The Biggest Tax Policy Mistake of the Year
The fine folks over at the New York Times Freakonomics blog recently asked me to identify the “biggest potential tax policy mistake that might be made this year.” Here’s my answer:
With little time left on the legislative clock, policymakers will be hard-pressed to top the tax policy blunders they’ve already made this year. Most notable is their failure to decide what this year’s tax law should be. While politicians, analysts and the media endlessly debate how expiring tax cuts might affect taxpayers in 2011, the real disgrace is that we still don’t know what the tax law is in 2010.
Will our leaders really allow the alternative minimum tax to hit 27 million taxpayers this year, a whopping 23 million more than in 2009? Did the estate tax really expire back in January, making 2010 the year without an estate tax? Will companies really receive no tax credits for their investments in research and development?
Under existing law, the answer to each of these questions is yes. Unless Congress acts, the AMT will expand its reach almost 500 percent, George Steinbrenner’s estate will pay no estate tax, and America’s most innovative companies will go without the R&E tax credit. But in today’s world, existing law doesn’t mean much until Congress throws in the legislative towel. The upcoming lame-duck session will thus feature healthy debate about patching the AMT, retroactively resuscitating the estate tax and extending a host of expired business tax credits — all policies that would determine 2010 taxes.
Such retroactive policymaking is an embarrassment. In a well-functioning democracy, policymakers should establish the laws of the land in advance so that families and businesses can knowledgeably plan their activities. Surprises may sometimes necessitate mid-course corrections. An economic downturn may justify mid-year tax cuts, or a sudden crisis may require mid-year tax increases. But persistent retroactive lawmaking undermines the core idea that ours is a nation of law.
Needless uncertainty also creates real costs. Uncertainty about the R&E tax credit, for example, limits its usefulness as an incentive. If businesses think that it might expire, they have less reason to take it into account when planning their research efforts. That can turn a helpful incentive into a pointless giveaway.
Needless delay also undermines the IRS’s ability to implement the tax system. In 2007, for example, Congress fiddled until just before Christmas before deciding to enact that year’s AMT patch. Because of that delay, affected taxpayers couldn’t begin filing their returns until February 15, when IRS computers finally reflected the new law.
Congress has made a huge mistake by leaving taxpayers in limbo for more than 10 months. Let’s hope they resolve that quickly when they return for what promises to be a frantic lame-duck session.
P.S. TPC co-director Bill Gale, TPC advisory board member Joel Slemrod, and Clint Stretch also contributed to the discussion.
The delay has all been about gaining political advantage – except that the Democrats wimped out on having a tax debate as an electoral feature.
I blame the leadership for this in both houses.
Uncertainty of what the tax will be is the greatest blunder.
Businesses and individuals can plan spending and investments if they know what their tax burden or cost is for the current period.
As long that cost is a moving target, both businesses and individuals will continue to differ spending and investing.
>persistent retroactive lawmaking undermines the core idea that ours is a nation of law.
Obviously neither party gives a damn about following any rules, not even the Constitution. They only point to rules when that benefits their existing position. Fair treatment of the people is completely unimportant if it's politically inconvenient. It's all about power, not principle.
Fiscal responsibility is one of the principles that is missing in action in Washington, but it's just one of many. The two parties will fight each other to the death for the right to be in the driver's seat as they accelerate toward the fiscal cliff.
Even the tea partyers probably have no idea just how bad the crash will be and how small is the chance to avoid it. If we elected a Congress of 100% tea party candidates they wouldn't be able to close the fiscal gap.
As I've posted before, the logic is simple and irrefutable:
1. Current policy cannot continue for long. Therefore it will change radically. (Stein's Law)
2. Absent a crisis, radical change is politically impossible.
3. Conclusion: A crisis is inevitable. It will reset government commitments to the public to sustainable levels or lower.
4. The later the crisis occurs, the larger it will be and the lower will be the sustainable level of government commitments. Therefore the country will actually benefit if the crisis arrives soon.