tax reduction would bring more than $1 trillion in capital back to the U.S. create up to 2.9 million jobs, and increase economic output by $360 billion,” he said.

“In other words, it’s the kind of economic stimulus President Obama could have achieved if he wasn’t hell-bent on passing big government schemes that have failed American workers,” he said.
Perry’s proposal comes two and a half months after he began running for the GOP nomination, and following lackluster appearances in several debates.

The policy rollout is a critical part of Perry’s efforts to right a struggling campaign as well as set him back up against rivals like Mitt Romney, who hasn’t suggested a flat tax, and Herman Cain, who has proposed a 9-9-9 plan of 9 percent corporate income tax rates and a 9 percent national sales tax.
Publisher Steve Forbes, one of Perry’s key supporters for the 2012 Republican nomination, described the proposal as appealing to all comers.

“You have to make a real sum of money before the tax kicks in,” Forbes told Fox News, describing the basics of Perry’s plan. “Middle-income people are not going to pay more and they are going to save huge amounts of money.”

Unlike Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, which relies largely on a new national sales tax, Perry said he would avoid a sales tax while lowering the corporate tax to 20 percent and eliminate taxes on dividends and capital gains, aiming to free up money that presumably would be invested in economic growth.
Forbes argued that a flat tax gets rid of the billions of hours in paperwork, and possibly the millions of jobs that go with tax filings. Without changes to the code, he noted, the Tax Foundation estimates that by 2015, $483 billion alone will be spent on trying to interpret and understand the code.

“You put something like the Perry plan in place, that is several hundred billions in savings off the bat, that’s huge,” he said.

Proponents of the flat tax argue that a uniform rate will improve the U.S. economy because it will increase take-home wages, in essence incentivizing work. Lower taxes, they claim, will also encourage entrepreneurship.

President Obama’s campaign, ready on the criticism, issued a statement saying Perry’s plan, as well as Romney’s are intended to benefit high-income households at the expense of the middle class.
“Both the Romney and Perry economic plans embrace a far-right vision for our tax code,” wrote James Kvaal, policy director for Obama for America. “They share elements with plans offered by congressional Republicans, which independent economists believe would fail to accelerate job creation now. Both plans would cut taxes on wealth and investment income, shifting the tax burden onto work and wages. Both plans are likely to be costly, driving up the deficit at a time of historic fiscal challenges. And under both plans, the most fortunate Americans would pay less while the middle class would pay a higher share.”

But Perry’s campaign dismissed the criticism.
“Gov. Perry’s plan will reduce taxes for everybody and grow the economy and not pit Americans against each other like President Obama is doing,” Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner told Fox News.

The Club for Growth, a conservative economic group, praised the proposal.
“Rick Perry’s plan for tax reform would be massively pro-growth,” the club’s president, Chris Chocola, said. “A flat tax like the one proposed by Perry would unleash years of economic growth if it is passed into law.

Chocola said he continues to be “disappointed” that Romney has not embraced a flat or fair tax.
“He would be wise to avoid using class warfare when comparing his current proposals to those of Gov. Perry or Herman Cain,” he said. “The Club for Growth is looking for bold leadership on tax reform from the Republican nominee — not demagoguery or platitudes.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/24/perry-to-pitch-scrapping-tax-code-offering-optional-20-percent-flat-tax/#ixzz1boSybJCG

The rate will increase to 55.5 cents a mile for all business miles driven from July 1, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2011. This is an increase of 4.5 cents from the 51 cent rate in effect for the first six months of 2011, as set forth in Revenue Procedure 2010- 51.

As the nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense reminds us, the public presidential campaign finance system will be underwriting a portion of the festivities in Colorado for the Democrats and in Minnesota for the Republicans.

“About $16 million in operating expenses will be picked up by taxpayers, and each convention has been given $50 million worth of security funding as ‘emergency spending.,” according to recent a TCS statement.

The system for public funding of the conventions has been in place since the mid-1970s, enacted as part of the Federal Election Reform Act to help rein in campaign finance excesses. The money comes from the voluntary donations taxpayers can make via a check-off box on their income tax returns.

The public side of convention funding has grown by leaps and bounds since 1976 when each major national party received $2.2 million in tax dollars to help put on their nominating shows. This year, each will get $16.4 million. The parties, however, have each budgeted more than $40 million for the events.

The gap will be covered by unlimited contributions raised from wealthy individuals and corporations. That money can be written off as tax deductible, which ups the cost even more for the taxpayers.

As a reward for their generosity, taxpayers might expect to be treated like well-heeled donors. But all they can really count on for their donations is two weeks of political speechifying in place of their favorite TV shows.

This year’s numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups (see Table 3). Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy continued to rebound through 2006. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the AGI of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by over 81 percent for the top 1 percent (an average of over 20 percent per year) and 17 percent (an average of around 4 percent per year) for the bottom 50 percent.
In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent. All figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation).
This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003 to 2006 compared to previous years.

The top of the form tells the recipient that they are eligible for a tax refund for a specified amount.  The form asks for name, address and phone number and a substantial amount of financial information, such as bank account number, credit card number and expiration date, ATM PIN number and more. It also asks for mother’s maiden name (frequently used by many people as an account security password).

At the bottom is a phony name and signature, claiming to be that of the Taxpayer Advocate. The implication is that the taxpayer must fill in and submit the form to receive a tax refund. In reality, taxpayers claim their tax refunds through the filing of an annual tax return, not a separate application form.