A Better Way to Tax Unearned Income

The belief that success should come from your personal initiative and hard work, rather than the good fortune of your birth, is central to our nation’s identity as the “land of opportunity.”

Rags to riches stories are deeply rooted in American history and folklore, with several of our founding fathers, such as Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin, rising from impoverished backgrounds to build a nation. Conversely, the American ethos has steadfastly rejected the “artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth,” as Thomas Jefferson writes, in favor of one built upon “virtue and talents.” Success in America is supposed to be built upon merit and hard work rather than who your parents are.

Despite this national ethos, America has fallen behind many of our international peers in creating opportunities for social mobility. In the World Economic Forum’s measure for social mobility, the United States performs worse than the Nordic countries, France, and even the United Kingdom, with their long history of hereditary aristocracy. Declining levels of intergenerational mobility have come in tandem with rising levels of wealth inequality. U.S. wealth is densely concentrated among relatively few households, with the top 10% of households today owning roughly 67% of the nation’s wealth, compared to the 2.5% for the bottom 50% of households. Even among households that are exclusively above age 50, which removes cases where people are high-income but low-wealth (such as a recent law school graduate), the wealthiest 10% of households own 70% of wealth in that age range, while the bottom 50% of households only have 3%.

This combination of low social mobility and high wealth inequality produces a self-perpetuating hierarchy of economic privilege, making it difficult to get ahead on hard work alone. As much as 60% of all wealth in the United States is inherited rather than earned. Moreover, this inheritance income is skewed toward those who already enjoy comfortable lives: In 2021, the top 10% of earners received 55% of total inherited wealth, while the bottom 40% received less than 10%. It’s perfectly natural that people who have enjoyed economic success would want to pass some of their wealth on to their children. But the privilege cannot be limitless. Entrenched aristocracies built upon generations of inherited wealth create a substantially uneven playing field and pose a threat to our democracy, as concentrated wealth, in turn, leads to concentrated economic opportunities and political power.

The best tool for reconciling this tension between individual liberty and America’s promise of equal opportunity for all is the U.S. tax system. But as the next section of this paper explains, the current estate tax is undermined by large exemptions and loopholes that make it easy to avoid for even the wealthiest families. It has also become deeply unpopular with the general public after years of anti-tax Republicans arguing that, because taxes are already levied on the income a person earns during their lifetime, taxing the assets a person leaves behind is an unfair “death tax” that amounts to double taxation. But these critiques misrepresent who actually pays the estate tax. Someone who is already dead suffers no inconvenience from the estate tax or any other tax policy; the tax is instead borne entirely by heirs who never paid any tax on the income they receive from an inheritance.

The following sections of this paper offer federal policymakers a technical framework for reforming the taxation of intergenerational wealth transfers to progressively raise revenue and undercut the misleading political attacks levied against the current system. To start, we propose to replace the estate tax — which taxes a decedent’s estate — with a new system that would only tax inheritance as it is received by an heir. This approach would both limit Republican “death tax” arguments by making it more clear that the tax is paid by wealthy heirs and create a fairer system for heirs by only taxing the inheritance they actually receive as income. We also propose reforms to the gift and generation skipping transfer taxes — two taxes intended to complement the estate tax — to work better alongside our proposed inheritance tax.

Next, we offer a series of reforms to close the largest loopholes in the current wealth transfer tax system. One of the biggest is the stepped up basis, which permits previously unrealized capital gains to completely escape taxation after an asset has been passed down. In addition, our proposal takes aim at the myriad of loopholes that arise from the IRS’s favorable treatment of non-liquid assets, including tax deductions and discounts commonly abused by wealthy families. However, we also pair these reforms with expanded protections to ensure that no heir has to sell the family farm, home, or small business they inherit just to pay an onerous tax bill. Lastly, we make major reforms to the taxation of trusts, streamlining complicated tax rules and closing the many loopholes that arise from this complexity while preserving the use of trusts for valid reasons unrelated to tax avoidance.

Left out of our proposal are changes to address other vehicles that are sometimes used to avoid estate tax, such as leaving estates to questionable nonprofit “family foundations” or using life insurance to pass along wealth tax-free. Since closing these loopholes would require a much broader rethink of the taxation of nonprofits and life insurance overall, and our proposal makes them no worse than under current law, we have chosen to leave them unchanged. Despite these omissions, our proposal would be a substantial improvement over the status quo, raising several hundred billion dollars over ten years from the wealthiest households while creating a better and fairer tax regime. Furthermore, every dollar raised by taxing unearned inheritance is one that does not need to be raised by increasing taxes on the earned incomes of working and middle-class Americans, making it a strong option for policymakers to consider in the context of future tax reform or deficit reduction efforts.

