In a month, if White House officials are to be believed, the Obama Administration will unveil the tax reform report of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Despite once-high expectations, it is likely to be a waste of everyone’s time.

The Board (the PERAB in Washington-speak) is hardly a bunch of economic lightweights. Chaired by ex-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, its members include economist Marty Feldstein, GE CEO Jeff Immelt, venture capitalist John Doerr, former CEA chair Laura Tyson, and other stars of Wall Street, Main Street, academia, and labor. Its chief economist is Austan Goolsbee, a top-notch researcher who has had close ties to President Obama for years. 

Yet the reform panel—technically a PERAB subcommittee-- is going to produce…a mouse. From its earliest days, the group was forced to work under impossible constraints. Chief among them: Obama’s insistence that no one earning less than $250,000 should pay higher taxes. Exempting more than 95 percent of families and individuals from tax hikes of any kind essentially shut the door on any serious discussion of reform, which inevitably creates winners and, yes, losers.

Once individual taxes were taken off the table, the panel was charged to look at corporate tax reform, enforcement issues, and simplification. But even on those limited topics, the panel will make no recommendations. A few months ago, we were told it would produce a document that looks something like CBO’s revenue options—listing a narrow range of ideas without actually endorsing any of them.

Now, we learn, the panel may not even do that. Rather, it will merely enumerate possible ways to simplify, improve enforcement, or restructure the corporate tax without even hinting which the Administration favors and which it does not. Other than serving the need to produce something, I can’t imagine why they are even bothering.

It has been abundantly clear since the campaign that Barack Obama has little interest in tax reform. Not to begrudge him, he does have more than enough on his plate without it. And I understand that not everyone shares my fascination with the tax code.

On the other hand, there is that matter of a $1.4 trillion deficit and an income tax that is crumbling under its own weight. Obama is surrounded by economic advisors who understand better than I that reforming the way government collects revenue is both necessary and inevitable. Apparently, their views have been drowned out by his political advisers who, I assume, see the whole issue as a swamp.

So why did the White even bother with a commission such as this? It is not as if anyone was demanding one. And Volcker, Goolsbee et al have better things to do than make lists.  

Federal taxes in fiscal year 2009 claimed the smallest share of GDP since 1950—14.9 percent according to the Congressional Budget Office (see top figure). The revenue drop has many causes: tax reductions in this year’s economic stimulus, the collapse of the economy, and the Bush tax cuts from earlier in the decade.    more »

It is interesting, and perhaps worth noting, that while political opposition seems to be hardening against the $1 trillion, ten-year cost of the early versions of health reform, barely a peep of concern has been raised about the $3 trillion price tag for President Obama’s plan to extend most of the Bush-era tax cuts.    more »

President Obama took aim at multinational corporations last May at a press conference on international tax policy. I’ll leave out the details here, lest I put you to sleep or explode your brain. Let’s just say that the current system is a mess that drastically needs fundamental reform. Economists describe two contrasting “pure” approaches to taxing the income U.S. companies earn abroad. A “worldwide” approach would apply our domestic tax rules to all income (with a foreign tax credit to protect against double-taxation). In theory, that system would tax U.S. business income the same, whether it’s earned at home or overseas, so firms shouldn’t care where they invest. In contrast, under a “territorial” or “dividend exemption” system, the U.S. wouldn’t tax active business income earned overseas; American firms would pay only the taxes of the country where they earn income, just like any non-U.S. business operating there. In theory, that puts U.S. businesses that invest abroad on equal tax footing with foreign firms.    more »

Rosanne Altshuler and I have argued in recent posts that Washington will be hard pressed to close our ongoing budget gap with politically palatable tax increases. (Is that an oxymoron?) Neither raising the individual income tax nor boosting corporate levies will erase the deficit. But what about the spending side of the budget? We at the Tax Policy Center naturally focus on taxes but we do understand that cutting a dollar of spending has pretty much the same effect on the deficit as raising another dollar in taxes.    more »

