The Bush (and Obama) Tax Cuts

One of the things we read all too often on the web is about the gross revenue impact of the "Bush tax cuts."  It's so often said that we pretty much all accept it as a reality.  The point of this post is not to defend the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 but to try to put them in some type of context.

To start, let's note that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are considered relative to the baseline of not passing them.  Fair enough.  The CBO did an assessment of the impact of these tax cuts and concluded that between 2002 and 2011, the impact was a shade over $1.5 trillion.  Between 2001 and 2009 (fiscal years), the impact was about $1.2 trillion.  It seems very fair to say that the "Bush tax cuts" cost the Treasury between $1.0 and $1.2 trillion.  That's a lot of money for sure.

But, during the course of refuting someone who told me the Bush tax cuts had cost $10 trillion, it occurred to me to look up the cost of the "Obama tax cuts."  In that camp, I'd include the following

• The $700 billion of cost in continuing the Bush tax cuts (which expired on 1/1/2010) until 2012.
• The roughly $180 billion cost of the payroll tax holiday
• The $1.2 trillion cost of continuing almost all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts through President Obama's second term.
• The $250 billion in tax cuts that were in the ARRA

In total then, President Obama has cost the Treasury (using the same baseline as for the Bush tax cuts) on the order of $2.3 trillion during his two terms versus about half that amount for the dreaded "Bush tax cuts."

Please do not interpret this as a defense of the Bush tax cuts, just an attempt to put them in context.

Why Our Way of Discussing Budgets Must Be Reformed

The following appeared in an article at The Hill online

Republicans are betting that the public will be receptive to the Ryan plan’s measures to balance the budget in just 10 years, through lowering tax rates, $5.7 trillion in spending cuts and a repeal of the president’s healthcare reform law. 

 Of the three claims, one is partially true but misleading, one is false (in any reasonable world) and one is true.  The last one is true...the Ryan budget does repeal the President's health care law but the other two are misleading at best and false at worst.

First the misleading part...the lowering of tax rates.  Yes, the Ryan plan lowers tax rates and balances that with limitations on or eliminations of deductions in the current tax code.  Leaving aside my point of view on Ryan's tax plan, we should be able to agree that the average person, reading the words "through lowering tax rates" could be forgiven for assuming that Ryan plans to reduce government revenues to some degree.  Of course, as I've pointed out, this simply is not the case.  The Ryan plan proposes to increase government revenues by an average of 6.2% per year for the next decade.  It may well be that we should increase revenues more (as other budgets have proposed) but it is certainly not the case that Congressman Ryan has proposed cutting revenues.

Now the false part - $5.7 trillion in spending cuts.  There are no $5.7 trillion in spending cuts in the Ryan budget.  The budget proposes growing spending by 3.4% per year on average for the next 10 years.  Perhaps, some day we will realize that we can't grow spending by 3.4% per year while cutting it by $5.7 trillion.  Clearly today is not that day.

Another Silly NYT Editorial

One can always count on the New York Times editorial board for misleading commentary on matters budgetary.  Here is their latest installment. 

First, we have the customary dipsy doodle on tax expenditures, as if they were actual expenditures

Tax breaks work like spending. Giving a deduction for certain activities, like homeownership or retirement savings, is the same as writing a government check to subsidize those activities. Functionally, they mimic entitlements. Like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, they are available, year in and year out, in full, to all who qualify. Yet in budget talks, Republicans ignore tax entitlements, which flow mostly to high-income taxpayers, while pushing to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Giving a deduction is not the same as writing a government check unless one posits that the taxes necessary to write the check would come only from the person who received the deduction.  The fact that you can structure two things to accomplish the same task does not mean they are the same thing.  To take a very trivial example, I can use sunlight or burn natural gas to heat a substance but that does not mean that they are the same thing.

In accounting terms it's the difference between a counter (or contra) credit and a debit.  Although they have the same effect on net worth, they are not the same thing.  But this is the norm for those who favor higher taxes.  If we can equate higher taxes with lower spending, maybe we can confuse the masses enough to get what we want.

But that part is normal for the Times editorial board and is really an irreconcilable difference of opinion.  What's more annoying is the juxtaposition of two things.  First, we have a general description of the size and scope of tax expenditures.

Each year, the government doles out tax breaks worth $1.1 trillion. That is more than the cost of Medicare and Medicaid combined. It is more than Social Security. It tops the defense budget, and it tops the budget for nondefense discretionary programs, which include most everything else.