Read the full report.

 

 

Many Americans Are Unprepared to Weather a Trump Economic Storm

After a pandemic-induced recession and several years of high inflation, many Americans are pessimistic about both their own personal finances and the overall economy. Unfortunately, the incoming Trump administration will likely bring more economic turbulence, with sweeping policy promises that could cause economic growth and employment to drop, while reigniting high inflation. Americans without robust savings are especially vulnerable in such turbulent times.

One of the most unnecessary contributors to inflation over the past four years was an excess of deficit-financed stimulus spending. But Trump and Congressional Republicans appear likely to repeat the mistake of their predecessors by extending and possibly expanding upon the tax cuts they enacted in Trump’s first term — which would cost more than $4 trillion over 10 years — without offsetting most of the cost. Furthermore, while the tax cuts’ largest benefits will disproportionately flow to wealthy Americans, the inflation they could cause would be borne primarily by working-class Americans who consume more of their household income than their upper-income peers. 

As both a candidate and as president-elect, Trump has promised several other policy shifts that would wreak havoc on American households’ financial stability. For example, Trump promised throughout his campaign to impose a 10-20% tariff on every imported good, with at least a 60% tariff on Chinese goods. More recently, Trump also threatened a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico, two of our largest trade partners. If implemented, these proposals would lower most Americans’ incomes by thousands of dollars, as importers pass the cost onto consumers through higher prices for everyday items.

If enacted, these policies and the many others Trump has advocated for, such as mass deportations, would send shockwaves through the economy. One prediction from the Peterson Institute for International Economics suggests severe consequences for Americans: Prices could skyrocket as much as 28% above the baseline prediction, gross domestic product could be  $6.4 trillion lower, and employment would fall in exporting industries such as agriculture and manufacturing. While other estimates may be smaller, they all point to disastrous consequences for American households if Trump succeeds in enacting the economic agenda he campaigned on. 

Households without savings to rely upon will be especially vulnerable to these economic disruptions. Emergency savings can not only provide a crucial financial cushion during unexpected events such as job loss but can also reduce reliance upon debt when a household’s costs rise faster than its income. Yet the past few years of inflation have taken a toll on American households, with 65% of adults in a Federal Reserve survey published earlier this year saying price increases have worsened their financial situation. One consequence of higher prices is that it becomes harder to adequately save for emergencies: According to the same survey, 46% of Americans surveyed did not have emergency savings to cover three months of expenses, up from 41% in 2021. Another recent survey by Blackrock found that more than one in four Americans lack any form of easily accessible savings to draw from during a crisis. 

Donald Trump’s voting base is especially at risk: Blackrock’s survey found that 36% of rural households, which backed Trump by a 28-point margin, had no form of emergency savings — one of the highest of any demographic group. But these communities will also be among the hardest hit by Trump’s economic policies: The trade wars caused by his across-the-board tariffs will not only raise the prices they pay on consumer goods, but hit export-reliant industries that are important for rural economies, such as agriculture. As other countries respond with retaliatory tariffs, the industry will suffer as American products become substantially less competitive overseas.

Ideally, policymakers should avoid pursuing policies that will cause economic uncertainty or chaos. But in any case, they should pursue policies that promote financial capability to help vulnerable households weather whatever turbulent times lie ahead. PPI will be highlighting some potential policies that could advance these objectives in the next year.

Ritz for Forbes: Democrats’ Last Act Shouldn’t Be Expediting Social Security Insolvency

By Ben Ritz

On Wednesday, outgoing Senate Majority Chuck Schumer announced his intention to bring the House-passed “Social Security Fairness Act” up for a vote before the end of the year. While the bill may sound good and have some admirable goals, passing it now as written would undermine the future of Social Security. It would be both political malpractice and bad governance for Democrats to rush this bill into law as their final act before handing control of the White House and U.S. Senate to the GOP in January.

Social Security is currently built around two core principles. The first is that workers should receive benefits based on what they paid into the program. Although this principle is heavily strained today, as workers have not paid enough in Social Security payroll taxes to cover the cost of benefits for many years now, benefits are calculated based on the average wages upon which workers paid payroll taxes over their careers. The second principle is that the benefit formula is progressive, meaning workers with lower lifetime incomes receive a greater benefit relative to the money they earned (and paid into the program) compared to higher earners.

