Boehner’s Price for Increasing the Federal Debt Limit
House Speaker John Boehner, in his speech to the Economic Club of New York on Monday night, was very clear about the conditions for which he would support an increase in the federal debt limit:
… Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase. And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given.
We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions.
They should be actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future.
And with the exception of tax hikes — which will destroy jobs — everything is on the table.
Congress is institutionally incapable of formulating and approving a large responsible package of spending cuts in the next month or two, even if there were the basis for an agreement in the longer run. The most likely outcome of this condition is that Congress would approve an increase in the debt limit for the next year or two with no significant amendments. John Boehner would be the major loser from this outcome, for having talked tough and promised too much, without delivering anything to his party base.
Another possible outcome of this condition is that an increase in the debt limit would be deferred indefinitely. This would lead to a period of fiscal anarchy in which total federal spending would have to be reduced to federal revenues on a month-by-month basis, and non-interest spending would have to be reduced about 40 percent with no political guidance on what activities are paid how much.
The House Republicans are better advised to sort out their priority budget changes in the longer run. I suggest that it is desirable to maintain a commitment against any increase in tax rates but to consider major reductions in what is now roughly one trillion dollars of off-budget tax preferences; such reductions would increase both revenue and economic growth. Finally, I suggest that reductions in the defense budget should also be considered. In a world in which the United States now faces no major power military threat, total real (inflation-adjusted) annual national security spending is now over twice that during the Ford and Carter administrations and over 40 percent of the total national security spending by all governments.
For the most part, I suggest, the Republican fiscal priorities are correct, but it will take better preparation and a longer time to implement these priorities.
President Obama’s Dubious Claims about Incomes of the Top 1% vs. the Bottom 90%
“In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of all working Americans actually declined,” Obama said on April 13. “The top 1 percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each.”
Politi-Fact, partly on the basis of my own research, generously rates the president’s claim as “Half True.”
The truth is that the President’s source, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, refer only to pretax, pretransfer income reported on individual tax returns (as opposed to being sheltered inside a corporation or IRA or simply unreported), and they have no data on the bottom 90%. Worst of all, they leave out transfer payments, which amounted to $2.3 trillion last year — 44% as large as all private wages and salaries ($5.2 trillion). The data also excludes refundable tax credits, which added about $170 billion to low and middle incomes in 2009 according to the the Joint Committee on Taxation (the EITC, child credit and Obama’s “making work pay” credit). And the Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that gross income reported on tax returns is about $1 trillion less than actual income.
As for the top 1%, my research shows that top investors report more capital gains and dividends when those tax rates go down, which is why they paid such a big share of income taxes (up to 40%) in 1997-2000 and 2003-2007. Raise the tax on dividends and capital gains to 23.8%, as Obama hopes to do by 2014, and somebody else would have to pay the taxes now paid by the top 1%. Using income reported to the IRS to measure actual living standards is foolhardy at best.
U.S. Corporate Tax Rate the Highest
Japan has announced that it will cut its corporate tax rate by five percentage points. Japan and the United States had been the global laggards on corporate tax reform, so this leaves America with the highest corporate rate among the 34 wealthy nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
That is not a good position for us to be in. Most of the competition faced by U.S. businesses comes from businesses headquartered in other OECD countries. America also competes with other OECD nations as a location for investment. Our high corporate tax rate scares away investment in new factories, makes it difficult for U.S. companies to compete in foreign markets, and provides strong incentives for corporations to avoid and evade taxes.
The chart shows KPMG data on statutory corporate tax rates in the OECD for 2010, but I’ve also put in the new lower rate for Japan. With the Japanese reform, the average rate in the OECD will be 25.6 percent. That means that the 40 percent U.S. rate is 56 percent higher than the wealthy-nation average.
Most fiscal experts agree that cutting the U.S. corporate tax rate is a high priority, and President Obama’s fiscal commission endorsed the idea. If the president wants to get the economy firing on all cylinders–and generate a new pragmatic and centrist image for himself–he should lead the charge to drop the corporate rate to at least 20 percent.
With state-level taxes on top, a federal corporate rate of 20 percent would put America at about the OECD average, and give all those corporations sitting on piles of cash a great reason to start investing again.
Dan Mitchell’s comments are here.
Buy Global Tax Revolution here.
The Barack Obama Tax Reform Plan?
In my fiscal policy speeches, I sometimes try to get a laugh out of audiences by including a Powerpoint slide with this image. Leading up to this slide, I talk about the Armey/Forbes flat tax and explain that it would eliminate the corrupt internal revenue code and replace it with a simple 10-line postcard. But I then warn that simplicity is not the same as low taxes and show the Obama slide.
