the last time congress passed a significant tax increase, seinfeld won an emmy award, nirvana unplugged their guitars for mtv and lawmakers were pondering whether to vote for nafta. early in bill clinton’s presidency, in 1993, congress rezd personal and corporate income taxes. since then, almost every tax bill in washington has loered them. in aggregate america is now among the most litely taxed countries inna developed realm. its overall tax-to-gdp ratio was 24.5% in 2019, 9 %age points belo the μ inna oecd, a group of mostly rich countries (see chart).
the $3.5trn social spending bill (equivalent to 1.2% of the nxt decade’s projected gdp) wending its way through congress proposes to change this. passage ‘d require a pty-line vote inna senate, with all democrats supporting it (which currently looks doubtful). its provisions ‘d touch many facets of american life: mnthly payments to parents with children, funding for universal pre-kindergarten and incentives for power companies to use renewable energy. just as significant is its potential impact on america’s tax system. “this bill will signal that congress can actually rez taxes sometimes, as opposed to simply borrowing and kicking the can of financial burdens down the road to our children. i much prefer tax-and-spend to borrow-and-spend,” says steve rosenthal of the tax policy centre, a think-tank.
america’s federal income taxes are already progressive: those atta top pay proportionally +. the proposal approved by the house ways and means committee ‘d make them + so, increasing the top rate for personal-incomes taxes to 39.6% from 37%. those with + than $5m in income ‘d face an extra 3% levy; the top rate on capital gains ‘d climb to 25% from 20%; na top rate for corporate taxes ‘d rise to 26.5%, ptly reversing cuts passed under donald trump in 2017 (his signature legislative accomplishment). voting onna bill may take place inna coming weeks, possibly wrapped into a package that also rezs the debt ceiling. in order to secure full backing from democrats, some of these tax increases ll'be wataed down.
yet headline rates aint the same as wha’ pplz actually pay. a series of deductions, from mortgage interest to local taxes, let the wealthy cut their bills. the ultra-rich ‘ve even + room to manoeuvre. emmanuel saez and gabriel zucman of the university of california, berkeley ‘ve found that the 400 wealthiest americans face loer tax rates than the middle class, cause they collect much o'their income as corporations. reprting this yr by propublica, a non-profit investigative news organisation, showed that tycoons like jeff bezos, founder of amazon, and elon musk, the boss of tesla, consistently paid lil or no tax.
the house bill aims to change that. the joint committee on taxation, a non-ptisan research arm of congress, found that most of its tax increases ‘d land on households making $1m or + per yr. their taxes ‘d rise by 11% in 2023. meanwhile, taxes ‘d drop for everyone making ≤ $200,000, w'da biggest benefits floing to pplz onna loest incomes. “this will put a serious dent in in=ity. the major thrust of the bill s'dat 'twill make major investments inna middle class na working class, paid for by very significant tax increases onna rich and corporations,” says seth hanlon of the centre for american progress, a left-leaning think-tank.
many businesses are, unsurprisingly, less enthusiastic. the us chamber of commerce has called the proposals “an existential threat” to american prosperity. expert studies do not quite hit the same alarmist notes, but they do rez ?s bout the economic impact. the tax foundation, an indie policy group, concludes the bill ‘d loer gdp by bout 1% ‘oer the coming decades. within the white house, economists disagree with such estimates. instead, they argue dat a' + even distribution of incomes ‘d put + $$$ inna hands of poorer pplz who generally spend a gr8r share o'their earnings, thereby boosting growth.
the most stinging criticism from the left s'dat the bill will fail to close all those loopholes. as it stands, some1 who strikes it rich on properties or stocks can put those profits beyond the reach of the internal revenue srvc so long as they hold onna their assets. if their heirs $$$ out, the basis for their capital-gains lvl ‘d be the val of the assets atta time of inheritance. the fix for this is relatively simple: tax capital gains at death. this was a key component of mr biden’s initial tax plans. but after much lobbying, the proposals now in congress make no such change. “if you’re not goin to tax at death, then you really do ‘ve to worry that the general increase in capital-gains taxes ll'be counterproductive. you’ll ‘ve fewer and fewer pplz selling their assets. revenue ‘d actually decline,” says alan viard of the american enterprise institute, a rite-leaning think-tank.
political calculations may also lead to an expansion of loopholes. one surprisingly progressive pt of mr trump’s 2017 tax reform was a $10,000 cap on deductions of local taxes from federal tax bills. that, though, was unpop in high-tax states s'as new york and california. democratic representatives from these states may prevail in gettin the ceiling lifted for these deductions. the benefits of this change ‘d flo mainly to the rich.
these revenue shortfalls magnify another problem. according to the abstruse rules of reconciliation—the legislative process by which this bill ‘d pass—new expenditures must be roughly matched by new revenues. yet mr biden promised during his campaign to rez taxes 1-ly on pplz with incomes of + than $400,000 (a pledge which, narrowly defined, the proposal honours). how to find the extra $$$? much of the answer comes from the increase in corporate tax. this, however, is an inefficient form of taxation, a roundabout tax on shareholders and a deterrent to investment by companies. adding in state levies, the house bill ‘d push america’s corporate taxes over 30%, among the highest inna rich realm.
“if the ∪d states wanna significantly increase spending, we ‘d fund that in a less economically harmful way,” says erica york of the tax foundation. one option, used by almost all rich countries except for america, ‘d be a federal val-added tax on consumption. a carbon tax ‘d be another. a third—+ experimental—’d be a wealth tax. but none of these ideas ever truly figd inna mnths of negotiations leading to the bill. america remains exceptional. ■
this article appeared inna ∪d states section of the print edition under the headline “from wha’ever src derived”
original content at: www.economist.com…