At issue are two provisions, known as the windfall elimination provisions (WEP) and government pension offset (GPO), that attempt to enforce these principles fairly for people who spend part of their career working for state and local governments in jobs that offer pension benefits in lieu of Social Security. Earnings from these jobs are considered “uncovered,” which means workers don’t have to pay payroll taxes on the income, but those earnings also aren’t taken into account for Social Security’s benefit formula. WEP and GPO are intended to prevent someone who consistently earned a $100,000 annual salary over a career that was split evenly between covered and uncovered jobs — and thus would be treated by the benefit formula as if they received a $50,000 over their whole career — from getting a higher return on their payroll-tax contributions than someone who consistently earned $60,000 in covered employment.

Read more in Forbes.

Most U.S. Government Borrowing Just Pays for More Borrowing

Over the course of the Biden administration, the federal government borrowed more than $5 trillion to pay for programs it did not have the tax revenue to finance. Under current law, the Congressional Budget Office projects these primary deficits — the difference between non-interest spending and tax revenue — to total $7.4 trillion over the next decade.

Financing government spending with deficits is not inherently bad. In fact, it is often necessary to support the economy temporarily during widely recognized emergencies such as wars or recessions. When the crisis subsides, the government can raise taxes or reduce spending to compensate, and the debt is either repaid or at least shrinks as a share of the economy. Debt can also be a useful tool to make investments that will grow our economy over the long-term, such as funding scientific research that lays the foundation for technological progress. 

But most federal debt isn’t taken out for these productive purposes. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, more than half of the national debt could be attributed to the cumulative cost of interest payments. This means that most of our debt wasn’t used to finance tangible benefits like providing public goods, uplifting the poor, or subsidizing long-term investments. Instead, it was borrowed just to pay the cost of past debt. 

Although it might appear that the share of debt attributable to interest has since shrunk, this is an artifact from the unusual surge of borrowing to finance temporary programs following the COVID-19 pandemic. As the federal government begins paying interest on the debt accumulated over the past four years, and then pays interest on the debt used to pay for future interest payments, cumulative interest payments will snowball to the point where they again make up the majority of debt within the next decade.

The problem will only get worse as time goes on if current law remains unchanged. Over the next 30 years, cumulative interest payments are projected to grow twice as fast as gross domestic product. At the end of that window, the amount of money spent financing past debts will exceed the total value of all goods and services produced by our economy each year.

When we borrow, we are making a transfer from future taxpayers to current ones. By continuing to neglect the long-term cost of debt, we are setting our future selves and subsequent generations for a snowballing debt burden, most of which will not even have been used to buy anything other than time for politicians to procrastinate. 

Despite the nation’s deteriorating fiscal health, President-elect Trump and his Republican allies in Congress want to accumulate even more debt. Their top fiscal policy priority for next year — fully extending the expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act without offsetting the cost — would increase primary deficits by $5.2 trillion over the next 10 years alone. Implementing all of Trump’s proposals from his 2024 presidential campaign, including tax cuts on income from tips, overtime pay, and social security payments, could add as much as $13.5 trillion to primary deficits over the coming decade.

If there is one key takeaway from this analysis, it is that when policymakers pass unfunded tax cuts today, future taxpayers will be stuck with a debt burden that is many times the cost of the tax cuts themselves. When each dollar of debt we undertake is unlikely to be repaid soon, it comes with a far higher cost of interest. This should set the standard for what’s worth borrowing for higher, not lower.

Ritz for Forbes: Voters Shouldn’t Be Fooled By Trump’s Unbelievable Tax Proposals

Throughout his 2024 presidential campaign, former president Donald Trump has spontaneously proposed roughly a dozen tax cuts that sound perfectly targeted toward constituencies he likely wants to win over. For hourly workers: no taxes on overtime pay. For Nevada service workers: no taxes on tips. For the Michigan auto industry: tax deductions for car loan interest. For people in the Southeast who were recently hit by hurricanes: tax deductions for home electricity generators. For seniors: no taxes on Social Security benefits. For military members, firefighters, police, and veterans: no taxes whatsoever. Some of these proposals are so arbitrary that one might think they were pulled from a randomized policy generator.

