How Much Revenue Would a Cap on Itemized Deductions Raise?
In last night’s debate, Mitt Romney repeated the idea that he could pay for much or all of the 20 percent rate reduction and other tax cuts in his tax plan by capping itemized deductions at $25,000. He had previously suggested a $17,000 cap in an interview and, in the first debate, $25,000 or $50,000 caps—and possibly phasing deductions out entirely for high-income taxpayers. Capping deductions would raise revenue in a highly progressive way but how much revenue and how progressive depend on the cap.
Itemized deductions disproportionately benefit high-income taxpayers for three reasons:
- High-income taxpayers are more likely to itemize deductions. Less than 10 percent of those in the bottom two income quintiles (fifths) itemized in 2011, compared with about 80 percent of those in the top quintile and more than 95 percent of those in the top 1 percent.
- High-income taxpayers claim more itemized deductions. Itemizers in the bottom two quintiles averaged less than $14,000 in 2011, compared with nearly $38,000 for those in the top quintile and more than $170,000 for the top 1 percent. A higher cap on deductions would therefore affect fewer taxpayers and a larger share of affected taxpayers would have very high incomes.
- A dollar’s worth of deductions reduces taxes more for high-income taxpayers. That dollar saves 35 cents for someone in the top 35 percent tax bracket but only 15 cents for a person in the 15 percent bracket.
As a result, more than 80 percent of the tax savings from itemized deductions in 2011 went to those in the top quintile and more than a quarter to the top 1 percent. Paring back those deductions would hit high-income taxpayers hardest.
To get a sense of how much money we could raise by capping tax deductions, my TPC colleagues have analyzed the resulting revenue gains and distributional impacts of four ways to limit itemized deductions—eliminating them entirely and capping them at $17,000, $25,000, or $50,000—calculated against three benchmarks (current law, current policy, and current policy with 20 percent lower rates and elimination of the AMT). As usual, the current law baseline has all expiring tax cuts actually expiring, while the current policy baseline has almost all of them permanently extended.
Eliminating all itemized deductions would yield about $2 trillion of additional revenue over ten years if we cut all rates by 20 percent and eliminate the AMT. Capping deductions would generate less additional revenue, and the higher the cap, the smaller the gain. Limiting deductions to $17,000 would increase revenues by nearly $1.7 trillion over ten years. A $25,000 cap would yield roughly $1.3 trillion and a $50,000 cap would raise only about $760 billion.
But higher caps would impose proportionally more of the tax increase on higher-income households, as new TPC estimates show. With tax rates 20 percent below today’s rates, about 83 percent of the revenue gain in 2015 from a $17,000 cap would fall on the top quintile and about 40 percent on the top 1 percent. Raising the cap to $25,000 would boost those shares to nearly 90 percent on the top quintile and fully half on the top 1 percent. A $50,000 cap would virtually exempt the bottom four quintiles from higher taxes: less than 4 percent of the tax increase would fall on them, while nearly 80 percent would hit the top 1 percent. (Phasing down the caps at high-income levels would, of course, concentrate the revenue gains even more at the high end, but how much would depend on the details.)
Suggesting limits on deductions was Governor Romney’s first public statement about how he might offset the revenue lost by cutting tax rates. Without more specifics, we can’t say how much revenue such limits would actually raise. But these new estimates suggest that Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized deductions to pay for the roughly $5 trillion in rate cuts and other tax benefits he has proposed.
Hey there! I just would like to give you a big thumbs up for your great info you’ve got here on this post. I’ll be coming back to your web site for more soon.
Also visit my page: business mentoring
[...] from high-income Americans without raising tax rates is true.But I know that number, which is discussed here. It’s what you get from capping itemized deductions at $17,000 — which has two [...]
[...] on itemized deductions. If that cap was set at $50,000, the wealthy would bear most of the burden, according to the Tax Policy Center, and it would raise $760 billion in revenue over 10 years. Bringing the cap down to $25,000 would [...]
