AEI: Donald Trump’s tax plan would cut federal revenue by $9.5 trillion over a decade and boost the after-tax incomes of the wealthiest households by an average of more than $1.3 million a year, according to an analysis released Tuesday. Mr. Trump’s plan, which would cut tax rates and push millions of households off the income tax rolls, would reduce federal revenue by 22%, requiring either significant new borrowing or unprecedented spending cuts. … “The revenue losses from this plan are really enormous,” said Leonard Burman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which released the study. A bipartisan panel reviewed the report before its release. Mr. Trump’s website says his plan would be revenue-neutral. The center’s analysis shows otherwise.
Actually the red ink is worse than the WSJ piece would suggest. From the study itself:
The revenue loss during the second decade (2027–36) would be more than half again the first decade’s loss (in nominal terms)—a projected $15.0 trillion. The revenue losses understate the total effect on the national debt because they do not include the additional interest that would accrue as a result. Including interest costs, the proposal would add $11.2 trillion to the national debt by 2026 and $34.1 trillion by 2036. Assuming the tax cuts are not offset by spending cuts, the national debt would rise by an estimated 39 percent of GDP in 2026 and by nearly 80 percent of GDP by 2036.
And don’t expect economic growth to bail out the plan. Recall that the Tax Foundation analysis of the Trump plan found it losing $12 trillion on a static basis, $10 trillion when accounting for economic feedback — still a huuuge number.
ManhattanInstitute: Here is a question to ask Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders: What is the best tax rate to impose on high-income earners to ensure there is enough government revenue to pay for your trillion-dollar promises to voters?
Perhaps they think it is 83%, a rate that economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saezhypothesized in 2014 in a widely circulated paper. Or maybe it is 90%, which Sen. Sanders told CNBC last May was not out of the question. “Our job is not to think small,” Mr. Sanders elaborated in the Huffington Post a month later. “It is to think big.”
Progressives have often reminded us that the U.S. had such rates in the past. From 1936 to 1980, the highest federal income-tax rate was never below 70%, and the top rate exceeded 90% from 1951 to 1963. Under Ronald Reagan, the top federal rate declined to 28% by 1988 and has never reached 40% since.
The discussion of these rates can easily create the impression that the federal government collected far more money from “the rich” before the Reagan administration. And it can also leave another impression: There would be no downside to raising rates to 1950s levels, given that decade’s prosperity.
Neither impression would be correct. The effective tax rates actually paid by the highest income earners during the 1950s and early ’60s were far lower than the highest marginal rates. Few taxpayers reached the top brackets, the code was rife with loopholes, and capital gains were taxed at much lower rates.
In the 1960s, for example, the average rate paid by the top 0.1% of tax filers—the top 10th of the top 1%—ranged from 26.5% to 29.5%, according to a 2007 study by Messrs. Piketty and Saez. Even during the 20 years after the Reagan tax cuts, the top 10th of the top 1% paid an average rate of 23.7% to 33%—essentially the same as in the 1960s. In the decade following 2001, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average rate for this elite group never exceeded 32%.
Nostalgia aside for a world that never existed, few people paid the top tax rates of the 1950s and early 1960s…
Read the entire piece here at The Wall Street Journal
Then there is the Cruz plan.
WSJ: The Cruz plan would replace payroll and corporate income taxes with a 10% individual income tax and a 16% business tax that would become the chief U.S. revenue source. Like his GOP rivals, Mr. Cruz offers sizable tax cuts and a shift toward taxing consumption instead of income. But he goes further. By eliminating long-standing taxes, Mr. Cruz’s plan could change consumer prices and relationships between workers and employers now shaped by those levies.
Forecasting how this shift would ripple through the economy depends on assumptions about who pays those taxes now and who would bear the burden of the new tax.
“It’s one of the most complicated questions in economics,” said Martin Sullivan, chief economist at Tax Analysts, publisher of Tax Notes. “Every time you start talking about these incidences, it’s like a whack-a-mole thing. You talk about one thing and it comes out the other side.”
Mr. Cruz’s biggest change is, in some ways, a simple reshuffling of existing taxes.
The U.S. now taxes corporate profits at 35%. Companies deduct wages immediately but spread capital expenses over time. The cost is absorbed by shareholders and workers.
The 12.4% Social Security payroll tax is split evenly between workers and employers up to $118,500 in wages. A separate Medicare tax has no cap. Economists consider employees to bear the whole payroll-tax burden.
What Mr. Cruz calls a business flat tax—and economists call a subtraction-method value-added tax—simply combines corporate and payroll taxes. Businesses would deduct capital purchases immediately and pay a 16% rate without deducting wages. Removing the current cap effectively enlarges the payroll tax for high-income workers. More here.