To get to the $1.1 trillion, one needs to include personal and corporate tax breaks, envision a tax code where capital income is taxes like wage income (which has never happened but maybe should).  The comparisons are tailored...as an example Medicare and Social Security taken together are larger than $1.1 trillion per yer and yet the Times ignores that comparison. 

But the editors follow this up with three examples of tax expenditures: Carried Interest, Nine Figure IRAs, and Like Kind Exchanges.  Of these three, the Times says carried interest costs the Treasury $13.4 over a decade or $1.3 billion per year.  Otherwise know as 0.1% of total tax expenditures.  Like Kind Exchanges cost the government $3 billion a year (or 0.3%) though the editors claim "...the amount could be much higher."  As for nine figure IRAs, the Times only says "[n]o one knows how much tax is avoided this way."

So to review, equate tax increases with spending reductions, quote a really big number to establish how important this is and then cite specific examples that account for less than 0.5% of the number.  I do wonder sometimes how things like this make their way into one of the nation's leading newspapers.

The Impact of "A Balanced Approach"

All the discussion from the President has been about the need for "a balanced approach" to the sequester which, roughly stated, means replacing half of the spending cuts with tax increases.  Let's leave aside, for the moment, that the other aspect of "a balanced approach" seems to be kicking the can to the future and focus for a moment on the impact on spending growth and tax rates of this approach assuming it were to happen.

For the purposes of this argument, I'm going to assume that this notion of balance applies to both the sequester and the BCA caps.  The reason I'm making this assumption is that, were one to believe the President's argument, it probably should.  After all, why allow caps to be all spending when you can achieve the same deficit reduction through a mix of spending and taxes.

To make the analysis simple, I'm going to focus on the last year of the caps, fiscal 2021.  In the CBO baseline, total government spending is forecast to grow by 5.25% on average per year.  Now what happens if we let the caps go.  Well, in 2021, the caps and the sequester restrain spending by $178 billion (Table 1-5).  But we are going to go halfsies so we'll raise spending by only $89 billion that year.  This then would take the growth rate of spending up to 5.46% and spending as a percentage of GDP up to 22.8% from the current forecast of 22.4%

Now on the tax side, let's make the assumption that all of the tax increases come from "the rich" and that this plan continues through the period.  In total, on a 10 year basis, this would equate to a tax increase at least as large at the increase that just went through on the top rate over 10 years.  That increase raised the effective tax rate of the top 1% of taxpayers by 3 percentage points.  We might rightly assume that this would do similar taking the effective tax rate of that group to 39.4 percent, the highest rate ever by a fair margin.

Such is the effect of "a balanced approach."  Spending back up over 23 percent of GDP by the end of the forecast, the highest effective rates in measured history (which I remind you only goes back to 1979 where there was a 70 percent marginal tax rate), and an accelerating deficit and debt to GDP ratio.

The Times Should Know Better

You can expect the New York Times Op Ed page to be liberal but you should also have a reasonable expectation that it be factual.  Today, it published an editorial that may be the least factual thing I've ever seen.  I'm going to take the unique step of taking the major claims one by one only because it is such an awful piece.

Both are wrong. To reduce the deficit in a weak economy, new taxes on high-income Americans are a matter of necessity and fairness; they are also a necessary precondition to what in time will have to be tax increases on the middle class. Contrary to Mr. Boehner’s “spending problem” claim, much of the deficit in the next 10 years can be chalked up to chronic revenue shortfalls from the Bush-era tax cuts, which were only partly undone in the fiscal-cliff deal earlier this year.

OK.  As a starting point, this is ridiculous.  The CBPP link in the quote is obvious hokum and is completely devoid of historical context.  Tax receipts over the coming decade are planned to average 18.9% of GDP while during the 8 fiscal years of the Clinton administration (FY93 to FY01), they averaged 19.1% of GDP according to the OMB historical tables.  So, over the next 10 years, tax receipts are .2% of GDP lower than they were during the Clinton administration (aka before the "Bush Tax Cuts.")  But you should keep this thought in mind as we move through the editorial.

It stands to reason that a deficit caused partly by inadequate revenue must be corrected in part by new taxes. And the only way to raise taxes now without harming the recovery is to impose them on high-income filers, for whom a tax increase is unlikely to cut into spending.