[...] appreciate the fact that this reform would fall heaviest on high-tax, blue state voters. Based upon Tax Policy Center estimates, a $ 25,000 cap would raise over $ 1 trillion of new revenue, with 50 percent of that revenue [...]
[...] appreciate the fact that this reform would fall heaviest on high-tax, blue state voters. Based upon Tax Policy Center estimates, a $25,000 cap would raise over $1 trillion of new revenue, with 50 percent of that revenue coming [...]
[...] appreciate the fact that this reform would fall heaviest on high-tax, blue state voters. Based upon Tax Policy Center estimates, a $25,000 cap would raise over $1 trillion of new revenue, with 50 percent of that revenue coming [...]
[...] appreciate the fact that this reform would fall heaviest on high-tax, blue state voters. Based upon Tax Policy Center estimates, a $25,000 cap would raise over $1 trillion of new revenue, with 50 percent of that revenue coming [...]
[...] appreciate the fact that this reform would fall heaviest on high-tax, blue state voters. Based upon Tax Policy Center estimates, a $25,000 cap would raise over $1 trillion of new revenue, with 50 percent of that revenue coming [...]
[...] appreciate the fact that this reform would fall heaviest on high-tax, blue state voters. Based upon Tax Policy Center estimates, a $25,000 cap would raise over $1 trillion of new revenue, with 50 percent of that revenue coming [...]
[...] appreciate the fact that this reform would fall heaviest on high-tax, blue state voters. Based upon Tax Policy Center estimates, a $25,000 cap would raise over $1 trillion of new revenue, with 50 percent of that revenue coming [...]
[...] comes to capping deductions. With a $17,000 cap on deductions, The Tax Policy Center estimates an extra $1.7 trillion in additional revenue over the next 10 years, even after cutting marginal tax rates by 20 percent and eliminating the [...]
[...] be a whopping $3.7 trillion over the next decade. Lowering the deduction limit to, say, $17,000 wouldn’t much change the math. The gap would still be $3.4 [...]
[...] “But these new estimates suggest that Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized deductions to pay for the roughly $5 trillion in rate cuts and other tax benefits he has proposed,” Tax Policy Center senior fellow Roberton Williams wrote in a blog post. [...]
[...] Tax Policy Center (TPC) nonpartisan study has revealed that Romney’s way to make his 20% below George W Bush-era levels tax cut plan [...]
[...] As the Tax Policy Center explains, a cap on tax deductions has the biggest impact on upper-income households, who are more likely to itemize on their tax returns. To give you a sense of where a $25,000 cap would matter in North Texas, I mapped IRS data for North Texas zip codes. [...]
So this would raise 2 trillion…that covers the 2 trillion raise in military spending Rommney wants….what about the 5 trillion in cut in spending that capping rate at 20% would cause???
[...] to help generate the needed revenue. (The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times 1,2, Tax Policy Center, Think [...]
[...] Tax Vox Blog, How Much Revenue Would a Cap on Itemized Deductions Raise? [...]
Why not take politics out of the tax system. Tax all income equally and replace all deductions & credits with one standard 28% standard deduction. Corporations will pay no tax on dividends paid and they would also deduct all salaries paid including benefits. There would be 3 progressive rate brackets. You pick the brackets. I would recomment 5%, 10%, and 15%. This would also be the new AMT. This way the 47% who pay no federal income taxes would be pulled into the system. Businesses and corporations who pay out excessive salaries above say $1 million per year would be limited to $1 million deduction per employee. No write offs for advertising, rents, yachts, airplanes, automobiles, or other vehicles not used predominately to transport products.
Because, the people who currently pay no taxes have no money to spend. What we need to do instead is move them up the income ladder into the paying brackets. Remember, they are already taxed by state taxes and sales taxes. Putting all individuals on one rate “tax all income equally” is incredibly regressive.
[...] water on the credibility of its support for Romney’s tax plan. And she herself cited a TPC blog post attacking Romney’s plan, but wouldn’t accept a defense of the plan because it was a [...]
