The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Bold, Controversial Stab at the Deficit and Tax Reform
Another day. Another bold and controversial tax reform plan. This is getting very interesting.
Today, the privately-funded Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) released its own far-reaching fiscal proposal. Like the plan offered last week by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of President Obama’s Deficit Commission, this heavyweight task force aims to both slash the deficit and dramatically reform the Tax Code. The 19-member BPC group was chaired by former Republican Senate Budget Committee Chair Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, who has served as vice-chair of the Federal Reserve, founding director of the Congressional Budget Office, and director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton Administration.
I’ll leave it to others to analyze its spending proposals. On the tax side, the BPC plan is at least as sweeping as Bowles and Simpson– who were themselves exceedingly ambitious.
Recognizing the continued slow economic recovery, this deficit reduction plan actually starts with a tax cut—a 2011 payroll tax holiday. The fun starts after that. The BPC would eliminate nearly all itemized deductions and kill or scale back most other targeted tax breaks. Among the ideas: It would restructure credits for low-income households by repealing the earned income credit and the child credit, while replacing them with a new child credit and a separate earnings credit. It would gradually eliminate the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance. And it would tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income, except for a very modest exclusion ($1,000 for couples) for long-term gains.
The plan would create a new 15 percent refundable tax credit for charitable gifts and replace the mortgage deduction with a 15 percent refundable credit for up to $25,000 in interest. People could still contribute to tax-advantaged retirement savings accounts, but workers and their employers could only kick in an annual combined maximum of $20,000.
At the same time, the plan would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax and create a two-rate tax structure–15 percent for taxable income up to $50,000 ($100,000 for couples), and 27 percent for income above that level. Brackets would be indexed for inflation. Households would also receive a refundable credit of $1,600 for each dependent and a non-refundable credit for those 65 or older. The corporate tax rate would be cut from 35 percent to 27 percent.
As if those changes were not enough, the plan would also phase-in a new broad-based 6.5 percent Value Added Tax, called a Debt Reduction Sales Tax. To help make the tax less regressive, the BPC would create a refundable credit for the first $20,300 of earnings. Still, an add-on VAT will be hugely controversial.
Taken as a whole, these tax changes would generate an additional $2.3 trillion from 2012-2020 and $10.2 trillion from 2012-2030.
The Tax Policy Center has modeled the distributional effects of the plan, just as we did for the Bowles-Simpson proposal. However, while TPC looked at the effects of Bowles-Simpson for 2015, we looked at this one in 2022 (to get past its many phase-ins and outs).
As measured against current policy–that is the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts are made permanent, middle-class taxpayers continue to be protected from the AMT and the estate tax reverts to 2009 law—the plan does not change after-tax income for the lowest 20 percent of earners. It would result in a progressive tax increase for everyone else, with after-tax incomes cut by an average of 2.8 percent or about $1,500 for those in the middle 20 percent of earners (who will make an average of about $64,000 in 2018), and 7.2 percent or $19,000 for the top 20 percent (who will make an average of about $350,000).
The top 1 percent of earners—those making about 2.3 million annually– would see their incomes cut by $130,000 or 8.4 percent while the after-tax income of the top 0.1 percent–who will make an average of nearly $10 million-a-year–would be cut by 11 percent or more than $700,000.
Btw, the pattern is pretty much the same if you want to compare the BPC plan to current law—that is, if you assume that the Bush-era tax cuts all expire, the AMT hits 25 million more middle-class households etc. By that measure, the lowest earning 20 percent get a tax cut of about $100 while everyone else gets a tax hike on average, although a more modest one than if the Bush tax cuts had been allowed to expire extended.
Keep in mind these projections are somewhat different than the distributional analysis published in the BPC report. That’s because BPC used yet another baseline—an alternative policy measure developed by CBO. Since each is merely a guess about where fiscal policy is headed until we do major reform, pick any baseline you want. Then take two aspirin and call me in the morning.
It goes without saying that this plan ventures far out of the usual policy box. And it is worth noting that while the Bowles-Simpson plan was the consensus of two, the BPC task force represented an actual deal forged among 19 political, policy, business, and labor officials who I’d describe as ranging between center-left and center-right in the ideology. The group was somewhat over-represented by Washington budget wonks, and perhaps that it an indication of just how far even those Inside-the-Beltway policy types are willing to go to confront the current fiscal mess. Now, let’s wait to see what the politicians do about it.
Full disclosure: Both current TPC director Donald Marron and former director Len Burman served on the task force. In addition, TPC provided technical assistance to the panel. I was not involved in any of this work.
great work. Thanks for taking the time to put this together in a user friendly format!!
If we really want to help the US economy and the working class by creating millions of jobs and saving our nation's defined benefit pension plans (many of which will fail in 10-20 years), we need Congress to eliminate the US corporate income tax. There is no easier and lower cost lever to pull right now.
http://www.eliminatecorporateincometax.com
The plan is much better than Simpson-Bowles, mainly because it saves people from filing taxes – although I have proposed a higher VAT and more generous Child Tax Credits and would go one step further and turn the 15% tax rate into a separate business income tax, which would be a bit higher and would replace the non-OASI payroll taxes. I would also have a progressive set of brackets above $100,000 in income, from 4% to 28% – to account for the fact that wealthier individuals don't spend (as much of) their money at the highest rates. By offloading much of income tax collection onto employers, gross wages would be lowered, while net wages increased to pay for the VAT (oops, DRST).
I have sent a copy of my plan to TPC a few times and would appreciate it if you scored it, since your models are a bit better than mine.
Truth should not depend on who sponsors you and who is on your panel.
A tiny error in an excellent writeup: “By that measure, the lowest earning 20 percent get a tax cut of about $100 while everyone else gets a tax hike on average, although a more modest one than if the Bush tax cuts had been allowed to expire” should be “…than if the Bush tax cuts had been continued.”
(An understandable goof; as Howard says, juggling all of these baselines leads to headaches!) Though I don't agree with 100% of its recommendations, the BPC panel deserves kudos for a thoughtful and highly readable report.
I like the DRST plan a lot. Regression however is going to be a big deal and I don't think that the task force adequately addressed that issue. They say that they would use the child credit, and also help with lower income brackets, but in the same plan they propose to eradicate tax returns for these people. Also – what if you are retired – without children or income? See my blog at http://www.us-vat.com/blog
The 5 dollar total tax increase on the bottom 20% includes the effect of the national sales tax. If you didn't take that into account, they'd have a pretty significant tax cut.
I don't understand how this isn't a tax increase on the lowest quintile. Based on the link:
http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2848
On the top chart, the lowest quintile will have a 5 dollar increase in taxes compared to the current system. Then they will pay an additional 6.5% sales tax on their income via spending on food for example.
How is this not a tax increase?