Simplify, Simplify, Simplify: The First Principle of Tax Reform

Overhauling the federal tax system is one of the most important steps U.S. political leaders can take to promote economic growth and fairness. It is also that rarest of issues in today’s Washington—one that commands broad support on both sides of the political aisle. For these reasons, the Progressive Policy Institute urges the White House and Congress to give top priority to fixing our broken tax system over the next 12 months.

Everyone knows our tax code is too complicated, too inefficient and too riddled with preferences for special interests. Americans deserve better. PPI believes we need a federal tax system that is simpler and more progressive; that steers investment into productive, job-creating activity; that enables U.S. workers and companies to compete on an even footing in world markets; and, that serves the most basic purpose of any tax system—raising enough revenue to finance the government while ensuring fairness to taxpayers.

Comprehensive tax reform obviously poses daunting political obstacles. Nevertheless, it’s a goal Democrats and Republicans share. The Senate Finance Committee has published 10 papers on various options while the House Ways and Means Committee has organized 11 subgroups to consider different areas of the tax law. Over 1000 comments have been filed. With Sen. Max Baucus retiring this year, and Rep. Dave Camp term-limited as chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, the two most important players on tax policy are strongly motivated to get something done.

This paper will not offer a sweeping blueprint for reform. Instead it focuses on one crucial aspect of reform: Simplification. PPI has long argued that our tax system is too complex and ill-fitted to the needs of middle-class families and small entrepreneurs. They benefit little from the existing array of incentives and loopholes, which are mainly targeted on special interests or people with a level of income and wealth they can only dream about. The code’s byzantine complexity also costs business and individuals hundreds of billions in compliance. In a recently released annual report to Congress, the IRS’s National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson, estimated that individual and business taxpayers spent 6.1 billion hours to complete filings. The bloated federal code contains almost four million words and on average has more than one new provision added to it daily.

The code is so complex that nearly 60 percent of taxpayers hire paid preparers and another 30 percent rely on commercial software to prepare their returns.

In fact, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, only four nations have more pages of “primary tax legislation” than does the United States. And the World Bank’s www.doingbusiness.org ranks 61 nations as having tax systems friendlier to business than does the United States, while the World Economic Forum puts the U.S. tax system in 107th place in a ranking of the efficiency of 117 national tax regimes.

Congress perennially fiddles with the code, and it takes a full-time army of lobbyists to keep track of all the changes: the Treasury Department reports that there have been more than 14,400 revisions since 1986. It is imperative, then, that any comprehensive overhaul of the federal tax system not make the code even bigger and more complicated. Tax reform without dramatic simplification should not be considered genuine reform.

Download the policy brief.

“Cut and Invest” vs. Austerity

President Obama’s new budget attempts to define a progressive alternative to conservative demands for a politics of austerity. Having just returned from a gathering of center-left parties in Copenhagen, I can report that European progressives are wrestling with the same challenge, and are reaching similar conclusions.

There was wide agreement that the wrong answer is to revert to “borrow and spend” policies that have mired transatlantic economies in debt, while failing to stimulate sustained economic growth. The right answer is a “cut and invest” approach that shifts spending from programs that support consumption now to investments that will make our workers and companies more productive and competitive down the road.

“You can only have a Nordic model if you’re competitive,” declared conference host Helle Thorning-Schmidt, prime minister of Denmark. “In this country, we cannot tax more; it’s that simple,” she added. “If you like the welfare state, if you want to sustain it, you have to take the tough decisions.” Continue reading ““Cut and Invest” vs. Austerity”

Obama Budget Catching Hell From Both Sides: Why That’s a Good Sign

In his piece for the Daily Beast, John Avlon quotes PPI President Will Marshall,

“In a panicky reaction to President Obama’s budget, some liberal groups are trying to chain Democrats to a Norquist-style pledge to defend the status quo on entitlements,” says Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute. “It’s dumber than dumb, but at least it shows the country that Obama is trying to rally the center against the enemies of compromise on both sides.”

Read the entire article here.

Student Debt Crisis and the Private Sector

Does the government have a conflict of interest when it comes to student debt? On one hand, the government fills an important role in providing financial access to higher education. But on the other hand, it needs to deleverage a record-level debt that now amounts to over 70% of GDP.

