Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byRegina Merilyn Gilmore Modified over 9 years ago
1
1 Desperately Seeking Revenue Rosanne Altshuler, Katherine Lim and Roberton Williams Prepared for “Train Wreck: A Conference on America’s Looming Fiscal Crisis” USC Gould School of Law January 15, 2010 Tax Policy Center Urban Institute and Brookings Institution
2
Budget deficits as far as the eye can see…
3
Projected Budget Deficit, 2009-2019 (CBO, Current Law, August 2009) Billions ($) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
4
Projected Budget Deficit, 2009-2019 (CBO, Current Law, August 2009) Billions ($) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Cumulative 10-year deficit = $7.1 trillion
5
Is this a realistic scenario? Current law assumes 2001 and 2003 tax cuts sunset as scheduled in 2010 Congress stops “patching” the alternative minimum tax Administration baseline assumes 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended Estate tax is maintained at 2009 parameters 2009 AMT patch is extended AMT exemption, rate bracket threshold and phase-out exemption thresholds are indexed for inflation
6
Projected Budget Deficit, 2009-2019 Administration baseline Cumulative 10-year deficit = $11.1 billion Billions ($) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Cumulative 10-year deficit = $11.1 trillion
7
% of GDP Projected Budget Deficit, 2009-2019 Percentage of GDP 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
8
Can we bring federal budget deficits under control? We could cut spending or raise taxes Both routes face obstacles Congress Members are reluctant to make the spending cuts needed to make a serious dent in outlays A substantial number have pledged not to raise taxes President Obama No tax increases on families making < $250,000 a year and single taxpayers making < $200,000 But we have seen tax increases in the past two decades, so maybe we could see increases towards the end of the current budget window
9
Our goal Won’t try to balance the budget! Examine tax increases that would reduce the average deficit over the 2015-2019 period Two revenue goals Reduce average deficit to 2% of GDP Sustainable in a growing economy since growth would reduce debt as a share of GDP over time Reduce average deficit to 3% of GDP “Administration” goal voiced by Peter Orszag in November 2009
10
% of GDP Projected Budget Deficit, 2009-2019 Percentage of GDP 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
11
% of GDP Projected Budget Deficit, 2009-2019 Percentage of GDP 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2.0
12
% of GDP Projected Budget Deficit, 2009-2019 Percentage of GDP 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2.0 3.0
13
% of GDP Projected Budget Deficit, 2009-2019 Percentage of GDP 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2.0 3.0
14
Revenue targets, 2015-2019 2% revenue target Current law baseline: Requires an increase of about 1.2 percent of GDP in every year Administration baseline: Requires an increase of about 4 percent of GDP in every year 3% revenue target Current law: Requires an increase of only about 0.2 percent of GDP in every year Administration baseline: Requires an increase of about 3 percent of GDP in every year
15
Alternative ways to increase revenues Raise individual income tax rates Raise all rates proportionately (including rates on all capital gains and dividends) Raise top three tax rates proportionately (but not on long- term capital gains) Raise rates proportionately on single taxpayers with income over $200,000 and married couples filing jointly with income over $250,000 (but not on long-term capital gains) Change treatment of itemized deductions Eliminate itemized deductions Limit value of itemized deductions to 15%
16
2% Deficit Target: Current Law 2019
17
17 2% Deficit Target: Current Law 2019
18
18 2% Deficit Target: Current Law 2019
19
19 2% Deficit Target: Current Law 2019
20
20 2% Deficit Target: Administration Baseline 2019
21
21 2% Deficit Target: Administration Baseline 2019
22
22 2% Deficit Target: Administration Baseline 2019
23
23 2% Deficit Target: Administration Baseline 2019
24
24 3% Deficit Target: Current Law 2019
25
25 3% Deficit Target: Current Law 2019
26
26 3% Deficit Target: Current Law 2019
27
27 3% Deficit Target: Current Law 2019
28
28 3% Deficit Target: Administration Baseline 2019
29
29 3% Deficit Target: Administration Baseline 2019
30
30 3% Deficit Target: Administration Baseline 2019
31
31 3% Deficit Target: Administration Baseline 2019
32
Tax units by statutory rates, 2019 Current law baseline
33
Tax units by statutory rates, 2019 Administration baseline
34
2% Target: Percent change in after-tax income Current Law Baseline Current Law, 2019
35
2% Target: Percent change in after-tax income Administration Baseline, 2019
36
Revenue effects of limiting or eliminating itemized deductions, 2019 Percentage of required revenue Current law baseline Administration baseline Eliminate all itemized deductions Reduce deficit to 2% of GDP14538 Reduce deficit to 3% of GDP80551 Limit value to 15% Reduce deficit to 2% of GDP8121 Reduce deficit to 3% of GDP45128
37
2% Target: Percent change in after-tax income Administration Baseline Current Law Baseline, 2019
38
2% Target: Percent change in after-tax income Administration Baseline, 2019
39
How would taxpayers respond? We have ignored behavioral responses Likely to be large as a percent of revenue Likely to require larger tax increases once taken into account
40
Conclusions None of the options provide a realistic approach to reducing the deficit All would be progressive Cutting spending could be regressive --- need to look at combined effects All would generate potentially large efficiency costs Suggests that reducing the deficit to a sustainable level will likely require either more comprehensive tax reform or tapping a new source of revenue
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.