But maybe jokes about Obama tax reform were a bit premature. According to the New York Times, the White House is giving serious consideration to a sweeping plan to streamline the tax system.
While administration officials cautioned on Thursday that no decisions have been made and that any debate in Congress could take years, Mr. Obama has directed his economic team and Treasury Department analysts to review options for closing loopholes and simplifying income taxes for corporations and individuals, though the study of the corporate tax system is farther along, officials said. The objective is to rid the code of its complex buildup of deductions, credits and exemptions, thereby broadening the base of taxes collected and allowing for lower rates — much like a bipartisan majority on Mr. Obama’s debt-reduction commission recommended last week in its final blueprint for reducing the debt through 2020. Doing so would offer not only an opportunity to begin confronting the growth in the national debt but also a way to address warnings by American business that corporate tax rates and the costs of complying with the tax code are cutting into their global competitiveness.
There’s actually much to like in the Administration’s potential plan. Lower tax rates will help the economy by improving incentives for productive behavior. And getting rid of distortions will further enhance growth since people no longer would have an incentive to make inefficient decisions just for tax purposes. And simplification could have a profound impact on cleaning up the horrible mess at the IRS. Moreover, a plan that trades lower tax rates for fewer tax distortions would be a welcome change from the poisonous soak-the-rich tax policy the White House has been pursuing.
This sounds like good news, but there’s a catch. The White House is looking at this exercise as a way to not only clean up the tax code, but also as a way of getting more money for politicians. This blog post explains why this is the wrong approach from an economic perspective, but politics will be an even bigger obstacle.
The American people want tax reform, but they don’t want more of their money going to Washington. And most Republican politicians have wisely pledged not to support legislation that increases the overall tax burden.
So the ball is in Obama’s court. If he genuinely wants to make America more prosperous and competitive, he should move forward with plans to lower tax rates and eliminate tax distortions, but he needs to tell his staff that tax reform should not a Trojan Horse for a tax increase.
An Australian Lesson about Capital Gains Tax Rates and Revenues
A decade ago, amid much controversy, I persuaded the Australian government to cut the capital gains tax rate in half.
Stephen Kirchner, an economist from Australia’s leading think tank, the Center for Independent Studies, reviewed the results last November.
This a brief summary:
The introduction of capital gains tax discounts for individuals and funds as part of the 1999 Ralph business tax reforms has received a lot of bad press, but much of this commentary is ill-informed. . . .
Those who called for reform of Australia’s capital gains tax regime 10 years ago argued that the Ralph reforms would likely raise more revenue because of the increased incentive they provided for taxpayers to realise capital gains that would otherwise go untaxed. Supply-side economist Alan Reynolds predicted that the reforms would raise twice as much revenue in the long run. He was right. The capital gains tax share of Commonwealth tax revenue nearly doubled between the introduction of the Ralph reforms and 2006–07. In absolute terms, CGT revenue rose from $4.6 billion in 1998–99 to $17.3 billion in 2006–07. CGT revenue growth has been strongest among individuals, who received the larger discount of 50%, followed by funds, which received a 33% discount. The slowest CGT revenue growth has been from companies, which received no discount.
The data suggest that the Ralph CGT reforms have resulted in more tax revenue through increased realisations of capital gains. They have thus strengthened rather than weakened the ability of the tax system to serve equity objectives. The Ralph reforms demonstrate the basic supply-side insight that lower effective tax rates lead to faster growth in the tax base and tax revenue.
The Joint Committee on Taxation’s Voodoo Economics
The Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial this morning on the obscure — but critically important — issue of measuring what happens to tax revenue in response to changes in tax policy. This is sometimes known as the dynamic scoring versus static scoring debate and sometimes referred to as the Laffer Curve controversy.
The key thing to understand is that the Joint Committee on Taxation (which produces revenue estimates) assumes that even big changes in tax policy have zero macroeconomic impact. Adopt a flat tax? The JCT assumes no effect on the economic performance. Double tax rates? The JCT assumes no impact on growth.
The JCT does include a few microeconomic effects into its revenue-estimating models (an increase in gas taxes, for instance, would reduce gasoline consumption), but it is quite likely that they underestimate the impact of high tax rates on incentives to work, save, and invest. We don’t know for sure, though, because the JCT refuses to make its methodology public. This raises a rather obvious question: Why is the JCT so afraid of transparency? Here’s some of what the WSJ had to say about the issue, including some comparisons of what the JCT predicted and what happened in the real world.