This question may seem odd given the government’s move to bring the student loan market in-house over the last few years (ending its guarantee program in favor of direct loans). But it may be an important question if we want to develop a politically viable solution to the growing student debt crisis.

Bringing loans in-house saved interest and administrative costs, but it didn’t actually decrease tax payer risk: the government now has $850 billion in student debt exposure on its books, up from $381 billion in 2005. And as tuition keeps rising, public funding keeps falling, and more people pursue college, new debt issuance is growing fast – new government loans were over $100 billion last year. This is potentially problematic, especially given the recent rise in default rates, because it means fewer government assets are available to respond to future crises. Not to mention it leaves tax payers increasingly vulnerable.

Continue reading “Student Debt Crisis and the Private Sector”

Paul Ryan’s Third Strike

If Rep. Paul Ryan was chastened by his 2012 election defeat, it doesn’t show in his latest budget. It’s a defiant reaffirmation of libertarian dogma that makes no pretense of being a realistic blueprint for governing.

In fact, the House Budget Committee chairman’s new plan aims to shrink government on an even faster timetable than his previous two, balancing the federal budget in 10 years. He proposes to cut public spending by $4.6 trillion over the next decade, but raises nary a penny in new tax revenue.

That of course makes his plan radioactive to Senate Democrats and President Obama, who campaigned and won on explicit promises to take a “balanced” approach to debt reduction. Nonetheless, Ryan seems quite pleased with his handiwork. “We House Republicans have done our part,” he wrote in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal. “We’re outlining how to solve the greatest problems facing America today.”

Actually, all Ryan’s plan proves is that it is mathematically possible to balance the budget in 10 years with spending cuts alone. So what? You could achieve the same result by raising taxes the same amount. Neither is going to happen. Democrats will never accede to the first, and Republicans will never accede to the second.

Read more.

Student Debt: A Bubble More Like a Balloon

There is an intense debate as to whether the student debt crisis is a bubble or not. The short answer: yes, but it’s more like a balloon. And the good thing about balloons is that they don’t have to burst; there is an option to deflate them slowly.

In some ways the ongoing student debt crisis has the classic symptoms of a bubble. There is an artificial inflation of value (here, tuition) that is in part fueled by low-cost funding (here, government-issued student aid). The latest Federal Reserve numbers show student debt is now a staggering $1 trillion and climbing. Yet the real earnings of young college grads are falling, down 15 percent since 2000. Already student loan defaults are at 11 percent and rising. Moreover, the true default rate is actually higher because of post-graduation grace periods. Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that student loan debt is now crowding out other borrowing and spending.

In other ways the student debt crisis is different—potentially worse—than the typical financial bubble. First, student debt is uncollateralized. There’s no home or property that can be reclaimed in default. Second, student debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, or restructured to meet the repayment ability of struggling debt owners. And most importantly, the majority (85 percent) of student debt is owned by the government. That means taxpayers are directly on the hook for $850 billion in potential losses. Worse, the government doesn’t really have the option to cut back on loan issuances or raise interest rates because that would go against equal access and opportunity.

The fact that the government holds the majority of student debt is what could transform this bubble into a controlled balloon—a balloon that can be deflated slowly. We know where most student debt is; it is not as spread out across unknown entities like subprime mortgage debt.

This week we released a preliminary proposal for the creation of private-sector student debt investment fund (SDIF) that would purchase existing student loans, refinance the debt at today’s historically low interest rates, and apply a discount to the loan amount. This could be the release valve that deflates the balloon, by reducing the financial burden to debt holders and transferring risk. That could free up government resources to address another important issue—rising tuition.

Stop the Debt!

Writing for Politico, Will Marshall argues that President Obama should counter the Republican’s proposal of balancing the federal budget in 10 years with an achievable goal of stopping the debt growth this year:

Republicans have retreated twice this month on the fiscal front, but they aren’t giving up. After having been forced to swallow higher tax rates and a debt ceiling increase, they’ve regrouped behind a new demand: balance the federal budget in 10 years.