Two problems here.  First, it absolutely does not stand to reason that a problem caused by inadequate revenue must be corrected by new revenue.  That's the very fallacy I discussed earlier in regard to the argument that it's all a health care spending issue.  But even more shocking is the Times inability to understand the GDP accounting identity.  In the view of the editorial writers, it appears to be GDP = C+G.  That's it.  There's no such thing as I in the accounting identity.  Thus, tax increases that cut investment don't affect GDP, only those which affect spending do.  Such a fundamental misunderstanding of macroeconomics 101 really is a bit shocking.

As it happens, those taxpayers are the same ones who benefited most from Bush-era tax breaks and who continue to pay low taxes. Even with recent increases, the new top rate of 39.6 percent is historically low; investment income is still taxed at special low rates; and the heirs of multimillion-dollar estates face lower taxes than at almost any time in modern memory.

Well this point is more misdirection than outright deception or misinformation but let's take the three points in order.  Those taxpayers are the same ones who benefited most from Bush-era tax breaks.  This isn't actually true if you look at changes in effective rates but why debate this when those tax breaks are no longer in force for those people.  Wouldn't you think that's a relevant thing to mention?

 Even with recent increases, the new top rate of 39.6 percent is historically low;  Wow.  But of course, people don't pay marginal tax rates, they pay effective tax rates and based on effective tax rates, the current rates of the wealthiest Americans are quite high relative to the last 33 years of history (the only good history we have).  The only year we have on record where the top 1% paid a higher rate than they are scheduled to pay in 2013 was 1979.  For the top 0.1%, the 2013 rate is the highest on record.

...investment income is still taxed at special low rates.  Investment income has been taxed at a differential rate in almost every year since the creation of the income tax.  The Times makes it sound as if this is some new innovation in the tax code.  We can debate differential taxation for capital income but this is not the way to do it, by pretending it is some new phenomenon.  We might also choose to note that the new tax rate on capital gains (23.9% including the ACA tax) is higher than the effective income plus social security (both sides) tax rate of all Americans except those making over $1 million.

It is true that estate tax rates are low today relative to recent history.  Of course it's also true that estate tax raise very little revenue so, in the context of a debate on the US's fiscal health, they are not terribly important.

On the spending side, Republicans are resisting cuts to defense. That implies brutalizing cuts in nondefense discretionary areas, like education and environment, which are already set to fall to their lowest level as a share of the economy since the 1950s.

Frequent readers will know that I personally have no issues with defense cuts; however, the Times is taking license and not informing again.  First, the government did not track nondefense discretionary spending until the 1960s so we don't know what we spent in the 50s (although I would assume the editorial is correct).  Most substantively, including the BCA and the sequester, defense spending is forecast to fall to its smallest share of GDP since 1940 (defense spending was actually measured by the government that far back).  Again, we can have a debate on whether we should care about either of these facts but not to mention both is simply spinning.

As for entitlements, Republicans mainly want to cut those that mostly go to the middle class and the poor, while ignoring nearly $1.1 trillion in annual deductions, credits and other tax breaks that flow disproportionately to the highest income Americans and that cost more, each year, than Medicare and Medicaid combined. 

The entitlements on which Republicans are focused are Medicare and Social Security which go to the elderly regardless of income.  One would imagine the Times is aware that the elderly are the wealthiest cohort of American society.  We might also wonder what the rationale is from the editors to pay Medicare benefits to Mr. Buffet and Mr. Gates.

But ignoring the $1.1 trillion in deductions, credits and tax breaks that flow disproportionally to the highest income Americans and that cost more, each year than Medicare and Medicaid combined requires a bit of unpacking.  First, the authors conveniently exclude Social Security, which, by itself, is planned to cost $810 billion in 2013.  SS and Medicare together are a $1.4 trillion expense item.  That comparison would seem germane given the discussion that has occurred over entitlements.

But about that $1.1 trillion number.  Interestingly in an editorial with links, it's unlinked.  Here you can find a link that gets you to a number that rounds to $1.1 trillion but that includes corporate and individual tax rates and one of the tax preferences is the already mentioned differential in the treatment of capital income.  And, importantly, tax preferences are more equally distributed than tax contributions.  In other words, people who pay 40% of the taxes get less than 40% of the tax expenditures.  Thus, the total elimination of tax expenditures would make the tax code less progressive.

The editorial closes with But there will never be a consensus for more taxes from the middle class without imposing higher taxes on wealthy Americans, who have enjoyed low taxes for a long time. And I can only add to the end "but no longer do."

The Tax Rates of the 50s and 60s

You can't throw a stick without hitting someone saying that everything would be fine if only we would go back to the tax rates of the 1950s and 1960s.  Normally, when this point is made, it is in a discussion about income tax rates and how low they are.  I have often been perplexed by this perspective since I have always thought that total tax receipts were lower during that period.  So I took a look.