[...] I could have sworn that Governor Romney proposed a smaller number for the total deductions cap at one point, [TP] but I might be suffering from Romnesia. (video) However, as of the last debate the former Governor would like for us to believe that his tax plan — which will “generate jobs” — will replace revenue lost from giving billionaires and millionaires a hefty tax break with a deductions cap of $25,000. Nope. “Capping deductions would generate less additional revenue, and the higher the cap, the smaller the gain. Limiting deductions to $17,000 would increase revenues by nearly $1.7 trillion over ten years. A $25,000 cap would yield roughly $1.3 trillion and a $50,000 cap would raise only about $760 billion.” [taxvox] [...]
[...] this week’s debate, Romney proposed putting a cap on itemized deductions. In this scenario, each household could use only $25,000 in itemized [...]
[...] Tax Policy Center yesterday noted: In last night’s debate, Mitt Romney repeated the idea that he could pay for much [...]
You don’t have to “pay” for tax cuts! Tax cuts mean you pay less! The government has no right to take a cut of every transaction in the country.
You’re absolutely right! With that said please don’t call the fire department if your house is on fire, don’t drive your car on any paved road, and stop posting ridiculous comments over the internet (which was founded by the government).
Yes, because use of the fire department, roads and the Internet are what’s driving unsustainable growth in government spending…
Nice attempt at being the condescending liberal, but don’t forget to apply logic.
Yes, indeed liberals are condescending. But don’t bother calling the doctor unless you can (in retirement) pay the bills. Ditto for Social Security, national defense,…all of which you could provide yourself if only the feds didn’t take a “cut of every transaction in the country.”
The govt had no right…
I’m not sure what the word right means, but under current constitutional law, the gov’t does have the right; if you don’t like it, you are free to form a political group to reduce taxes.
Beyond that, and the need to pay for roads and defense and other things (it is interesting that despite the claimed superiority of hte private sector, it hasn’t, in 20+ years managed to compete with big bird..) there is a problem with low taxes, in that you get over concentrations in a small number of people; it is the free market version of the central committtee.
What happens in low tax society is that a small nubmer of people get wealthier and wealthier; eventually, you wind up with an oligarchy and a lot of poor people.
if that appeals to you, i suggest you move to latin america
Governments are not people, and therefore do =NOT= have rights — only constitutionally delegated powers.
Only =PEOPLE= — by which I mean =INDIVIDUALS= — have Rights. Rights are not merely “Privileges granted by the Government to select political groups” — they are inalienable and inherent to the nature and continued existence of INDIVIDUALS as INDIVIDUALS.
Governments are instituted to SECURE the pre-existing inalienable Rights of Individuals — they do not and cannot grant “rights” de novo — and “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” as so clearly stated by the Founders in 1776, when they rejected a government that had become a destroyer and enslaver of individuals, rather than a securer of individual rights.
Failure to remember these facts, or to remember that the Government exists to serve =INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE=, and not the other way around, leads to Tyranny — as we are now seeing each and every day, in this Consolidated Fascist Police State of Amerika.
Fine. You want to quibble over wording? Imagine the first sentence instead was written:
“In last night’s debate, Mitt Romney repeated the idea that he could offset the loss of revenue from much or all of the 20 percent rate reduction and other tax cuts in his tax plan by capping itemized deductions at $25,000.”
Now, please proceed with an argument that actually addresses the very real issue of how Romney can have a revenue neutral tax plan, given the existing promises he has made.
[...] the number-crunchers at the Tax Policy Center released a new study Wednesday showing that even if the former Massachusetts governor were to eliminate all deductions, [...]
[...] [...]
[...] Math Posted at 3:45 on October 18, 2012 by Andrew Sullivan The Tax Policy Center has re-checked Romney's tax math. Alex Seitz-Wald summarizes: [The modification to [...]
