Tax Policy In 1997-98 I was Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Tax Analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department. Directed an office of 43 Ph.D. economists. We were responsible for economic

analyses of all tax proposals from the Administration and Congress.

The 1997 budget deal was the Administration’s top legislative priority.

The Political Environment 1992: The deficit was $290 billion and

forecast to grow to $319 billion by 1997. President Clinton was elected, in part, on the

pledge of “putting people first.” Sharp battle early in the administration about addressing

the deficit or investing in education, training and skills. 1993 tax bill passed with no Republican

votes. Raised taxes on very high income taxpayers, but was broadly perceived as a general tax increase. 1994: Democrats lost Congress for the first time

since the Truman administration.

The Environment, continued… 1995: Congress passed a budget that

cut taxes by $150 billion over 5 years and $340 billion over 10. President vetoed the bill, Government shut

down and Congress ended up passing a budget with no tax cuts.

1997: Economy was doing well, deficit performance was good. Democrats wanted to demonstrate they are

able and willing to cut taxes in a fiscally responsible manner.

Tax Policy Analysis at Treasury

Scholars’ Views on Desirable Tax Policy

The best tax system will have A broad base, so as not to favor one type of

activity over another Markets provide appropriate price signals.

Low tax rates The efficiency loss of taxes increase with the square

of the tax rate. Adding tax preferences (“loopholes”) adds complexity

to the system, violates “horizontal equity.” It undermines confidence in the system by

contributing to the feeling that someone smarter, better advised or better connected is not paying their fair share.

Cutting Taxes: What Politicians Believe

Tax expenditures meet the magic of polling. Tax expenditures are deviations from a baseline

(comprehensive) tax system. Like a direct expenditure, but in the tax code.

Home mortgage interest deduction. Research and experimentation tax credit.

Tax expenditures allow politicians to enact new programs while also cutting taxes. D’s like things focused on education and

training. R’s like things focused on capital formation.

Differences Between the D’s and R’s

Neither side supports, when push comes to shove, the reforms advocated by “good government,” tax policy people D’s like tax expenditures directed at education,

health care, training. They care about distribution and fiscal responsibility.

R’s like tax expenditures directed at capital formation and business. They talk a lot about the burden of taxes and generally wish to shrink the size of government.

Some R’s use the rhetoric of “ripping the tax system out by its roots” but that seems less popular these days.

The 1997 Budget Deal

The 1997 Budget Deal President was deeply interested in the

HOPE and lifelong learning credits and preserving the EITC. Congressional D’s, refundable child credits. Secretary Rubin, “fiscal discipline.”

Congressional majority likes capital gains tax cuts, saving incentives and estate tax cuts.

Must fit all this into a package with $130b in gross cuts and $80b in net cuts over 5 years.

My Role Create sample packages with “menus” and

explanations. Endless variations of child credits, estate and gift

tax cuts, capital gains taxes, AMT reform, IRAs, and education provisions.

Distributional analysis and “typical family” calculations.

Determine “poison pills,” effects outside the budget window.

Congress isn’t just sitting quietly. Respond to them. Enormous number of interagency, White House and

Congressional meetings. Budget passed in August, 1997.

Thoughts I Have Looking Forward

Shift Gears: Tax Policy in 2006

Even before the tax cuts in 2001 Treasury and CBO statistics told a consistent story Federal Tax burdens for a family of 4 with

median income (around $54,000) were at their 20-year low.

Family of 4 with half the median income had the lowest federal tax burden since 1966.

Family of 4 with twice the median income had nearly the lowest burdens of the last 20 years.

The 10-year surplus in 2001 was expected to be $5.6 trillion, leading to a spirited debate about cutting taxes.