Each proposal is so vague or riddled with obvious flaws that it suggests very little thought was given to how any of them would work. For example, since Trump announced his no tax on overtime or tips proposals, he has failed to answer some basic questions about how they could be implemented. Would these sources of income just be exempt from federal income tax, or would they also be exempt from payroll taxes that are currently earmarked for Social Security and Medicare? If the answer is yes, would workers then receive lower benefits in retirement because they paid less into the programs? And what guardrails would be put in place to prevent high-income professionals from simply reclassifying their income as tips or overtime pay?

What about Trump’s proposal to eliminate income taxes on Social Security benefits? Like payroll taxes, the revenue collected from these taxes is legally earmarked to pay for Social Security and Medicare benefits. Both programs are currently spending more than they take in through dedicated revenue sources, and when their trust funds are exhausted — something that is already slated to happen within about a decade — benefits are automatically cut across the board. How could Trump’s promises not to cut Social Security or Medicare be squared with his tax proposals that would make these automatic cuts even bigger?

The only reasonable conclusion is that these are not serious policy proposals, they are fools’ gold to entice undiscerning voters. The swing voters who will decide the election next week shouldn’t let Trump’s pandering promises distract them from the high costs that giving him a second presidency would likely impose.

Keep reading in Forbes.

New PPI Report Proposes Solutions to Prevent Wage Theft for Everyday Americans

WASHINGTON — Across the country, many working-class Americans are struggling to make ends meet. One reason why is because their wages are being stolen from employers who are not paying them what they are legally owed. These employers either pay less than the minimum or agreed-upon wage, refuse to pay for overtime at the legally required rate, take secretive deductions from paychecks, withhold earned tips, fail to make final payments, or demand unpaid work after a shift has ended. 

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a new report titled “Ensuring Working Americans Get Paid What They Deserve,” which proposes new measures to combat wage theft. Report author Alex Kilander, Policy Analyst for PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future, argues that former President Trump’s campaign proposal to end taxes on tips and overtime will not meaningfully increase the take-home pay for the employees that need it most, and Democratic policymakers should instead pass legislation that expands the legal toolbox for wage theft enforcement in order to help working Americans.

This new publication is the eighth in a series of papers published in PPI’s Campaign for Working America, which was launched earlier this year in partnership with former U.S. Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio. The Campaign aims to develop and test new themes, ideas, and policy proposals that help Democrats and other center-left leaders make a compelling economic offer to working Americans, bridge divides on culturally sensitive issues like immigration and education, and rally public support for the defense of democracy and freedom globally. Other papers cover career paths for non-college workers, housing, and competition.

Kilander emphasizes that lawmakers need to increase the low civil penalty for initial wage theft offenders while ensuring escalating penalties for repeat offenders. This will prevent employers from stealing money from their employees’ pockets in the first place and heavily punish those who continue to do it, and replace the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) that is now in charge of preventing wage theft. However, the WHD struggles to maintain consistent enforcement actions and resolve cases quickly, forcing the agency to pare back how many cases it can accept.

“Tackling wage theft, a crime that takes thousands of dollars out of working Americans’ pockets each year, will do far more to improve the lives of the millions of tipped and overtime workers who are at risk of being cheated than misguided tax proposals,” said Kilander. “Our government should not stand idly by as dishonest employers steal billions of dollars each year from working Americans who have rightfully earned their wages. We need to make sure that employers are held accountable for their actions and stop hurting the American people.”

Read and download the report here.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Ensuring Working Americans Get Paid What They Deserve

Campaign for Working America PPI

INTRODUCTION

A core component of the Trump campaign’s pitch to working Americans is a package of costly tax cuts that sound targeted toward their interests, such as exempting income from tips and overtime pay from taxation. But amongst the many problems with these budget-busting proposals, they wouldn’t meaningfully increase the take-home pay of the many working-class individuals, who have little to no income tax liabilities at all.

A better way for Democrats to boost the incomes of working Americans is to ensure they are actually paid what they are owed in the first place. Tackling wage theft, a crime that takes thousands of dollars out of working Americans’ pockets each year, will do far more to improve the lives of the millions of tipped and overtime workers who are at risk of being cheated than misguided tax proposals.

Read the full report.