Please do the general public a critical favor. All of the information that we look at here at the IRS and as confirmed in the Report issued by the Congressional Research Service in March 2012 tabulates the big 5 itemized deductions at tax savings of about $250 billion annually or $2.5 Trillion over 10 years. So you are saying that capping at $25,000 per return will only yield about 52% of that in savings? We calculate a slightly higher number at $1.7 Trillion but also if you apply a 50% cap to the other large items such as the exclusion of employer health insurance, exclusion of employer pensions, capital gain rates, earned income credit, exclusion of social security benefits; the amount of tax revenue would increase to $4-$5 Trillion over 10 years or between $400 to $500 billion annually. That also needs to be scored on a % of allowable basis along with all ofn $1 trillion of tax breaks that are provided to individuals annually. Thanks
This TPC report shows that Romney can increase tax revenue by $2 T, for his major changes. Yet, the TPC still claims this $5 T hole.
Where does this $5 T hole come from?
Mitt Romney has 5 points listed on his website regarding tax policy.
1) The 20% reduction in rates with reduced deductions. As the TPC shows, this can be neutral, and can even generate $2 T.
2) Maintaining capital gains rates. The total capital gains income in the US was $260 B in 2009. Interest $160 B, and dividends $160 B. This taxes these incomes at 33% instead of 15%. The 20% difference in tax reduces revenue by $115 B.
3) If we eliminate all taxes for those with AGI below $200K, that does not tax about $100 B interest, $60 B dividens and $60 B in capital gains. At a 33% rate, that reduces tax revenue by $70 B.
4) There are only about $50 B in estates of the dead each year. Taxed at 33% this generates $15 B.
5) Repealing the AMT. I assume the AMT repeal is in these updated numbers, as Romney’s proposals seem to be an AMT, you can’t deduct all your income if there is a maximum deduction.
All I can find is about $200 B in lower revenue, which can be offset by the lower deductions ($2 T/10 years) (not inflation-adjusted).
This would make the Romney proposal revenue neutral.
I suspect that Romney has in mind conversion of the capped deductible amount into a 15% credit. This is exactly what Bowles-Simpson did with the mortgage interest deduction. Others, including TPC members if I recall correctly, have made similar proposals to value deductions only at a low tax rate.
Why has TPC not explored the revenue balance for this version? Am I wrong to believe that this would allow Romney to achieve both revenue neutrality and distributional neutrality? Wouldn’t this version be more politically palatable as well? So why exclude if from consideration? (Did I just answer my own question?)
This is a costing of what Mitt Romney SAID.
Not a costing of what someone “suspects” that Mitt Romney might have in mind but did not say.
So far Romney has publicly floated a $17K, $25K, and a $50K cap on itemized deductions.
NONE of these work, producing 50% to 70% holes in his tax “plan.”
In short, he has no plan.
[...] How Much Revenue Would a Cap on Itemized Deductions Raise [...]
[...] can find the updated finding of the study HERE and the original study from the Tax Policy Center HERE. In their original report – they [...]
If rates were lowered and the capital gains and dividend special rates were repealed (something Romney might do, but never say before the election), this should be an adequate revenue offset for tax simplification – and even for Simpson Bowles style revenue raisers (which Romney may not resist either after the election). The problem is, we simply can’t trust him (which is not a fiscal question).
Not to mention: The Pres does not set tax/economic policy by himself! If at all…there is a divided Congress to consider.
Repealing the special capital gains and dividend rates is not something Mitt Romney “might do.” In actuality he, and Paul Ryan, have previously floated the idea of ending capital gains and dividend taxes completely.
[...] “But these new estimates suggest that Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized deductions to pay for the roughly $5 trillion in rate cuts and other tax benefits he has proposed,” Tax Policy Center senior fellow Roberton Williams wrote in a blog post. [...]
[...] we can’t say how much revenue such limits would actually raise,” Mr. Williams wrote in a blog post. “But these new estimates suggest that Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized [...]
[...] “But these new estimates suggest that Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized deductions to pay for the roughly $5 trillion in rate cuts and other tax benefits he has proposed,” Tax Policy Center senior fellow Roberton Williams wrote in a blog post. [...]
