Would Letting All the Bush Tax Cuts Expire Make Tax Reform Easier?


My great pal Tony Fratto over at Hamilton Place Strategies is talking up the “benefits to allowing my favored Bush income tax rates to expire and return to Clinton-era tax rates for everyone.” While emphasizing the Clinton-era tax code is “suboptimal,” Fratto — a deputy press secretary to President George W. Bush — thinks a reversion would make it easier to eventually accomplish major tax reform. Fratto:

The Obama plan of only raising the top two rates on the wealthiest Americans kills any chance of income tax reform. This is important to understand: tax reform was always going to be a long shot. The forces arrayed against reform are numerous, well-organized, well-financed, dispersed across the country, and are often sympathetic groups: charities, state and local governments, the housing industry, and homeowners, just to name a few.

But tax reform becomes practically and politically impossible if the tax burden is skewed to the top as the Obama plan intends. In fact, the wealthiest Americans will face an even higher top marginal tax rate than under the Clinton years due to the increased Medicare payroll and investment taxes in Obamacare. Tax reform requires creating winners, and the pool of winners has to come from people paying taxes. Those not paying taxes today have absolutely nothing to gain from tax reform. In fact, if we only raise the top two rates, the only people who would gain from income tax reform would be the wealthy. And we can’t help the wealthy, so…no tax reform.

The Clinton tax rates create a much better basis for tax reform because more Americans will actually be paying taxes and can benefit from reform.

Now let me see if I understand this clever bit of political strategery. In other words, you have to give a critical mass of voters some skin in the game. By raising middle-class income taxes today, you could then cut them tomorrow as part of reform that would lower tax rates (at least for them) and broaden the tax base to create a more efficient, pro-growth tax code. “Yes, I am scaling back your housing/healthcare/state and local tax break, but I am also lowering your marginal tax rate.”

Now, Tony is right that the current makeup of the tax code does make it tough to do CBO-approved, revenue-neutral tax reform, as Mitt Romney found out. But I have some concerns/questions/observations (beyond concerns about a nasty 2013 recession):

1. What if Democrats decide to keep the money with no tax reform? All else equal, letting the Bush tax cuts expire would, according to the CBO, give government a gusher of money, an additional $5.1 trillion over a decade.Tax revenue as a share of GDP would average 20.6% from 2013-2012 vs.18.1% if we keep the Bush tax cuts (or about the post-WWII average).

2. With higher tax revenues, wouldn’t any near- or medium-term pressure to do entitlement reform evaporate? While annual deficits might be lower, the Medicare-Medicaid-Social Security debt bomb would still be ticking, and the longer we wait to act, the more dramatic reform will need to be.

3. If you are looking for middle-class, tax-reform sweetener, what about cutting payroll and investment taxes?

I will continue to think about this …

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 33 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Inactive

    That’s why the Republicans should propose a further cut in the payroll tax for the poor and the lower middle class, keeping the tax cut for the middle class, and raise taxes on the rich by ending or limiting deductions. · 1 hour ago

    Sure, because the tax code isn’t progressive enough already and having fewer people with skin in the game will unite the country.

    Once we class the payroll tax as an income tax, that calculation changes a bit. . . .

    The challenge is to ensure the right people are in power, with good ideas, the next time we rewrite the tax code.  Handing Obama a simple victory here would probably take us in the wrong direction.

    • #31
  2. Profile Photo Member
    Frozen Chosen:

    The House should agree to his tax increase on the 2% and then he will have to propose raising taxes on the middle class later in his term, which means Dems take the hit rather than the GOP.  Ugly I know but there just aren’t any good options here…

    I disagree.  I think Obama would be perfectly happy piling on debt rather than be seen raising taxes on the middle class.

    Of course, Obamacare already raises taxes on the middle class, but he’ll never admit it and the press will let him get away with it.

    Any taxes he raises on the middle class will be similarly hidden.  Look forward to a VAT proposal, spun as a tax on the ever-hated corporations, if he decides to raise more revenue.

    • #32
  3. Profile Photo Member

    It sounds as though Tony Fratto is basically saying “go over the cliff”– at least as a bargaining tool. 

    I’m kinda in agreement with that. While it’s hard to find where pure economic philosophy ends and political reality begins, I think it’s true that anything Congress does will include the taxes on the top going up.Given that the outcome of the Obama/Boehner negotions won’t be a 20-25% flat tax– go off the cliff! Taxes were going up anyways, at least this way we can get spending cuts. 

    Once people have to pay for their spending, maybe they’ll stop and think for a minute. 

    However, I believe that we will lose revenue at the top by increasing tax rates, the rich will find it cheaper to shelter money. Many in the middle class may retire early, but there will be many (like myself!) who couldn’t really quit their job in protest. 

    This is the only way to actually reform the tax system I think. 

    • #33
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.