PPI Report Warns of Economic Risks in Trump’s Proposed Tariff Agenda

WASHINGTON —Throughout his 2024 campaign, former President Donald Trump has made imposing a double-digit tariff on all imports and a 60% tariff on goods from China a central pitch to voters, and has even suggested replacing the income tax with tariff revenue. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released a critical new report, “It’s Not 1789 Anymore: Why Trump’s Backwards Tariff Agenda Would Hurt America,” authored by Laura Duffy of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future, which warns of the steep costs of Trump’s plans to impose taxes on all imports at levels not seen since the Great Depression.

In the report, Duffy draws striking parallels between Trump’s plan and the debates over and effects of historical tariff policies going back to 1789. She argues returning to tariff-heavy strategies would not only make it impossible to fund government spending commitments that have grown since the country’s founding, but would also harm downstream industries and greatly burden American taxpayers and workers.

“When the United States was much poorer and less developed, tariffs were one of the only feasible ways to collect revenue. But even as far back as 1789, leaders recognized the weaknesses of relying on tariffs as a basis of our tax system,” said Duffy. “Today, no developed country relies on tariffs as a major revenue source, and Trump’s tariff proposals would be fiscally irresponsible, economically destructive, and costly to American families.”

Duffy outlines four main problems with Trump’s tariff proposal:

  • Inadequate Revenue Generation: Modern government spending levels cannot be supported by tariffs alone, which generate far less revenue compared to income taxes.
  • Non-Transparency: Tariffs are complex and hidden, making them vulnerable to special interests and rent-seeking by domestic industries.
  • Equity Concerns: Tariffs likely place a disproportionate burden on low-income households, which tend to spend more on imported goods.
  • Economic Disruption: Tariffs raise costs for industries relying on imports and invite retaliation from other countries, leading to reduced production and lost jobs.

Because of these issues with tariffs, Duffy argues that the shift to tax income instead of trade was a success for progressive policy goals and the United States’ growing global leadership role alike. Instead of turning back the clock to a much earlier (and less prosperous) era of American history as Trump suggests, Duffy recommends the United States address its budget deficits and promote equity by shifting the tax code towards fairer and less destructive taxes like a value-added tax.

Read and download the report here.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.orgFind an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

It’s Not 1789 Anymore: Why Trump’s Backwards Tariff Agenda Would Hurt America

Introduction

“[W]e should find no advantage in saying that every man should be obliged to furnish himself, by his own labor, with those accommodations which depend on the mechanic arts, instead of employing his neighbor, who could do it for him on better terms.”

— James Madison

In a stark break from nearly a century of fiscal and trade policy, former president Donald Trump has made imposing significant import tariffs a central part of his policy agenda for a second term. At various times, he has campaigned to put a 10% to 20% tariff on all imports and a 60% tariff on goods from China, and he has even speculated about completely replacing the income tax with tariff revenue. If he were elected and made good on these promises, the average tariff rate would soar to levels not seen since Congress imposed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930.

Though Trump’s proposals to base the tax system on tariffs have been virtually unheard of in the post-World War II era, debates over tariffs are as old as our country itself. During the 18th and 19th centuries, when the federal government’s obligations were dramatically smaller than today, tariffs were indeed the major source of tax revenue. Contrary to Trump’s claims that imposing Depression-Era level tariffs will restore America to a supposed former state of greatness, leaders of the past long recognized the weaknesses of relying on tariffs for revenue, and their concerns offer valuable lessons today. In particular, tariffs:

1. Fail to raise enough revenue to finance a modern federal government.
2. Are especially non-transparent taxes that invite preferential treatment.
3. Undermine equity by imposing arbitrarily unequal tax burdens on different households.
4. Cause damage to downstream industries and the economy as a whole.

As a result of these weaknesses, the United States (in line with every other advanced economy) largely abandoned tariff-heavy fiscal policy by the mid-20th century to facilitate the federal government’s expanding socioeconomic goals and greater role in the world. Revisiting the contentious history of tariffs in the United States — going all the way back to the Tariff Act of 1789 — reveals why Trump’s promise to return to using tariffs as a basis of tax policy would severely undermine the United States’ fiscal stability, tax fairness, and economic growth today.

Read the Full Report.

 

New PPI Report Proposes to Repeal and Replace the Biggest Tax Paid by Working Americans

WASHINGTON — With major provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act set to expire at the end of next year, the president and Congress elected less than two weeks from today will have a historic opportunity to craft a new tax code that is fairer, more pro-growth, and more fiscally responsible. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released a new report, A Real Tax Cut for Working Americans: Repealing and Replacing the Payroll Tax,” that offers a bold proposal to do just that by repealing the regressive and anti-work payroll tax, which is the biggest tax 123 million American households pay on their hard-earned wages. 