The top graph shows personal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP by decade historically from the OMB historical tables and the bottom graph shows the current CBO forecast of personal tax receipts from 2013 to 2023 (post the changes in the ATRA).

Two conclusions make themselves pretty immediately evident.  First, the personal tax receipts were lower in the 1950s and 1960s than they were in any subsequent decade despite the higher marginal tax rates that were in place during that time.  Second, projected tax receipts under the ATRA quickly outpace the average of any decade during the entire postwar history of the country.  So while one can always argue that personal tax rates should be even higher, it is very difficult to argue that based on a "getting back to the successful economy of the 50s and 60s" framing.

The next part of this debate is to deal with the distributional question, namely that personal taxes on "the rich" were a lot higher in the 50s and 60s.  This is also not true but more on that in the next post.

A Balanced Plan?

The White House is fond of arguing that our changes in fiscal policy should be "balanced" between tax increases and spending cuts.  As a recent example, see this from Dan Pfeiffer.  In it, Mr. Pfeiffer refers as an example of the President's notion of balance to his proposal to the supercommittee.  So I decided to take a look at it in a little bit more detail.

The conclusion was surprising even to me.  The way I would suggest the math is "fair" would score the President's proposal at $70 in tax increases for every $1 in real spending cuts.  I wasn't expecting balance but I was expecting more balance than this.  Let me tell you how I got there.

The President and his team present this as a "balanced" proposal over and above the savings from the Budget Control Act.  The administration provides a convenient summary of its proposal in Table S-6.

American Jobs Act - $447 billion
Mandatory Savings - $(257) billion
Health Savings - $(320) billion
Cap OCOs - $(1084) billion
Tax reform - $(1573) billion
Interest savings - $(715) billion

When I first looked at the table, I didn't think much of it but then I started reflecting on the word choice.

The first thing that occurred to me was the use of the word "savings" in relationship to what others might call spending cuts.  I started by assuming it was just a word choice thing but then I decided to go look at table S-4 where the specific programmatic recommendations are made.

Here are some of the components of "Mandatory Savings" and their sizes:

Increase government fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - $27.5 billion
Increase the passenger aviation fee - $15.0 billion
Raising Unemployment Insurance taxes - $33.0 billion
Recoup financial sector assistance (a tax one presumes) - $30 billion

So of the $257 billion in mandatory savings, at least $100 billion are tax or fee increases.  This ignores increased copays for Tricare and other things that are individual costs.  So roughly 40% of the "savings" are actually tax increases.

In the administration's defense, most of the health savings are actual spending reductions, the largest of which is negotiating drug prices for Medicare.

But now on to the big items, the capping of OCOs and interest.  Capping OCOs is nothing more than not spending money we never intended to spend.  For example, we save $135 billion in 2021 according to this logic but not continuing the wars in Iraq and AfPak until that time.  Is there anyone who seriously expects those wars to be going at the current pace in 2021?  This is an accounting gimmick and nothing more.

Which brings us to interest.  First, it's worth noting that the interest number includes reduced interest from the BCA as well as these new items rather than breaking out the interest as would be more honest.  But more substantively, including the interest savings as a spending cut in the notion of balanced is ridiculous since it would allow a package that was all tax increases to have 15 percent or so of the savings come from "spending cuts."  As I've argued before, interest should be reported separately as it is not a policy change but the outcome of various policy changes.

All of which brings us back to the President's past balanced proposal.  Here's a quick restatement.

Phantom spending cuts (aka cuts that are reductions in money we never intended to spend) work out to $1.1 trillion.  Real spending cuts work out to about $25 billion over 10 years (remembering the President proposed $450 billion in incremental spending).  Tax increases are about $1.7 trillion.  So if we leave the phantom stuff and interest savings out, it's about 70 dollars in tax increases for every dollar of programmatic spending cuts.  An interesting definition of "balance" for sure.

The Fallacy of Causation and Solution

This post from Kevin Drum is a good example of one of the fallacies that seems to be making the rounds these days.  In the body of a typical argument about why Republicans are unserious on the deficit (true for most in my view), Kevin makes the following argument.

It's all healthcare, baby. If all of the pressure on the deficit were being applied to serious proposals for reining in healthcare spending, in an effort to get U.S. spending levels down to those prevailing in socialist Europe, I'd probably applaud. 