[...] can find the updated finding of the study HERE and the original study from the Tax Policy Center HERE. In their original report – they [...]
I’m in the top rate and most of my itemized deductions are charitable contributions. If I can’t deduct them, I expect I would cut back and the non-profits I support would have to cut their budgets. Isn’t about 10% of employment at non-profits?
I don’t know about the employment rate of non-profits, though I have spent the past seven years in non-profit development. I can tell you that many, if not a large majority, of high value charitable donations (several thousand dollars or more) are given with tax implications in mind, while donations of say a few hundred dollars or less are not. Those large donations provide much of the funding for smaller non-profits, and corporate partnerships and donations make up most of the funding of larger non-profits. I think capping that deduction would, if not directly reduce large donations, at least reduce the incentive for those high value donations. But that’s only my opinion from my personal experiences.
justice before charity
The new pope was being shown around the vatican, and he stopped to talk to a agardener.
The gardener, when asked, said things were terrible; he couldn’t afford to feed his family on the low vatican salary
The pope said to his staff (cardinals) raise this guys salary; when they pointed out that this would be a reduction in charitable giving by the church, the pope replied,
Justice Before Charity.
The idea that we should have this horrible complex tax code that subsidizes the rich so that the Met Opera and other havens of the wealthy, like Princeton (check out their obscenely lavish new chem building) instead of justice is wrong
[...] sometimes cited by the Romney campaign, looked at Romney’s new plan and discovered… the math doesn’t add up. At the most Romney’s new plan would pay for $1.7 trillion of the $5 trillion in cuts he [...]
[...] we can’t say how much revenue such limits would actually raise,” Mr. Williams wrote in a blog post. “But these new estimates suggest that Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized [...]
[...] this? My colleagues at the Tax Policy Center just released some estimates of this. As noted by Bob Williams: Eliminating all itemized deductions would yield about $2 trillion of additional revenue over ten [...]
[...] Tax Policy Center: Eliminating all itemized deductions would yield about $2 trillion of additional revenue over ten years if we cut all rates by 20 percent and eliminate the AMT. Capping deductions would generate less additional revenue, and the higher the cap, the smaller the gain. Limiting deductions to $17,000 would increase revenues by nearly $1.7 trillion over ten years. A $25,000 cap would yield roughly $1.3 trillion and a $50,000 cap would raise only about $760 billion. … Without more specifics, we can’t say how much revenue such limits would actually raise. But these new estimates suggest that Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized deductions to pay for the roughly $5 trillion in rate cuts and other tax benefits he has proposed. [...]
[...] How much revenue a cap on itemised deductions would [...]
[...] sometimes cited by the Romney campaign, looked at Romney’s new plan and discovered… the math doesn’t add up. At the most Romney’s new plan would pay for $1.7 trillion of the $5 trillion in cuts he [...]
think about 1% of $15T (GDP) = .15T
.15T x 20% tax (probably overly generous)=.03T
Romney + his folks lives in a world of fantasy. It’s sad.
But these numbers are for 10-year estimates.
If you had 1% additional GDP for each of the 10 years:
You would have:
20% of $151B = 30.2B
20% of $153B = 30.6B
20% of $155B = 31.0B
20% of $156B = 31.2B
20% of $158B = 31.6B
20% of $159B = 31.8B
20% of $161B = 32.2B
20% of $162B = 32.4B
20% of $164B = 32.8B
20% of $166B = 33.2B
So about $315 B in additional tax revenue.
Dr. Williams,
Do you guys have a ballpark figure for how much tax revenue an additional 1% of GDP growth would bring in (relative to what you assumed in your model) under the proposed Romney tax rates? In other words, if Romney’s only limitation on tax expenditures was to cap itemized deductions at 25,000, how much faster would the economy have to grow to pay for the other $3.7 trillion cost of his tax rate cuts.
Thanks
Kevin
P.S. I took a public finance course from your son at UT several years ago, and have been a tax policy geek ever since!
This is the precise question to ask. What’s the answer?