That’s not going to happen, but no matter: The GOP is making an ideological statement. President Barack Obama should counter with a realistic fiscal goal, one Congress could actually achieve this year: Stop the debt from growing.

It’s finally dawned on Republicans that control of the House doesn’t entitle them to dictate the nation’s agenda. Still, they want to keep debt reduction front and center in Washington, because it’s a proxy for what conservatives regard as the nation’s overriding priority: shrinking the federal government.

But Obama won the election, and he has other ideas. One of them is not letting the right hold America’s economy hostage to demands for brutally deep cuts in public spending. The public backs the president, as evidenced by polls showing Americans believe GOP rigidity is the chief obstacle to a fiscal compromise.

Read the piece at Politico.

Fiscal Cliff Deal Could Show the Way Toward a Grand Bargain

Writing for the Daily Beast, Will Marshall argues that Obama is in a strong position to challenge the new Congress to pass a fiscal grand bargain early in 2013:

The fiscal cliff deal finally passed by the House Tuesday night isn’t likely to lift the public’s rock-bottom esteem for the nation’s elected leaders. It took too long and delivered too little, and the spectacle of a Congress that can’t conduct the nation’s business except under extreme duress from self-imposed deadlines and penalties is infuriating.

Still the outcome wasn’t terrible—and it shows that a grand fiscal bargain is still in reach, as our deeply polarized political class seems to be relearning the art of compromise.

The deal is best understood as ratifying the 2012 election result. President Obama campaigned and won on explicit promises to raise tax rates on the rich. That mandate, plus the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts, left Republicans with no choice but to negotiate with the White House over narrowing the scope of the coming tax hike.

Read the entire piece at the Daily Beast.

Funding Cuts Hit College Students Harder Than Faculty

Fiscal cliff or not, the coming years are certain to bring cuts in public spending on higher education. The looming sequestration threatens to cut $500 billion in federal discretionary spending starting next year, leaving a multi-billion dollar hole in R&D funding at public universities. State governments have already begun higher education funding cutbacks. So as policymakers pledge austerity and deficit reduction, colleges and universities will be left in a financial pinch.

Students and university faculty and staff are the obvious targets to fill these budget holes. But who actually pays the price for cuts in university funding?

New PPI research suggests college students will bear the brunt of additional austerity imposed on colleges and universities. Looking at previous cuts in public funding, we found college students were unquestionably worse off relative to faculty and staff when it came to making up the difference. And the impact of this uneven allocation could be serious. If college students continue to pay the biggest price for austerity, the next generation of young people may think twice about the value of going to college.

That’s because college students paid a high price for cuts in university funding over the last decade, while faculty and staff were relatively unaffected.  As shown in this first graph, total tuition at four-year universities rose a staggering 35% over the last decade (in constant dollars). These rising prices are certainly behind the rising real average debt per graduate, up almost 30% over the same time.

Continue reading “Funding Cuts Hit College Students Harder Than Faculty”

Why Obama Dropped His $250,000 Tax Target

Writing for The Wall Street Journal, PPI President Will Marshall explains why Obama should show some flexibility now and set the stage for a more comprehensive tax overhaul in 2013:

Barack Obama is under pressure from his left flank to break House Republicans on the wheel of higher marginal tax rates, but he is showing flexibility in negotiations with Speaker John Boehner. This is wise. By settling for something less than unconditional surrender, the president could get a deal that will avoid plunging the U.S. economy into austerity and set the stage for a historic tax overhaul next year.

So how do we get there from here? The first step is to resolve the dispute that has snagged the fiscal-cliff talks—how to raise taxes on the rich. To the horror of tea party purists, Mr. Boehner has acceded to higher tax rates on millionaires. Obama countered on Monday by proposing higher rates on households making $400,000 or more, and he lowered his overall revenue goal to $1.2 trillion from $1.6 trillion.

The president has the edge here. If Republicans refuse to accept higher rates for any wealthy taxpayers, there will be no deal. Then tax rates will rise for all Americans, and Republicans will be blamed for driving the economy off the cliff.

Read the piece at The Wall Street Journal.

Will Marshall on Obama’s Fiscal Cliff Policy

Writing for Politico‘s Arena , PPI President Will Marshall discuses Obama’s fiscal cliff policy:

President Obama holds the whip hand on taxes.