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1917

1922

1927

1932

1937

1942

1947

1952

1957

1962

1967

1972

1977

1982

1987

1992

1997

2002

Sh

are

(in

%),

exc

lud

ing

cap

ital

gai

ns

Top Decile Income Share, Saez and Pikitty

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

19%

20%

1913

1918

1923

1928

1933

1938

1943

1948

1953

1958

1963

1968

1973

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

2003

Sh

are

(in

%),

exc

lud

ing

cap

ital

gai

ns

P90-95 P95-99 P99-100

Income Shares of P90-P95, P95-P99, and P99-P100, Saez and Pikitty

The Debate Surrounding the 2001 Tax Bill

Con Cut taxes very sharply for the same families that did

extremely well during the 1990s. Ugly policy: for example, it eliminates the estate tax, but

only in 2010! It comes back in 2011. Revenue better used for other things: shore up social

security and Medicare for baby boomers. Raise long-term interest rates, inhibit economic growth

Pro With surpluses forecast, some argued that it made sense

to “give back” money to the people who paid it. Lower tax rates may make the economy more productive

as people work harder, save more.

The Future of Tax Policy: Confusion or Clarity?

Tax Policy Today The FY2006 Budget is the most recent

expression of the President’s tax policy priorities. It proposes to Make permanent most of the tax cuts adopted in

the 2001 and 2003 tax bills. Lower rates from (28,31,36,39.6) to (25,28,33,35). Repeal estate tax (in 2009 it only affects married

couples with estates exceeding $7 million) Cut tax rates on dividends and capital gains Substantially increase contribution limits on wide range

of tax-preferred saving incentives. Make the $1,000 (per child) child credit permanent

(and available to all taxpayers, regardless of income).

Two Things I Am Sure About Tax policy is unlikely to be a central issue in

upcoming elections. National security (terrorism) and jobs will dominate

discussions. Tax policy will get a little attention in broader discussions of “the economy.”

The deficit is a major issue and the political process is not well-equipped to deal with it. There has been a $8.5 trillion reduction in

forecasted budget surpluses (to a $2.9t deficit). The deterioration is dramatically understated, since it

does not account for needed changes to social security and Medicare, adjust for the AMT, and makes unrealistic assumptions about security-related and other spending.

My Concerns with the President’s Proposals

Deficits are a serious issue. About 60% of the $8.5t decline is due to legislation. The

remainder is due to changes in economic and technical assumptions.

Of legislated changes, 45% is from tax cuts, 30% defense and homeland security, and 25% is domestic outlays (i.e. Medicare prescription drugs).

I fear a gulf is developing in this country between the “haves” and the “have nots,” and tax policy contributes to inequality.

2004 federal revenue was the smallest share of GDP since 1950. Spending is at its 40-year average.

The budget does not give a complete accounting of costs (see next slide…).

Costs of the President’s Proposals

Complete accounting… The AMT will take away 40% of the tax cuts by

2014 (more than 50% for $75k-$100k households and 75% for $100k-$200k households).

It is nearly certain that both parties will support an AMT “fix,” which must be financed.

Assume real discretionary spending per capita will fall by 8 percent – unlikely given homeland security needs and other issues that will arise.

Surpluses in the social security trust fund and Medicare should not be used to mask the size of the deficit in the non-retirement-trust-fund portion of the budget.

Getting to Where I Want to Go

The Future Deficits – they challenge the political system. The AMT – a classic test in political economy. Social security and Medicare – fiscal stability. Tax complexity – how can the system be made

simpler for typical families? Raise the standard deduction (lessen Sched. A). Adopt a modest capital income exclusion. Fix the looming AMT problem Rationalize the hodgepodge of saving incentives.

IRAs, Roth IRAs, SEP-IRAs, SIMPLE-IRAs, Keoghs, Education IRA, QSTPs

Reform provisions for families with children.

The Future Deficits – they challenge the political system. The AMT – a classic test in political economy. Social security and Medicare – fiscal stability. Tax complexity – how can the system be made

simpler for typical families? Raise the standard deduction (lessen Sched. A). Adopt a modest capital income exclusion. Fix the looming AMT problem Rationalize the hodgepodge of saving incentives.

IRAs, Roth IRAs, SEP-IRAs, SIMPLE-IRAs, Keoghs, Education IRA, QSTPs

Reform provisions for families with children.

The Future, continued… Too many children are being raised

in households with incomes below the poverty line. We know some effective programs

High quality preschool that involves parents. Supports – transportation, health care, child

care, wage supplements – that help “make work pay.”

These allow poor parents to support their families, provide good role models to children, etc.