The Washington Post March 13, 2013
It's time to cap tax deductions By Martin Feldstein
President Obama's recent meetings with members of Congress have raised
hopes that a major fiscal deal will replace the "sequester" and put the
federal debt on a healthier long-term path. But the key barrier to such a
deal remains the disagreement between Republicans and Democrats about the
balance between raising revenue and cutting government spending.
Republicans say they are against any further increase in taxes. Democrats,
including the president, say that any budget deal must include additional
revenue as well as spending cuts.
Fortunately, Democrats indicate that they want to raise the extra revenue
without increasing tax rates. Raising revenue without increasing tax rates
requires eliminating or reducing the subsidies in the U.S. tax code. Such
subsidies, for things as varied as hybrid cars and increased health
insurance, are really the government spending through the tax code. That is
why they are officially referred to as "tax expenditures."
Reducing those subsidies, then, is really cutting government spending. The
resulting deficit reductions show up on the revenue side of the budget, but
the economic effect is to cut government spending.
Billions of dollars of revenue are lost through many relatively small
subsidies, such as the tax break given to homeowners who install better
insulation or buy a more efficient refrigerator. These may be desirable
actions, but given the current budget situation, the country cannot afford
to subsidize them. Anyone opposed to government spending should favor
removing these subsidies from the tax code.
The big political challenge is dealing with the large tax subsidies to home
mortgages, employer- provided health insurance and state and local taxes.
Any attempt to eliminate these would almost certainly fail to get enacted.
That is why I advocate allowing taxpayers to keep all of their current
deductions and exclusions but limiting the extent to which they can
reduce their tax liabilities in this way.
More specifically, I believe that Congress should cap the reduction in tax
liabilities that taxpayers can gain from using these special features of
the tax code. The tax benefits should be limited to a percentage of the
individual's total income. I favor a cap of 2 percent of adjusted gross
income (AGI) on the tax benefit that an individual receives from deductions
and from the exclusion of municipal bond interest and of the value of
employer payments for health insurance.
1
For someone with a 25 percent marginal tax rate, that 2 percent limit on
the reduction in taxes translates into a limit of 8 percent of AGI on the
deductions and exclusions.
This cap should be applied to all deductions except the one for charitable
contributions. The full deduction for charitable contributions should be
retained, because the money that taxpayers give to charity benefits those
organizations rather than the individual taxpayer.
A 2 percent limit on the tax benefit from deductions and exclusions would
produce about $140 billion in additional revenue if it were applied in
2013. Over the next decade, the additional deficit reduction would total
more than $2.1 trillion. With that much extra revenue from tax reform, it
would be possible to cut some marginal tax rates.
The president has proposed raising revenue by limiting tax subsidies, but
his plan would affect only high-income taxpayers. Under his proposal,
taxpayers would keep all of their deductions, but deductions would be
limited to a 28 percent tax rate. Someone in the 35 percent bracket who
spends $20,000 on mortgage interest, for example, would reduce his tax
liability not by 35 percent, or $7,000, but only by 28 percent of the
$20,000, or $5,600.
The president's plan, unfortunately, is inadequate and unfair. It would
raise only $21 billion if applied to 2013 and about $300 billion over the
next decade. That's less than one-sixth of the deficit reduction achieved
by a 2 percent cap on tax benefits. And virtually all of that money would
come from taxpayers earning more than $200,000. Any serious plan to reduce
government spending that is built into tax law should raise more revenue
and call on most taxpayers to participate.
Tax reform can play a key role in reducing future budget deficits and in
making tax law simpler, fairer and more supportive of stronger economic
growth. Republicans should recognize that limits on tax subsidies are
reductions in government spending. And if Republicans agree to a
substantial revenue increase in this way, Democrats should agree to
significant structural changes to slow the growth of Social Security and
Medicare.
The key to breaking the fiscal impasse is to reduce the government spending
done through the tax code.
Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University and
president emeritus of the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research,
was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984.
2
Received on Thu Mar 14 2013 - 12:15:30 EDT