This new publication, which is authored by Ben Ritz, Vice President of Policy Development for PPI, and Laura Duffy, a Policy Analyst at PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future, is a key output of PPI’s Campaign for Working America, launched earlier this year in partnership with former U.S. Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio. The Campaign aims to develop and test new themes, ideas, and policy proposals that help Democrats and other center-left leaders make a compelling economic offer to working Americans, bridge divides on cultural issues like immigration and education, and rally public support for the defense of democracy and freedom globally.

“Donald Trump has spent months pandering to workers by offering to exempt everything from tips to overtime pay from taxation. But these proposals would collectively add trillions of dollars to inflationary budget deficits while providing little benefit to the overwhelming majority of working Americans who earn most of their income through ordinary wages,” said Ritz. “PPI’s proposal, on the other hand, would increase most workers’ take-home pay while reducing our nation’s unsustainable deficits.”

The report proposes adopting a value-added tax to replace the revenue lost by repealing the payroll tax, which would spread the burden of taxation from workers’ wages to other forms of business income and previously accumulated wealth. PPI estimates that the swap could increase after-tax income for up to 90% of working families while also reducing annual budget deficits by up to $300 billion. It would also lower marginal tax rates on most workers’ wages, boosting individuals’ incentives to work and driving the innovations that grow our economy.

“Virtually all of the United States’ peer countries rely on value-added taxes to finance their social programs because they’re good at raising revenue in a relatively pro-work and pro-growth way,” Duffy added. “Transforming the U.S. tax code to tax consumption instead of payrolls would therefore be a progressive and fiscally responsible way to reward work and improve the lives of working families.”  

Read and download the report here.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Ritz in MSNBC: Trump’s own followers literally laughed at his crypto debt idea

But the GOP presidential nominee wasn’t kidding about his magical solution for the national debt, which Republicans only seem to care about during Democratic presidencies. In fact, Trump made the same suggestion in a Fox News interview last month, saying that “a little crypto check” could “wipe out” the $35 trillion. If it were that easy, one wonders why he didn’t do it during his first term.

Now, the suggestion — as dumb as it sounds — seems like a way to reward the crypto bros who’ve backed Trump’s campaign. To better understand how disastrous this idea could ultimately be in practice, I recommend reading this Forbes article by analyst Ben Ritz, and this Medium article by crypto entrepreneur Tavonia Evans.

In the meantime, it appears we can add cryptocurrency to wind power, basic economicsclimate change and reproductive health to the long list of topics about which Trump is utterly clueless.

Read more in MSNBC.

Ritz for The Concord Coalition’s Facing the Future Podcast: A Radically Pragmatic Plan to Pay for Progress

 

Ben Ritz, Vice President of Policy Development at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), joins Facing the Future. Ben co-authored a PPI plan released in July called “Paying for Progress: A Pragmatic Blueprint to Cut Costs, Boost Growth & Expand American Opportunity.” The plan would balance the budget over 20 years using a mix of spending cuts, revenue increases, and economic growth. It was part of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s Solutions Initiative 2024: Charting a Brighter Future, a series of proposals from seven think tanks to set the debt on a sustainable trajectory. Concord Coalition Chief Economist Steve Robinson joined the conversation.

Ritz described the plan as a “vision for long term fiscal policy. It wasn’t just a deficit reduction exercise to us. We wanted to outline what our ideal fiscal policy looks like. We wanted it to be aspirational, but also economically pragmatic.”

According to Ritz, the 20-year balanced budget goal was chosen for two reasons. “The first is that we know there are going to be a lot of unforeseen challenges. Those challenges are going to have costs associated with them. There are going to be emergencies in the future for which we need to borrow, and so we don’t see balancing the budget as a necessary end, but we believe that putting the budget on a long term path to balance will create fiscal space for that future borrowing to not be problematic. The second reason is that this was an aspirational plan. It’s not politically realistic that our plan is going to be enacted in its entirety anytime soon and so, we wanted to overshoot that goal so that even adopting half of our recommended savings would be enough to stabilize the debt.”

Ritz described the policy choices in the plan as designed to favor investment over consumption and to fully fund the level of investment. “We prioritize public investments that will grow the economy,” he explained, and noted that any necessary tax increases should be done “in the least harmful way.”