…it’s worth reviewing whether Joint Tax estimates are accurate. This is especially important now, because President Obama and Democrats in Congress want to allow the 2003 tax cuts to expire on January 1 for individuals earning more than $200,000. The JCT calculates that increasing the tax rates on capital gains, dividends and personal income will raise nearly $100 billion a year. …we are not saying that every tax cut “pays for itself.” Some tax cuts—such as temporary rebates—have little impact on growth and thus they may lose revenue more or less as Joint Tax predicts. Cuts in marginal rates, on the other hand, have substantial revenue effects, as economic studies have shown. …So how well did Joint Tax do when it predicted a giant revenue decline from the 2003 investment tax cuts? Not too well. We compared the combined Congressional Budget Office and Joint Tax estimate of revenues after the 2003 tax cuts were enacted with the actual revenues collected from 2003-2007. In each year total federal revenues came in substantially higher than Joint Tax predicted—$434 billion higher than forecast over the five years. …As for capital gains tax receipts, they nearly tripled from 2003 to 2007, even though the capital gains tax rate fell to 15% from 20%. Yet the behavioral models that Mr. Barthold celebrates predicted that the capital gains cuts would cost the government just under $10 billion from 2003-07 when the actual capital gains revenues over five years were $221 billion higher than JCT and CBO predicted. …Estimating future federal tax revenues is an inexact science to be sure. Our complaint is that Joint Tax typically overestimates the revenue gains from raising tax rates, while overestimating the revenue losses from tax rate cuts. This leads to a policy bias in favor of higher tax rates, which is precisely what liberal Democrats wanted when they created the Joint Tax Committee.
All of the revenue-estimating issues are explained in greater detail in my three-part video series on the Laffer Curve. Part I looks at the theory. Part II looks at the evidence. Part III, which can be watched below, analyzes the role of the Joint Committee on Taxation and speculates on why the JCT refuses to be transparent.
Will Higher Tax Rates in 2011 Cause an Economic Collapse?
Art Laffer has a compelling column in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, where he makes the case that future tax rate increases will cause considerable economic damage because people have an incentive to maximize income this year to take advantage of current tax rates — resulting in an artificial drop in economic activity next year. In effect, this will be a reverse version of the experiment in the early 1980s, when entrepreneurs and investors had an incentive to postpone economic activity since Reagan’s tax rate reductions were phased in over several years. I am reluctant to endorse Art’s prediction that the “economy will collapse,” since even good economists are lousy forecasters. But we certainly will see a large degree of tax planning, which will lead to less revenue than expected next year. And the higher tax rates will inhibit growth, though it is impossible to predict whether this means 2.1 percent growth instead of 2.3 percent growth, for instance, or 0.5 percent growth instead of 0.6 percent growth.
On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. …the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. …Tax rates have been and will be raised on income earned from off-shore investments. Payroll taxes are already scheduled to rise in 2013 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be digging deeper and deeper into middle-income taxpayers. And there’s always the celebrated tax increase on Cadillac health care plans. State and local tax rates are also going up in 2011 as they did in 2010. Tax rate increases next year are everywhere. …if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be. …In 1981, Ronald Reagan—with bipartisan support—began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan’s delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama’s delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%. But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don’t work until they take effect. Mr. Obama’s experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011. …The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past. If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Greece’s Problem Is High Tax Rates, Not Tax Evasion
The New York Times has an article describing widespread tax evasion in Greece, along with an implication that the country’s fiscal crisis is largely the result of unpaid taxes and could be mostly solved if taxpayers were more obedient to the state. This is grossly inaccurate. A quick look at the budget numbers reveals that tax revenues have remained relatively constant in recent years, consuming nearly 40 percent of GDP. The burden of government spending, by contrast, has jumped significantly and now exceeds 50 percent of Greek economic output.
The article also is flawed in assuming that harsher enforcement is the key to compliance. As this video shows, even the economists at the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development admit that tax evasion is driven by high tax rates (which is remarkable since the OECD is the international bureaucracy pushing for global tax rules to undermine tax competition and reduce fiscal sovereignty).
Ironically, the New York Times article quotes Friedrich Schneider of Johannes Kepler University in Austria, but only to provide an estimate of Greece’s shadow economy. The reporter should have looked at an article that Schneider wrote for the International Monetary Fund, which found that:
Macroeconomic and microeconomic modeling studies based on data for several countries suggest that the major driving forces behind the size and growth of the shadow economy are an increasing burden of tax and social security payments… The bigger the difference between the total cost of labor in the official economy and the after-tax earnings from work, the greater the incentive for employers and employees to avoid this difference and participate in the shadow economy. …Several studies have found strong evidence that the tax regime influences the shadow economy. …In Austria, the burden of direct taxes (including social security payments) has been the biggest influence on the growth of the shadow economy… Other studies show similar results for the Scandinavian countries, Germany, and the United States. In the United States, analysis shows that as the marginal federal personal income tax rate increases by one percentage point, other things being equal, the shadow economy grows by 1.4 percentage points. …A study of Quebec City in Canada shows that people are highly mobile between the official and the shadow economy, and that as net wages in the official economy go up, they work less in the shadow economy. This study also emphasizes that where people perceive the tax rate as too high, an increase in the (marginal) tax rate will lead to a decrease in tax revenue.