Yesterday my colleague Bob Williams blogged on how difficult it will be to dig ourselves out of our enormous budget hole. He examined CBO’s biennial Budget Options report, which contains a list of “revenue options” for modifying Federal taxes. Bob focused on the year with the smallest deficit over the ten year budget window which happens to be 2012. In that year, CBO predicts we will run a deficit of “only” $633 billion. The individual income tax raises the bulk of federal revenues, so naturally Bob looked at incremental reforms of those levies.    more »

Last week the Congressional Budget Office issued a new edition of Budget Options, its biennial publication detailing hundreds of proposals that would raise or lower taxes and spending. Numbers in the revenue chapter of the nearly-300-page book show just how difficult it will be to raise the taxes needed to fill the huge deficit hole that we’ve dug for ourselves.    more »

What would I do without The Wall Street Journal editorial page? I come to work on a slow summer’s day, not sure what I’m going to blog about, when I find this in the morning Journal: “A piece in The New York Times over the weekend declared in a headline that ‘the Rich Can’t Pay for Everything, Analysts Say.’ And it quoted Leonard Burman, a veteran of the Clinton Treasury who now runs the Brookings Tax Policy Center, as saying that ‘This idea that everything new that government provides ought to be paid for by the top 5%, that’s a basically unstable way of governing.’ They’re right, but where were they during the campaign?”    more »

Way back in the last century, PAYGO rules in the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) helped control spending and contributed significantly to four years of budget surplus. Since BEA expired after 2002, looser PAYGO rules have applied and Congress has repeatedly chosen to ignore them. That was easy since violating PAYGO could only trigger a point of order, which was pretty easy to overcome, at least in the House. The Senate requires 60 votes to beat back a point of order but senators got around that by putting tax cuts and spending increases in budget resolutions, which are not subject to points of order.    more »

As Congress and the administration grope their way toward healthcare reform, a major obstacle is financing: how do we pay the $1 trillion cost over the next decade? Many economists and members of Congress favor reducing or eliminating the tax exclusion of premiums paid for employment-based health insurance (ESI). We owe no income or payroll tax on the premiums our employers pay. The exclusion will cut an estimated $240 billion from federal revenues next year and $3.5 trillion over ten years. And it hits state tax collections too.    more »

Congressional Democrats, having apparently lost patience with the first Obama stimulus, are beating the drum for yet another round of government money to pump up the still-lagging economy. They need to take a deep breath. Lori Montgomery wrote a nice piece in yesterday’s Washington Post explaining why. Using some data from Mark Zandi at Economy.com, Lori reports that barely $100 billion of last winter’s nearly $800 billion stimulus has made its way into the economy. Until the rest is spent, why would we want to run up the debt by hundreds of billions more?    more »

As I promised in last Friday’s TaxVox post, here is TPC’s estimate of the 2012 distribution of President Obama’s tax proposals in the 2009 budget, measured against the administration’s chosen baseline. That baseline looks a lot like current policy: extend the Bush tax cuts, index and make permanent the 2009 estate tax, and permanently patch the alternative minimum tax by indexing forward the 2009 parameters.    more »

Following last month’s release of the Treasury Green Book, the Tax Policy Center reworked its distributional analysis of the tax proposals in President Obama’s 2010 budget. We learned many new details about specific tax provisions, including the practical definition of who has enough income to face higher taxes. The bottom line? You have to have a lot of income to be in Obama’s crosshairs.    more »

Here we go again. I posted yesterday on a new TPC analysis of the tax cuts in President Obama’s proposed 2010 budget. The conclusion: Nearly everyone, even most of the very wealthy, would enjoy a big tax break. This, I suggested, was not smart, given the nation’s huge deficit and Obama’s ambitious priorities. Not surprisingly, a commenter—AMTbuff—called me to task. While many of these revenue provisions represent tax cuts relative to current law, they are not when compared to current policy—that is, assuming all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent, the AMT is patched into the future, etc. According to AMTbuff, “using current law as the baseline is misleading [since] neither the public nor any experts expect all tax rates to spring back to pre-2001 levels.”    more »

Everybody gets a tax cut! To look at TPC’s latest estimates of the tax provisions of President Obama’s 2010 budget, you’d think there was no deficit of $1.84 trillion, or that the White House has no need to pay for an ambitious health reform plan. Or more education spending. Or more infrastructure construction.    more »