He campaigned and won on the explicit promise of raising tax rates on the wealthiest two percent of Americans. It’s the closet thing to a mandate the 2012 elections produced. And polls make it clear that the public will blame Republicans if there’s no deal and we go off the cliff.

Deal or no deal, tax rates on the rich are going up. Unless they have a political death wish, Republicans can no longer hold the Norquist line.  So they’d be wise to negotiate with the president, angling for a top rate lower than the default rate of 39.6, in return for a promise to revisit the issue next year in the context of comprehensive tax reform. The more lawmakers succeed next year in broadening the tax base – by closing tax loopholes and preferences – the stronger argument they can make for lowering tax rates.

Read it at Politico.

 

 

Fiscal Cliff Shouldn’t Scare Homeowners, But 2013 Should

Writing for U.S. News & World Report, Jason Gold  explains the impact of the fiscal cliff on homeowners.

With the clock ticking, the nation is engrossed in Washington’s horse wrangling over the fiscal cliff, a nasty double whammy of spending cuts and tax hikes that experts predict could usher in another crippling recession.

But while Democrats defend entitlements and Republicans defend against tax increases, no bigger constituency seems to be more in the cross-hairs than homeowners. The popular mortgage-interest deduction (MID), long thought to have hands-off status, is now on the table as lawmakers try to steer the country away from plunging headlong over the fiscal cliff.

To what degree eliminating or reducing the MID, which costs the government an estimated $98 billion annually, impacts the housing market is debatable. While a potential change in the MID has caused a great deal of coverage in the news—and no doubt great anxiety for the average homeowner—most can sit back and take a deep breath … for now. The MID won’t be part of the fiscal cliff fix.

Read the entire article here.

 

Washington Insiders Tackle ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Policy Solutions

Will Marshall was a panelist at the Fix The Debt policy conference on Tuesday, Dec. 4, discussing two of the biggest issues surrounding federal budget deficits and the national debt – tax reform and healthcare

The panel called on Pres. Obama and Congress to tackle the nation’s budget problems.  The group proposed fiscal policies for entitlements, discretionary spending and raising additional revenues.

Maya MacGuineas, head of the Washington-based Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, provided introductory remarks and then Peter Cook, Bloomberg News, moderated discussions with leading corporate CEOs, top federal and state politicians along with advocacy groups and former World Bank President Robert Zoellick.

Watch the panel here.

 

 

Democrats Must Step Up on Entitlement Reform for Fiscal Cliff Deal

PPI President Will Marshall speaks to The Daily Beast regarding the compromises needed from the left to avoid the fiscal cliff:

‘It appears President Obama is serious about slowing the growth of public health and retirement costs, which is the key to bending down the curve of federal spending,’ says Will Marshall, president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute. ‘The big question now is whether leading Democrats in Congress will stand up to the Norquists of the left and put real entitlement reform on the table.’

That is the big question. Labor unions rightly believe that they were essential to the president’s winning coalition and ground-game effort in the November election. They and many liberal partisans will insist that now is not the time to make any concessions, especially on core philosophic policies like Social Security and Medicaid. They will find comfort in the arguments of some party activists and pundits who say there is no problem, that the fiscal cliff is a myth, and that current levels of deficits and debt are perfectly sustainable, especially if we just soak the rich. They are, like their conservative corollaries, embracing a feel-good reality distortion field.

Math isn’t partisan. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that because of our aging population, cumulative spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt could gobble all federal revenues by the end of the next decade. The status quo is unsustainable. We cannot simply tax or spend or borrow our way out of this problem. Striking the right decisive balance is critical to our long-term economic strength as a nation.

Read the entire article at The Daily Beast.

The 4 Issues Dragging Down the Economic Recovery

PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel was featured in the National Journal on regulatory reform:

Mitchell suggests creating a commission, modeled on the process that Congress has used to determine which military bases to realign or close, to weed out and eliminate federal spending that benefits certain businesses at the expense of others. Economist Michael Mandel of the Progressive Policy Institute suggests a similar body to reduce the government’s impact on business growth by identifying federal regulations to repeal or modify.

Read the entire National Journal article here.