It is worth noting the Schneider’s research also shows why Obama’s tax policy is very misguided. The President wants to boost the top tax rate by nearly five percentage points, and that’s on top of the big increase in the tax rate on saving and investment included in Obamacare. Based on Schneider’s research, we can expect America’s underground economy to expand.
Shifting back to Greece, Schneider does not claim that tax rates are the only factor determining compliance. But his research indicates that more onerous enforcement regimes are unlikely to put much of a dent in tax evasion unless accompanied by better tax policy (i.e., lower tax rates). Moreover, compliance also is undermined by the rampant corruption and incompetence of the Greek government, but that problem won’t be solved unless politicians reduce the size and scope of the public sector. Needless to say, that’s not very likely. So when I read some of the details in this excerpt from the New York Times, much of my sympathy is for taxpayers rather than the greedy politicians that turned Greece into a fiscal mess:
In the wealthy, northern suburbs of this city, where summer temperatures often hit the high 90s, just 324 residents checked the box on their tax returns admitting that they owned pools. So tax investigators studied satellite photos of the area — a sprawling collection of expensive villas tucked behind tall gates — and came back with a decidedly different number: 16,974 pools. That kind of wholesale lying about assets, and other eye-popping cases that are surfacing in the news media here, points to the staggering breadth of tax dodging that has long been a way of life here. …Such evasion has played a significant role in Greece’s debt crisis, and as the country struggles to get its financial house in order, it is going after tax cheats as never before. …To get more attentive care in the country’s national health system, Greeks routinely pay doctors cash on the side, a practice known as “fakelaki,” Greek for little envelope. And bribing government officials to grease the wheels of bureaucracy is so standard that people know the rates. They say, for instance, that 300 euros, about $400, will get you an emission inspection sticker. …Various studies have concluded that Greece’s shadow economy represented 20 to 30 percent of its gross domestic product. Friedrich Schneider, the chairman of the economics department at Johannes Kepler University of Linz, studies Europe’s shadow economies; he said that Greece’s was at 25 percent last year and estimated that it would rise to 25.2 percent in 2010.
Instant Analysis of Implicit Tax Rates in New Obama Proposal
The Cato Institute had already scheduled a policy forum for noon today where the Urban Institute’s Gene Steuerle and I will discuss the implicit tax rates in the House and Senate health care bills.
We’ve already been able to calculate the implicit tax rates that President Obama’s new proposal would impose on low- and middle-income workers. We have also been able to calculate the incentives to drop coverage under the president’s proposal. Upshot:
- The president’s proposal would result in higher implicit tax rates on low-wage workers than the House and Senate bills.
- The president’s proposal would result in greater incentives for higher-income workers to drop coverage than under the House and Senate bills. That would cause insurance markets to unravel even faster.
Zip over to Cato right now to hear me present the results – or watch the forum streaming here.
Obama’s Big Tax Hike on U.S. Multinationals Means Fewer American Jobs and Reduced Competitiveness
The new budget from the White House contains all sorts of land mines for taxpayers, which is not surprising considering the President wants to extract another $1.3 trillion over the next ten years. While that’s a discouragingly big number, the details are even more frightening. Higher tax rates on investors and entrepreneurs will dampen incentives for productive behavior. Reinstating the death tax is both economically foolish and immoral. And higher taxes on companies almost surely is a recipe for fewer jobs and reduced competitiveness.
The White House is specifically going after companies that compete in foreign markets. Under current law, the “foreign-source” income of multinationals is subject to tax by the IRS even though it already is subject to all applicable tax where it is earned (just as the IRS taxes foreign companies on income they earn in America). But at least companies have the ability to sometimes delay when this double taxation occurs, thanks to a policy known as deferral. The White House thinks that this income should be taxed right away, though, claiming that “…deferring U.S. tax on the income from the investment may cause U.S. businesses to shift their investments and jobs overseas, harming our domestic economy.”