“We know that anytime you tax something, you get less of it,” he said. “So we started by raising taxes on things that we actually want less of, like carbon pollution. Raising taxes on emissions would make us have a cleaner economy, be good for growth in the long run, and help reduce the deficit.  Beyond that, we prioritize taxing consumption over taxing work and also trying to tax what we call unearned income that you get without having to do any hard work or productive investment to generate it.”

Ritz described a number of proposed changes to both Social Security and Medicare that are designed to lower costs while preserving, or enhancing the programs’ core functions. One innovative change would be in the Social Security benefit calculation.

As Ritz explained, “Right now, Social Security benefits are based on an average of your lifetime earnings and they replace a proportion of those earnings. That proportion declines as your income goes up, and so a higher income person is getting a bigger benefit than somebody who has had a lifetime lower income. A lower percentage of their income is getting replaced, but it’s still the case that we’re giving higher benefits to higher income people. So we propose to change the benefit calculation to be based, not on your lifetime earnings, but how many years you work. Hard work will get rewarded with the same Social Security,  regardless of income. That keeps Social Security as an earned benefit, but it makes it more progressive, and it helps us reduce old age poverty, while at the same time making it more affordable for the next generation.”

“If we’re going to give one message to policymakers, it is that we raise the revenue for the government spending that we support,” he said, relating that message to the upcoming debate in 2025 over how to handle expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA).

“The original TCJA was not paid for,” Ritz observed. “It added to the deficit, which was already too big. We had a tax code that was not enough to pay for the promises our government was making, and then we raised even less revenue. And so our message to Congress with this plan is, not only do we think you need to not add to the deficit with any TCJA extension, we actually think you should be doing deficit reduction so that we can afford to pay for these investments.”

The Oregon Rebate: A Well-Intentioned Policy with Flawed Outcomes

Getting public policy right is never easy. There are almost always unintended consequences and miscalculations that can lead to negative outcomes. However, when it becomes clear that a policy will not work as promised, policymakers have a responsibility to reconsider and withdraw the proposal.

This is the case with Oregon Measure 118, also known as the Oregon Rebate. The ballot measure proposes a 3% tax on a business’s gross sales above $25 million, and would apply to both S corporations and C Corporations. The revenue generated from this tax will be distributed equally among Oregonians of all ages and income levels, providing, according to the measure’s proponents, a $1,600 rebate for each person in the state.

Unfortunately, despite its good intentions, this measure will hurt, not help Oregon families.

It would create a budget shortfall. Several nonpartisan studies indicate that a 3% tax on corporate sales is unlikely to raise enough revenue to sustain a statewide $1,600 per person rebate. To maintain the rebate, the state legislature would have to cut expenses elsewhere, potentially affecting critical services like road maintenance, firefighting, and addiction recovery. Some estimates suggest that if the rebate were to become law, the state could end up with about $400 million less to spend on basic government services in the 2025-27 budget cycle.

The most vulnerable in Oregon would be left worse off. Although the Oregon Rebate was designed to create a basic level of income for all state residents, in reality, the budget shortfall will likely encourage cuts to vital safety net programs.

It would lead to higher prices for goods and services. The sales revenue tax established to fund the rebate would likely lead to higher prices, including for basic goods like food and transportation. The Legislative Revenue Office estimated that the gross receipts tax established in the measure is expected to increase prices by 1.3%. With average annual personal consumption expenditures estimated at $52,200 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a 1.3% increase in prices would add $679 in expenses per household. This would effectively diminish the value of the $1600 rebate, making it far less beneficial than it initially appears.

It would create unnecessary job losses. While historically low at 4.1%, the unemployment rate in Oregon has risen since last year, and many predict job creation will slow nationally. Unfortunately, Measure 118 could exacerbate this trend because a tax on gross corporate sales would harm businesses that have low profit margins.  Unlike a traditional corporate income tax which is levied on net income or profits, the Oregon Rebate proposes a tax on gross sales, applying the same tax rate regardless of a company’s profitability. This would place a disproportionate burden on businesses with high revenues but low profit margins. In response, companies with marginal profits might choose to move out of Oregon or distort their business decisions by reducing sales to minimize tax exposure, which would negatively impact corporate growth and innovation.

Given the problems with the design of the Oregon Rebate, it is not surprising that the proposal is opposed by leaders from both political parties, including Oregon House Speaker Julie Fahey, Senate President Rob Wagner, House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, Senate Majority Leader Kathleen Taylor, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, and Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham. Ensuring corporations pay their fair share is an important goal and one that should be pursued. But that is not what would be achieved should Measure 118 become law.

