What if We Funded Public Education Like Affordable Care Act Health Insurance?

By :: February 27th, 2015

The Tax Policy Center’s recent panel discussion on the Affordable Care Act’s tax-based system of subsidies and penalties highlighted the convoluted way the ACA promotes health insurance. As a thought experiment, imagine if we funded public education the same way we pay for the ACA’s exchange-based insurance.

Their goals are similar. Both seek to promote a form of universal or near-universal coverage – K-12 education for all and mandated health insurance for many. But they go about it in very different ways: one makes government subsidies explicit and the other makes much of them disappear, at least in the budgetary and political sense.

Both require participation, through public schools or insurance purchased through state or federal health exchanges. They allow people to opt out if they meet specified public standards in other ways—through private or home schooling or with private health insurance or government coverage such as Medicare or Medicaid.  Both recognize that if government is going to require people to consume a good or service, it must provide financial assistance for those who can’t otherwise afford it.

But the subsidies for public education and ACA insurance differ in their design. Public education starts by providing a service at no direct cost to users. Taxpayers -- even those without school-age children -- support education through some combination of property, income, and sales taxes. Because these levies impose higher absolute annual payments on higher- than lower-income households, they effectively reduce the net cost for those who are less well off, with the payment increasing as their ability to pay rises.  (Some of the tax sources, such as sales taxes, may be regressive in the sense that they collect a larger share of income from lower than from higher-income taxpayers, but even sales taxes impose higher absolute burdens as income rises, while costs of services purchased in private markets generally do not vary with income.)

The ACA starts from the opposite direction. It requires nearly everyone to purchase health insurance, but then provides income-based subsidies to reduce the net cost of exchange-based insurance for low- and middle-income households. The budgetary expense of this subsidy is borne in general by federal taxpayers, even those who do not directly benefit from insurance available through the exchanges, such as senior citizens who are covered by Medicare.

Now, imagine the government operating public education the way it runs the ACA. Parents would be required to buy schooling for their kids but states and localities would no longer explicitly fund public K-12 education for everyone. Instead they’d only pay (through sliding scale subsidies) for those too poor to buy their schooling directly.

This design would have two important consequences.

First, it would drastically reduce direct spending for public schools and the taxes necessary to support those outlays, without directly affecting educational resources in any way, assuming people comply with the requirement to purchase schooling.

Second, it would make life much more complicated for state and local taxpayers and tax administrators.   Low-income households would need to receive subsidies in real time (perhaps in the form of tuition discounts) to pay their education bills. The subsidies would have to be based on prior year income or property values, with a subsequent reconciliation. Penalties would have to be designed for parents who refuse to pay for their kids’ schooling.

I’ve oversimplified the analogy. Still, the basic point holds. Universal taxpayer financing may be administratively easier but it increases government spending much more than subsidizing only some of the households who are required to purchase the same service.

Years ago, Princeton economist David Bradford suggested tongue-in-cheek that the federal government could cut defense spending without hurting national security if it replaced Pentagon spending on weapons procurement with a tax credit for arms manufacturers. In a more complex way, the designers of the ACA applied Bradford’s insight, substituting targeted tax credits for a fully tax-financed system that would appear to raise spending and taxes much more than does the ACA.

That may have been the only way the United States could have enacted a health law that vastly expands insurance coverage. And it may still work out in the end. But it could have been so much simpler.

 


Dynamic Scoring Forum: Three Things You Should Know About Dynamic Scoring

By :: February 27th, 2015

This is one of a series of guest TaxVox blog posts discussing dynamic scoring. The House recently changed the rules of budget scoring: The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation will now account for macroeconomic effects when estimating the budget impacts of major legislation. Here are three things you should know as […]

Read More

The Internet, Drug Profits, and Sacrifice

By :: February 27th, 2015

The neutrality of the net: Set. Tax effects? Unclear. That’s the conclusion of Politifact after the Federal Communications Commission approved controversial regulations that will treat the Internet like a public utility. The fact checkers examined the question after GOP Senator Mike Lee claimed that net neutrality was a “massive tax increase on the middle class” […]

Read More

What We Hear When We Talk About Taxes... Musings of a Tax Hound

By :: February 26th, 2015

It’s been just over a year since I started posting TPC’s Daily Deduction. It’s high time I let you in on a little secret: Whenever I tell people that I write about “tax news and research” I get the exact same reaction. Imagine furrowed eyebrows, coupled with a sad, “Oh.” Every. Single. Time. As a […]

Read More

Raising Taxes, GOP Style

By :: February 26th, 2015

Are they for ‘em or against ‘em? When it comes to taxes and GOP governors, TPC’s Richard Auxier says, “The answer depends on the tax. Given budget demands, Republican governors are open to new tax revenue—as long as it is never, ever from individual income taxes.” Case in point: Iowa may soon see its first […]

Read More

Dynamic Scoring Forum: Now We Really Need More Information

By :: February 25th, 2015

This is one of a series of guest TaxVox blog posts discussing dynamic scoring House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has claimed that the House dynamic scoring rule would generate more information.  But the new rule asks for an official cost estimate that reflects only a single estimate of a bill’s supposed impact […]

Read More

GOP Governors Flirt with Tax Hikes but Still Wedded to Income Tax Cuts

By :: February 25th, 2015

The New York Times recently reported Republican governors across the country were “bucking the party line” on taxes, citing eight GOP executives proposing tax hikes. Bloomberg also noted the trend of Republican governors and “much-regretted” tax increases earlier this week. However, the Wall Street Journal just heralded “The Tax-Cutting Boon Sweeping the States.” So is […]

Read More

To Collect Money You Have to Have Money

By :: February 25th, 2015

High-income households can worry even less about being audited this year. Last year, the IRS audited just 7.5 percent of households earning more than $1 million in 2013. That’s the lowest share since 2009. Its overall individual audit rate was 0.86 percent, the lowest  since 2004. The IRS budget has been cut by $1.2 billion […]

Read More

So Far, Affordable Care Act Users Are Managing Tax Filing, Many Uninsured May Use New Enrollment Period

By :: February 24th, 2015

So far, most people with Affordable Care Act insurance subsidies seem to be filing their taxes without huge problems, despite the complexity of the process. However, about half of those who have filed returns with tax prep firm H&R Block and who owe a penalty for not having insurance, have expressed interest in purchasing exchange coverage, […]

Read More

Tax Filing, Reform, and Rate Hikes

By :: February 24th, 2015

There are better ways to tie Affordable Care Act enrollment to tax filing season. This morning from 8:30 to 10:00 am, the Tax Policy Center and the Brookings Institution sponsor a panel and webcast examining ways to use tax filing to encourage people to buy insurance. Consider the White House’s special enrollment period announced last week. […]

Read More