All tax increases are not created equal

Reuters

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) answers a question at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, November 9, 2012.

Article Highlights

  • There’s a 2nd way to raise taxes: go after deductions themselves. This can have an entirely different economic impact.

    Tweet This

  • The basic problem is this: Republicans see tax deductions as tax cuts, while Democrats see them as spending.

    Tweet This

  • We didn't get into this fiscal fix as a result of thinking straight, & we won't get out of it unless both sides wise up.

    Tweet This

In a speech immediately following the election, House Speaker John Boehner offered President Obama an olive branch on taxes: Republicans are open to raising more taxes to help close the budget deficit, Boehner said, but it must be through tax reform rather than raising tax rates. "Tax reform" is almost certainly a euphemism for broadening the tax base by eliminating deductions, which leave trillions of dollars in income untaxed. Is this a deal in the making? Perhaps. If you have to raise taxes, this may be the way to do it. But both Democratic and Republican mindsets stand in the way.

Most conservatives and Republicans oppose raising tax rates because of their negative effects on individual incentives and the economy. Economists call this a "substitution effect"-that is, raising marginal tax rates induces individuals to substitute working with leisure time. If the government is taking a greater share of each additional dollar you earn, many people will simply choose to spend more time with their family, on the golf course, or whatever. And even those people who continue to work will make greater efforts to hide their income from taxation, in particular by exploiting tax deductions. Economists argue over how large these effects are, but no one claims that raising marginal tax rates won't hurt the economy.

But there's a second way to raise taxes: go after the deductions themselves. This can have an entirely different economic impact. For instance, a person might be able to deduct less of their mortgage interest, raising the amount they pay to the government. This has what economists call an "income effect" — people would have less after-tax income, and on average people would work more in order to make up the loss. But the amount they pay on each additional dollar of earnings — their marginal tax rate — stays the same, meaning that the tax change hasn't created any disincentive for them to decrease their work effort. While raising marginal rates would likely hurt economic growth, reducing tax deductions would likely increase it, at least by a modest amount.

This approach becomes even more compelling when we consider what our tax deductions actually "buy." For instance, the mortgage interest deduction has encouraged Americans to buy bigger houses, but it hasn't given America a much higher home ownership rate than other countries that lack such a perk. Similarly, the deduction for employer-sponsored health coverage has been a prime suspect in why the U.S. spends so much more on health care than other developed countries. Given the housing bubble and rising health costs, once could argue for limiting these deductions even if budget problems weren't so pressing.

Moreover, due to the progressivity of the income tax code, the lion's share of the benefits from tax deductions flows to the wealthy. For example, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has reported that capping itemized deductions at $50,000 would raise nearly $750 billion in revenue over 10 years. Ninety-six percent of the new taxes would come from the top 20 percent of taxpayers and 79 percent would come from the top 1 percent. Surely this would warm the hearts of President Obama and his supporters.

So what's not to like? The basic problem is this: Republicans see tax deductions as tax cuts, while Democrats see them as spending. Many Congressional Republicans have signed pledges with tax advocacy groups not to reduce tax deductions without other offsetting tax cuts. So no matter how wasteful these deductions are, we can't cut them in order to reduce the budget deficit. On the Democratic side, the major tax deductions are often referred to as "tax expenditures" - that is, spending through the tax code. Deductions for home mortgage interest or health coverage could just as easily be accomplished through direct federal spending as tax write-offs. But framing them as tax cuts avoids the political pitfalls of raising spending. So Democrats resist as well.

And there's the rub: Republicans are so averse to raising taxes that they won't do it even if what they're really doing is cutting spending. And Democrats are so wedded to spending that they can't cut it, even when we face a budget crisis and that spending disproportionately benefits the very rich. But we didn't get into the fiscal fix we're in as a result of people thinking straight, and we won't get out of it unless both sides wise up.

Andrew G. Biggs is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He previously served as principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Andrew G.
Biggs
  • Andrew G. Biggs is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he studies Social Security reform, state and local government pensions, and public sector pay and benefits.

    Before joining AEI, Biggs was the principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), where he oversaw SSA’s policy research efforts. In 2005, as an associate director of the White House National Economic Council, he worked on Social Security reform. In 2001, he joined the staff of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. Biggs has been interviewed on radio and television as an expert on retirement issues and on public vs. private sector compensation. He has published widely in academic publications as well as in daily newspapers such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. He has also testified before Congress on numerous occasions. In 2013, the Society of Actuaries appointed Biggs co-vice chair of a blue ribbon panel tasked with analyzing the causes of underfunding in public pension plans and how governments can securely fund plans in the future.

    Biggs holds a bachelor’s degree from Queen's University Belfast in Northern Ireland, master’s degrees from Cambridge University and the University of London, and a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics.

  • Phone: 202-862-5841
    Email: andrew.biggs@aei.org
  • Assistant Info

    Name: Kelly Funderburk
    Phone: 202-862-5920
    Email: kelly.funderburk@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image Recovering from tax time blues
image 10 welfare reform lessons
image Let HHS nominee Sylvia Burwell explain Obamacare lie
image Why bold ideas backfire in politics
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 14
    MON
  • 15
    TUE
  • 16
    WED
  • 17
    THU
  • 18
    FRI
Wednesday, April 16, 2014 | 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Calling treason by its name: A conversation with Liam Fox

Join us at AEI as the Right Honorable Liam Fox sits down with Marc Thiessen to discuss and debate whether America’s intelligence agencies have infringed on the personal privacy of US citizens.

Thursday, April 17, 2014 | 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
The curmudgeon's guide to getting ahead

How can young people succeed in workplaces dominated by curmudgeons who are judging their every move? At this AEI book event, bestselling author and social scientist Charles Murray will offer indispensable advice for navigating the workplace, getting ahead, and living a fulfilling life.

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.