Politicians
promise tax reform. If we make the system fairer, they say, we will
also be able to cut taxes.
Politicians
oppose tax reform. They enthusiastically create breaks for special
interests, though few for average taxpayers.
In
short, there’s a huge gap between promise and performance, and it
will probably grow even larger, thanks to this year’s tax handouts.
The
national debt, regularly attacked as being too large, obviously
results from deficits when spending exceeds revenues. Many
Republicans see the solution in cutting spending, not raising taxes,
and Democrats increasingly go along.
Government
spending takes two forms. Usually, money is appropriated for
specific programs. Current policy says that such spending should not
be allowed to outstrip revenues. The recently passed budget bill
finds money in some unusual places, but it balances income and
expense.
The
other form of spending is a bit more complicated. To promote certain
programs or industries, Congress creates special exemptions from
taxes, allowing those who are favored to keep their money and use it
for approved purposes.
Are
these tax expenditures covered by revenues as in the budget bill?
No, their cost is financed by new government debt, pushing up the
total owed. So much for the claim that Congress is working to cut
the federal debt.
These
exemptions are called “tax expenditures.” They are much larger
than mere “loopholes.”
Because
the same ones are renewed periodically, their advocates say they
really don’t impose new costs on other taxpayers. They overlook
the costs carried forward every year following the introduction of
tax breaks and the impact of the new breaks added each time.
Congressional
dealmakers will produce this month a massive “tax extenders”
bill. The title may make it seem like the bill continues some taxes,
but it extends tax breaks that have become a part of tax policy.
This bill could authorize tax expenditures of possibly as much as
$800 billion.
Some
of the tax breaks can only be accomplished by using tax expenditures.
Perhaps the leading example is the Earned Income Tax Credit,
intended to help low- and moderate-income workers makes ends meet.
But
many are aimed at reducing the tax burden on specific business
sectors. Some of this activity may deserve government encouragement.
The cost of that help could become part of the federal budget,
ensuring there were revenues, not more debt, to cover the spending.
Congress
doesn’t want to use the budget to support some favored enterprises.
Such support could cause a tax increase. That move is politically
unacceptable, because the aid to the private sector might face the
public spotlight of a congressional review.
Tax
expenditures are stealth spending that largely escape public
scrutiny. See if this year’s bill gets more than a sentence in the
evening news.
This
annual tax extenders bill has been negotiated by a small group in
Congress and has provided a field day for lobbyists. If they bring
home a tax cut for their clients, they can more than justify their
fees for the year.
Why
do the lobbyists have so much clout with the lawmakers? They and
their clients are among the largest contributors to political
campaigns. If you traced the dollars circulating in political
contributions, lobbying expense and tax breaks, they would all flow
back to the taxpayers who pick up the tab on government debt service
to cover the benefits.
House
Speaker Paul Ryan says he wants tax reform, but he’s unlikely to
get it. Because members of Congress depend on the political
contributions of those seeking preferences, tax reform depends on
campaign finance reform.
Real
tax reform would amount to a political earthquake. But some of
today’s beneficiaries don’t want equal treatment for all, even if
their taxes were lower. They like their preferred positions. And
lobbyists could lose much of their business if they weren’t needed
to bring home tax breaks.
There
is a simple answer to the problem created by most tax expenditures.
If those breaks in the tax extenders bill and hosts of others were
eliminated, the government could raise the same revenues with lower
rates. Taxes could be simplified with fewer and lower tax brackets.
The
U.S. has some experience with this approach, which was at the center
of the 1986 tax reform law. But it took little time for new tax
expenditures to be created and the public debt to climb.
Even
as the tax extenders bill passes, the political talk of tax reform
will continue. Among the many empty promises in politics, the
promise of tax reform may be the most meaningless.
No comments:
Post a Comment