So the solution to the deficit is all about healthcare.  You can see similar arguments popping up all over the left blogosphere.  Mostly, as in this case, these are arguments for universal health care but leave that aside.  The point is that they represent a fallacy, the fallacy that if A is the cause of a problem then a change in A must be the solution.  Certainly we can look at changing A (health care) but there's no particular reason that changes in A must be the answer.

To make the point, let's take a look at taxes and spending relative to 2000 (the last time the budget was balanced).  I'm going to look at this in two ways.  First, I'm going to look at effective tax rates across the income distribution (similar to my previous post comparing to 1979).  Using the same TPC and CBO assessments, one gets the following picture.

So, relative to the last time we had a surplus, effective federal tax rates in 2013 are projected to be lower for every income group except for the top 1% where rates are projected to be 3.4 percentage points higher than they were in 2000.

By the Kevin Drum logic, I should therefore cut the tax rates of the top 1% and increase the tax rates of everyone else since that would be the way to correct the problem by addressing the changes that led to the problem in the first place.  I rather doubt that Mr. Drum or his intellectual comrades would be in favor of this approach.

We can of course extend this thinking by looking at the spending side of the equation.  In 2000, spending on domestic discretionary programs was 3.0 percent of GDP.  In 2011 (2012 is not yet available), these same programs consumed 4.3% of GDP.  Should we therefore cut these programs by 30% in nominal dollars?  I rather doubt this is the plan that would be embraced by Mr. Drum.  Indeed we know this is not the case since "It's all healthcare, baby."

The point here is not to argue that addressing healthcare isn't an important part of our long term deficit picture but rather to argue the fact that healthcare spending has increased and will continue to do so does not imply that the only (or primary) solution is to reduce or slow the rate of growth of health care spending.  The prescription may or may not be right, the logic is not.

Principled Taxation

Having dealt with the principles underlying spending, let's turn to the topic of taxation.  Again, in my opinion, three principles are sufficient to help us design our tax code.

1. The tax code should pay for the spending we do.  This is particularly true of what we call the "base" spending.  A tax code that does not cover the spending we do is of no use from a budgetary perspective.
2. The tax code should be as simple as possible.  There is no reason for the extremely large numbers of exceptions, rate, alternative rates and so forth in the tax code.  This type of behavior is simply a giveaway by legislators to preferred constituencies of all types.
3. Income below a certain threshold should not be subject to tax.  It is entirely true that some income should be shielded from taxation since that income is necessary for subsistence.

In following these three principles, what type of tax code would we get?  Basically, we would wind up with a tax code that exempts income below a certain threshold, say 1.5 times the poverty level and has a single rate above that threshold.  This rate would apply to all income and would replace all personal income taxes, including the current FICA tax.

Some might object to taxing capital income at the same rate as wage income.  To me, there is an interesting debate to be had on this topic but that debate should occur on the corporate income tax side of the ledger.  Making the personal code more complex because of an argument about the corporate tax code to me makes relatively little sense.  Furthermore, the notion that capital income requires preferential treatment seems to me out of keeping with the current environment for capital (e.g., a very fluid, global, capital system).

Others might object that this system is not "progressive" because there is only one tax rate.  Of course, the outcomes are progressive (meaning the effective tax rates are progressive) despite the fact that the rate table is not.  

Finally, some would object that this type of a system would eliminate refundable credits, basically payments made through the tax code.  My argument is that these payments, should they be necessary, should simply be made through expenditures rather than through the manipulation of the tax code.

What would the rate need to be to make this type of a tax code work?  More on that in the next post when we run the numbers.

Some Truth on Tax Expenditures

The term tax expenditures has become all the rage, particularly on the left of late.  The purpose is to establish some rhetorical equivalence between preferences in the tax code and actual disbursals of money by Congress.  The validity of this line of thought is a topic for another day (or two).  Today’s purpose is to focus on a commonly argued perspective as it relates to tax expenditures, namely that they primarily benefit the rich.  DeeDee Meyers provides a common refrain:

Even tax breaks that are supposed to help the middle class too often skew toward the wealthy. Consider the mortgage interest deduction. While political leaders in both parties have long considered it untouchable, it actually helps those at the top of the income scale far more than those at the bottom.[1]

This is a pretty common (and pretty incorrect) point of view but it takes a little bit of understanding to get you there.  As a starting point, let’s look at the savings that come from certain popular tax expenditures.  As Meyers did, we’ll start with the home interest and property tax deductions.

The benefits of these deductions (according to the Tax Policy Center) accrue as follows[2]: