If there is one idea that everybody seems to agree on while peering over the fiscal cliff, it is that we should close the loopholes that riddle the tax code. It is offered as a painless way to raise money, like fixing a leak or ending some unfair privilege.
But there is a problem with this consensus. Many of the things the government promotes with loopholes are truly valuable to lots of Americans. Tax credits and deductions may be murky and convoluted, and perhaps are not the best way to achieve government objectives. But that doesn’t mean they serve no purpose at all.
Consider education. The federal government has helped Americans pay for college since World War II. Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty featured the Higher Education Act, which included grants and loans for low-income families. Jimmy Carter’s Middle Income Student Assistance Act vastly increased federal aid by granting access to the middle class.
Right after winning re-election to a second term, Bill Clinton set out to surpass these efforts and provide access to at least two years of higher education to all Americans. Rather than offering federal spending as the Democrats who preceded him did, President Clinton mainly offered tax breaks for higher education: $40 billion worth of them over five years, tucked into the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act.
It was a strategy for the times. Three years earlier, Republicans had taken control of both chambers of Congress for the first time since the 1950s. “Republicans would vote for any tax reduction that came along without questioning it much,” said Michael Graetz, an expert on taxation at Columbia Law School who worked in the administration of George H. W. Bush. “Democrats found that the only way they could get the kind of spending they wanted was in the form of tax benefits.”
Through the hall of mirrors that is government budgeting, President Clinton’s tax breaks for higher education accomplished two conflicting goals. They amounted to the biggest expansion in federal money for higher education since the G.I. bill. At the same time, they made the government look smaller.
Today, the political tide has turned decidedly against tax breaks. Last week, House Speaker John A. Boehner may have put President Clinton’s higher-education benefits on the chopping block. In exchange for less spending on federal entitlements, he said Republicans could drop their vow of “no new revenues” and let the government raise $800 billion over 10 years by cutting or paring tax breaks.
Though the offer to raise money by closing loopholes has a bipartisan pedigree — based on a plan proposed last year by the Democrat Erskine Bowles and the Republican Alan Simpson, the chairmen of President Obama’s deficit commission — it relies on rhetorical sleight of hand. If tax breaks are equivalent to government spending, eliminating them is equivalent to spending cuts. Mr. Boehner’s offer to do away with tax breaks in exchange for cutting entitlements raises no new revenue. It amounts to cutting spending twice.
Loopholes make up a huge chunk of our government. Known as tax expenditures in the arcane lexicon of budget experts, they have grown a lot since the early 1990s — a consequence of our increasing demand for government programs coupled with our resistance to raising taxes. Last year they added up to more than 7 percent of the nation’s economic output, a sizable figure considering that all federal taxes took some 15 percent of the economy.
Many breaks do the same job as taxing and spending. One of them, for instance, allows employers to pay for employees’ health insurance tax-free. As an alternative, the government might collect the revenue and offer health plans to workers. Rather than offer a mortgage interest deduction, the government could offer grants to help Americans buy homes. A subsidy for the poor could replace the earned-income tax credit.
According to Eric Toder and Donald Marron of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, including all the spendinglike exclusions as regular items in the budget increases the size of the federal government by about 4 percent of our gross domestic product. That’s about $600 billion in “hidden” spending through the tax code last year alone.
We may want to trim or eliminate certain tax breaks for specific reasons — because they are poorly targeted or inefficient. The exclusion for employer-provided health insurance — which will cost the government $1 trillion over the next five years, according to the Tax Policy Center — is pretty inefficient as a tool to deliver health care.
It leaves out not only the unemployed, but also 42 percent of working Americans, whose companies don’t provide coverage despite the subsidy. By encouraging unlimited spending on health by high earners, the tax break contributes to making the United States one of the most costly health care systems in the world.
Most federal tax breaks benefit primarily higher-income Americans, who face higher tax rates and therefore get a bigger break from deductions. Rather than strengthen middle-class homeownership, the deduction for mortgage interest mainly helps the affluent buy bigger homes than they otherwise would, leading to higher home prices. Critics argue that the tax break for charitable donations is often merely a subsidy for church donations and college football stadiums.
And some breaks aimed carefully to help low-income and middle-income Americans — like the earned-income tax credit — can pack some unhelpful incentives too. Even President Clinton’s tax breaks for higher education fell short of the goal. They eased the financial burden of college, for sure, but participation was much smaller than the administration had anticipated. A report by the Congressional Research Service found that the program did very little to increase enrollment.
Just because some tax breaks are inefficient and misdirected does not necessarily mean that the goals they serve are unworthy, however. It only means that there may be more effective ways to achieve government objectives.
For instance, President Obama’s fiscal stimulus made some of President Clinton’s higher-education tax credits refundable, so they could help lower-income Americans who owed no income tax and could not benefit from a tax credit.
Ending the tax break for health insurance provided by employers could make sense, for example, when subsidies are available for everybody to be insured. Tax breaks for individual retirement account contributions could be rolled back in exchange for more generous Social Security benefits for the poor.
It makes sense to have an open debate about the purpose, efficacy and cost of our many tax loopholes. But that is not the same thing as simply looking for loopholes to close. It is a debate about the purpose of government and how best to achieve its goals.
Economic Scene: Behind Tax Loopholes, Some Worthy Goals
This article
Economic Scene: Behind Tax Loopholes, Some Worthy Goals
can be opened in url
http://itchynews.blogspot.com/2012/12/economic-scene-behind-tax-loopholes.html
Economic Scene: Behind Tax Loopholes, Some Worthy Goals
