Changing Government's Inflation Measure Would Raise Taxes as Much as it Would Cut Spending

By :: March 5th, 2013

Changing the way government adjusts spending and taxes for inflation is one of those issues that continues to hang around the edges of the budget debate. Republicans and many economists argue for shifting to a more accurate inflation measure, called the chained Consumer Price Index (CPI). President Obama would support a version as part of a fiscal grand bargain. Because Social Security benefits would likely grow more slowly under this measure, many Democrats and social insurance advocates strongly oppose the idea.

But a new Congressional Budget Office estimate shows fiscal effects that chained CPI backers might not want to see. It turns out that shifting to the new inflation measure would raise taxes by nearly as much as it would slow Social Security spending over the next decade. Indeed, after 2021, the adjustment would raise taxes more than it would cut projected Social Security benefits.

CBO figures chained CPI would raise taxes by nearly $124 billion over 10 years. It would reduce projected Social Security spending by $127 billion and cut planned spending for all programs by a total of $216 billion. Note that CBO counts a nearly $18 billion cut in refundable tax credits as a spending reduction. If you prefer to include it among the tax hikes, the overall revenue increase would reach $142 billion over 10 years.

Back in 2011, the Tax Policy Center figured the shift would raise taxes by an average of about $140 per household. Most households within a vast income range (from $20,000 to $200,000) would see their after-tax income fall by about 0.2 percent on average. Those making more would see their incomes drop by about half as much.  

A quick word on what’s happening here: Chained CPI is an effort to measure consumer responses to changes in prices. If, for instance, the price of a brand-name drug goes up, consumers may respond by buying the generic version, thus softening the blow of the price hike and slightly lowering inflation.

Because spending programs are adjusted for changes in cost-of-living, the more modest CPI growth would trim benefit increases each year. Advocates for the Social Security status quo argue these small annual changes would add up over many years and the biggest victims would be the very old and the very poor.

But the tax increases are just as big, though rarely discussed. The government also adjusts tax brackets and other elements of the income tax for inflation in an attempt to reduce a phenomenon known as bracket creep. The problem: Rising incomes can bump people into a higher tax bracket. 

Three decades ago, Ronald Reagan convinced Congress to stop most of this by indexing the income tax by the CPI. Shifting to a less generous measure of inflation would restore a bit more bracket creep to the code and raise taxes for about three-quarters of all households, TPC figures.

If the proposal shows up in the next House GOP budget, expect to hear many Democrats object loudly to what they see as the basic unfairness of the plan. But neither Republicans nor many Democrats will say that moving to chained CPI also crosses both the GOP’s no-new-taxes pledge and Obama's vow to protect individuals making $200,000 or less from tax hikes. I wonder if anyone’s told Grover Norquist?

13Comments

  1. AMTbuff  ::  3:57 pm on March 5th, 2013:

    How about going the other way. Let’s include the cost of government in the CPI. We’re consuming more of it and it’s getting more expensive. Taxes have increased faster than anything else, with the possible exception of college tuition and medical care.

    The idea that government spending is cost-free is bankrupting us. If the government had to insure the public against its own growth in cost our welfare state might at last become stable and sustainable.

  2. Changing Government's Inflation Measure Would Raise Taxes as « Double Taxes  ::  4:39 pm on March 5th, 2013:

    […] Read more: Changing Government's Inflation Measure Would Raise Taxes as […]

  3. 2013 3 TAX ON HOME SALES IN  ::  5:27 pm on March 5th, 2013:

    […] Changing Government's Inflation Measure Would Raise <b>Taxes</b> as […]

  4. Michael Bindner  ::  5:40 pm on March 5th, 2013:

    This proposal seems to make sense (where acting now on anything related to health care does not – as implementation will surely have surprises). Of course, once the GOP realizes it will raise taxes, they will be the ones objecting to it as a cut in Medicare. Of course, if we do real tax reform Michael Graetz, Lawrence B. Lindsey and Michael Bindner style, most taxpayers won’t see any difference. If we do entitlement reform as I suggest, eventually transferring much of Social Security to personal accounts holding employer voting stock, chained CPI will matter not at all.

  5. Tax Roundup, 3/6/2013: Tax return numerology, and similar economic development science. Plus rapper tax tips! « Roth & Company, P.C  ::  9:07 am on March 6th, 2013:

    […] Howard Gleckman, Changing Government’s Inflation Measure Would Raise Taxes as Much as it Would Cut Spending (TaxVox) […]

  6. 2013 TAX TABLE 1040  ::  5:29 am on March 7th, 2013:

    […] Changing Government's Inflation Measure Would Raise <b>Taxes</b> as […]

  7. Let’s Not Make a Deal | Elm River Free Press  ::  5:32 pm on March 7th, 2013:

    […] In fact, as Howard Gleckman at the Tax Policy Center recently noted, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that moving to the Chained CPI “would raise taxes as much as it would cut spending.” […]

  8. 2013 TAX BRACKETS  ::  8:26 pm on March 7th, 2013:

    […] Changing Government's Inflation Measure Would Raise <b>Taxes</b> as […]

  9. Geertrui Daem  ::  8:23 am on May 9th, 2013:

    I simply had to thank you so much yet again. I am not sure the things I could possibly have carried out in the absence of these recommendations shown by you relating to my problem. It was actually a very alarming matter for me, however , taking note of a expert way you processed that made me to weep over delight. I’m just happier for your assistance and pray you recognize what a great job you are always undertaking instructing men and women via your blog. I’m certain you haven’t got to know all of us.

  10. Luc Deflo  ::  10:06 am on May 13th, 2013:

    I wish to show my respect for your kindness giving support to folks who have the need for guidance on your field. Your special commitment to passing the message all through has been unbelievably interesting and have in every case helped those much like me to get to their objectives. Your entire warm and helpful suggestions implies much to me and substantially more to my office workers. Warm regards; from all of us.

  11. Anton Bergmann  ::  1:50 pm on May 13th, 2013:

    I simply wished to thank you so much all over again. I’m not certain the things that I might have done in the absence of these tips contributed by you over my problem. It had become a real difficult matter in my view, but taking a look at the very expert approach you dealt with the issue took me to jump with fulfillment. Now i am thankful for this service and as well , hope that you really know what an amazing job you are accomplishing training the rest with the aid of your web site. I’m certain you’ve never got to know any of us.

  12. voyance à rennes  ::  2:04 pm on July 30th, 2014:

    My partner and I stumbled over here from a different page and thought
    I might check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you.
    Look forward to exploring your web page again.

    Review my page – voyance à rennes

  13. Meir Ezra  ::  7:45 pm on August 24th, 2014:

    My family always say that I am wasting my time here at web,
    however I know I am getting knowledge all the time by reading such fastidious articles.