In reality, deferral protects American companies from being put at a competitive disadvantage when competing with companies from other nations. As I explained in this video, this policy protects American jobs. Coincidentally, the American Enterprise Institute just held a conference last month on deferral and related international tax issues. Featuring experts from all viewpoints, there was very little consensus. But almost every participant agreed that higher taxes on multinationals will lead to an exodus of companies, investment, and jobs from America. Obama’s proposal is good news for China, but bad news for America.
Taxing the Rich Won’t Work
The new budget reportedly hopes to raise $364 billion over ten years by raising the top two tax rates, plus $105 billion by raising the tax on dividends and capital gains to 20% from 15%, and $500 billion through discriminatory caps and limits on personal exemptions and deductions allowed to other taxpayers.
The $364 billion from raising the top two tax rates pales in comparison to the $2.56 trillion from keeping the rest of the Bush tax cuts in place, including $600 per couple (the 10% bracket) for everyone still rich enough to pay taxes (the Obama plan would exempt half of U.S. workers from paying income tax). That contrast between $364 billion and $2.56 trillion is definitive proof that Democrats’ endless complaint about the Bush tax cuts going “mainly to the rich” was one of the biggest big lies of the past decade.
The President’s urge to penalize mature, two-earner educated couples earning more than $250,000 is symbolic populism, having essentially nothing to do with reducing the deficit. Table S-2 of the Budget (p. 147) lists “Upper-income tax provisions dedicated to deficit reduction” as just $34 billion in 2011 — less than 1% of estimated spending of $3.8 trillion. Errors in estimating next year’s deficit have often been much larger than $34 billion, particularly during the early stages of economic recoveries.
Still, the false belief that higher tax rates on the rich could eventually raise significant sums over the next decade is a dangerous delusion, because it means long-term deficits are seriously understated.
Here are just a few reasons why punitive marginal tax rates on high-income families cannot possibly raise even the relatively trivial sums the Budget is counting on:
1. Professionals and companies who currently file under the individual income tax (including most trial lawyers and hedge fund managers) would form C-corporation to shelter income, because the corporate tax rate would then be lower with fewer arbitrary limits on deductions for costs of earning income.
2. Investors who jumped into dividend-paying stocks in 2003 when the tax rate fell to 15% would dump some of those shares in favor of tax-free municipal bonds if the dividend tax went up, and keep the rest in tax-free IRA or 401k accounts. Prices of dividend-paying stocks and funds could be depressed, reducing the yield of the capital gains tax.
3. If faced with a higher capital gains tax next year, investors would rush to realize taxable capital gains (those not in IRAs and 401ks) later this year. After 2010, investors would make greater efforts to avoid realizing gains in taxable accounts unless they had offsetting losses, and they would also make fewer investments in assets subject to the capital gains tax.
4. Many two-earner couples would become one-earner couples, early retirement would become more popular, physicians would play more golf, etc.
That is a small sampling of known behavioral responses which economists call “the elasticity of taxable income” or ETI for short. What that means is this: When the marginal tax rate goes up, the amount of reported incomes goes down. As a forthcoming study by Joel Slemrod, Seth Giertz and Emmanuel Saez concludes, “There is much evidence to suggest that the ETI is higher for high-income individuals who have more access to avoidance opportunities.”
I presented a 60-page paper in 2008 full of graphs and tables, many derived from the tax data of Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, offering undeniable evidence that static revenue estimates (which ignore or minimize the ways in which people react to higher tax rates) greatly exaggerate potential revenue from higher tax rates on individual salaries, dividends and capital gains.
I concluded, “There is a serious fiscal risk in the future that overly-optimistic revenue estimates based on the assumption of zero or 0.25 elasticity of taxable income could lead the federal government to make long-term spending plans on the basis of phantom revenues from higher tax rates, embarking on major new entitlement programs (in the guise of refundable tax credits) in the false hope that these static or nearly-static revenue estimates are realistic.”
How ObamaCare Would Keep the Poor Poor
Suppose you’re a family of four at or near the federal poverty level. Under current law, if you earn an additional dollar, you get to keep around 60-70 cents.
Under the House and Senate health care bills, however, you would get to keep maybe 38 cents. Or 26 cents. Or maybe just 18 cents.
The following graph (from my recent study, “Obama’s Prescription for Low-Wage Workers: High Implicit Taxes, Higher Premiums”) shows that under the House and Senate bills, the combination of (1) a mandate tax and (2) subsidies that disappear as income rises would impose implicit tax rates on poor families that reach as high as 82 percent over broad ranges of income.
This graph actually smooths out some rather bumpy implicit tax rates that spike as high as 174 percent.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the public saw that too-generous government subsidies can actually trap people in a cycle of poverty and dependence. President Obama and his congressional allies seem not to have learned that lesson.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on Google+
Cato on YouTube