Ritz for Forbes: No, Welfare Isn’t ‘What’s Eating The Budget’ – This Is

By Ben Ritz

column in the Wall Street Journal last week by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) and former Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas), titled “Welfare is What’s Eating the Budget,” argued that “means-tested programs, not Medicare and Social Security, are behind today’s massive debt.” And it’s profoundly wrong.

To make their argument, Arrington and Gramm rely upon a measure called “unobligated general revenue,” which they define as “total revenue net of Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes and premiums and mandatory interest on the public debt.” They argue that means-tested “welfare” programs – those that provide benefits only to people below a certain income threshold – claim a higher share of this revenue than Medicare and Social Security, making them the bigger fiscal challenge facing the federal government. Even if this metric were the appropriate one for comparison (and I’ll explain why it isn’t), it wouldn’t support the assertion that welfare is a bigger contributor to today’s budget deficits than Medicare and Social Security.

The chart below shows the change in total spending on means-tested programs and general revenue used to cover the gap between dedicated revenue and spending on Medicare and Social Security benefits each year since 2001 – the last year in which the federal budget was balanced. In almost every year, the increase in annual welfare spending relative to 2001 levels was less than or equal to 1% of gross domestic product (GDP). The only exceptions were the years following the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic, both of which were times in which unemployment sharply increased and so more people fell into the social safety net. By comparison, the same measurement for general revenue used to pay for Medicare and Social Security was roughly twice that amount in every one of the last 15 years.

Keep reading in Forbes.

Ritz for Forbes: There’s A Better Way To Cut Taxes For Workers Than Exempting Tips

By Ben Ritz

When Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) first proposed to exempt tips from federal income taxes last month, it sounded to many like a common-sense way to give tax relief to working Americans who feel left behind by Washington policymakers. But the proposal was deeply flawed: low-income service workers already have little-to-no federal income tax liability. The main beneficiaries would be savvy professionals who reclassify the bulk of their income from wages to tips, for which the legislation introduced by Cruz had no guardrails to protect against. Tax experts from across the political spectrum rightly panned the idea.

Unfortunately, Kamala Harris gave bipartisan cover to this dubious new loophole by endorsing a modified version of it last weekend. Harris marginally improved upon the GOP proposal by calling to limit tax-exempt tips to workers in the service and hospitality industry, and only for those whose total annual incomes are below a number to be specified later. But let’s say she were to use the same income threshold of $125,000 that the Biden administration used for other “means-tested” policies over the past four years. Is it really fair for a server at a high-end restaurant making $125,000 to pay a lower tax rate than a retail worker or public-school teacher making half as much? No.

If Harris or Trump want to give real tax relief to working families across the country, the right way to do so would be by repealing the 15.3% federal payroll tax that workers and their employers pay on labor income up to $168,600. The average waiter would see their annual take-home pay increase by up to $5,000 if the payroll tax were repealed, which is more than twice the tax cut they would get if tips were exempted from federal income taxes. And unlike the misguided tip tax exemption, this policy would also benefit working Americans who earn most of their incomes through wages instead of tips.

Although repealing the payroll tax in isolation from other tax and spending reforms would be prohibitively expensive for the federal government, my team at the Progressive Policy Institute published a comprehensive blueprint last month that shows it can be done while simultaneously putting the federal budget on a path back to balance within 20 years.

Keep reading in Forbes.

Ritz for Forbes: No, Bitcoin Won’t Solve Our National Debt

By Ben Ritz

At a Bitcoin conference last weekend, Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) announced forthcoming legislation that would direct the Treasury to buy 1 million Bitcoin, or roughly 5% of the global stock, over five years (which would cost between $60 billion and $70 billion at today’s prices). Lummis claimed that the federal government would be “debt-free because of Bitcoin” if her proposal is enacted, because these Bitcoin could be sold by the federal government at a profit after 20 years. Unfortunately, there are both mathematical and conceptual problems that prevent such an approach from solving the federal government’s budget problems.

Let’s start with the math: The U.S. national debt today stands at nearly $28 trillion (or $35 trillion, if one includes “intragovernmental debt” the general fund owes to other internal government accounting entities such as the Social Security and Medicare trust funds). This year alone, the federal government spent roughly $2 trillion more than it raised in revenue, which had to be covered by borrowing that gets added to our national debt.

Keep reading in Forbes.