The Senate has
enacted a tax package as part of reconciliation legislation, and
the House is soon voting on its own version of a tax bill. This is
generating considerable debate, though some of the discussion is a
bit hyperbolic. In neither bill, for instance, is the tax relief
very large. Based on Congressional Budget Office and Joint
Committee on Taxation projections, tax collections in 2010 would
still be nearly $700 billion higher than they are today if either
bill became law. Moreover, total revenues over the next five years
would fall by less than one-half of 1 percent.
But tax bills should not be judged solely on their size. While it
generally is safe to assume that a larger tax cut will boost growth
more, the actual impact depends on whether marginal tax rates are
reduced. A revenue-neutral flat tax (even using static revenue
estimating), for instance, would have a very large positive impact
on economic performance because of lower tax rates on work, saving,
and investment. A big increase in various deductions and credits,
by contrast, would be a large tax cut but would have negligible
effects on economic performance since there would be no change in
the tax rates imposed on productive behavior.
In other words, the tax packages should be graded based on their
content. Using this economic growth yardstick, the House
legislation is much better than the Senate legislation. In
schoolhouse parlance, the House bill deserves a "B" and the Senate
bill deserves a "D."
What's Good in the House Legislation
The most notable feature of the House bill is the
provision to extend the current treatment of dividends and capital
gains until 2010. In 2003, Congress approved legislation to reduce
the double-taxation of both dividends and capital gains to 15
percent. This policy has proven to be remarkably successful.
Combined with the lower personal income tax rates that took effect
that year, the economy received a substantial supply-side tax
cut.
Ever since these lower tax rates took effect, the economy has grown
by about 4 percent annually, and about 4.5 million jobs have been
created. That's the good news. The bad news is that all of these
pro-growth tax cuts expire. The lower income tax rates disappear at
the end of 2010, and the lower tax rates on dividends and capital
gains disappear at the end of 2008.
Failure to extend these policies or make them permanent would
result in a tax increase: specifically, an increase in the
effective marginal tax rate on income that is saved and invested.
This is self-destructive; all economic theories, even socialism and
Marxism, agree that innovation-fueling capital formation is the key
to long-run growth and higher living standards.
Ideally, there should be a zero tax rate on both dividends and
capital gains. Investment income already is taxed at the corporate
level. A second layer of tax if the income is distributed
(dividends) is bad, as is a second layer of tax if the income is
reinvested (capital gains).
The House bill extends the 15 percent rate on dividends and capital
gains only until 2010, but that certainly is better than nothing.
The pro-growth impact of this policy already is compromised by
fears among investors that the 15 percent rate is temporary.
Extending the provisions until 2010 at least creates a bit more
certainty.
The House bill's other notable provision deals with the tax
treatment of small-business investment. As a general rule,
businesses may not fully deduct investment expenditures in the year
they occur. Instead, they must deduct those costs in increments
over a multi-year period: a policy called depreciation. This is
perversely illogical since the only common-sense definition of
profit is the difference between total revenues and total costs.
But not only is this illogical; it is anti-growth. In effect, tax
law treats a portion of business investment as if it were business
profit. This increases the effective marginal tax rate on business
investment.
Congress has reduced the negative impact of depreciation by giving
small businesses "expensing" treatment of the first $100,000 of
investment each year. In other words, instead of being forced to
depreciate this cost over several years, companies are allowed to
deduct such costs in the year they occur. That's the good news. The
bad news is that small-business expensing expires at the end of
2007. The House bill extends the expensing provision until
2009.
What's Bad in the House Legislation
The House bill contains a number of special provisions for
different constituencies. Some of these, such as the deduction for
tuition expenses, are bad policy. Others, such as the "Definition
of Qualified Veteran for Purposes of the Veterans' Mortgage Bond,"
represent senseless complexity and social engineering.
What's Ambiguous in the House Legislation
The House bill contains some provisions that are difficult
to quantify. Chief among these is the "Research and Development Tax
Credit." In a simple and neutral tax system, this $9 billion-plus
provision would not exist. But because the current tax system is so
heavily biased against saving and investment, there is a plausible
argument that the R&D tax credit is a way to offset some of the
negative impact, at least for certain forms of investment.
What's Good in the Senate Legislation
The only significant desirable feature of the Senate bill
is a small-business expensing provision that is identical to the
language in the House bill.
What's Bad in the Senate Legislation
The Senate bill includes many anti-growth provisions.
Other provisions probably would not harm the economy very much, but
they nonetheless represent bad tax policy, and a few are best
categorized as morally repugnant.
The anti-growth provisions include the "Economic Substance"
doctrine, a change targeting the business community that would give
the Internal Revenue Service the authority to disallow deductions
and impose penalties if bureaucrats decided that decisions were
made for tax purposes. To understand the adverse impact, imagine
that the same policy was applied to individual taxpayers. Did a
family buy a house because it was a good place to raise children,
or did they buy it for the tax deduction? Giving the IRS the power
to enforce such a vague law would cast a chill on legitimate
business activity.
The bad tax policy is found in a number of "Hurricane Tax Policy"
provisions, many of which are for special credits and bonds. Like
the House bill, the Senate bill has a tuition deduction that will
make it easier for colleges to increase costs. The Senate bill also
has a number of special tax breaks for charitable giving, further
increasing the government's influence over America's nonprofit
sector. Last but not least, the Senate bill grants even more power
to the IRS.
The morally repugnant tax policy is in the form of
anti-expatriation policies against individuals and companies that
wish to emigrate. Traditionally, only totalitarian regimes like
Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany impose exit taxes. If politicians in
Congress are upset that some taxpayers are leaving America for
jurisdictions with better tax law, they should lower tax rates and
reform the tax code, not violate fundamental freedom of
movement.
What's Ambiguous in the Senate Legislation
The Senate bill contains a "Research and Development Tax
Credit" that is very similar to the language in the House bill and,
like the version in the House bill, can be characterized as the
wrong way to do the right thing. Some of the Senate bill's
"Hurricane Tax Relief" provisions also fall into this category. The
Senate bill has provisions allowing a greater degree of expensing
for certain investments in the areas affected by the hurricane, and
expensing certainly is the right way to treat new business
investment. But to minimize government-imposed discrimination,
geographically targeted tax policy should be seen not as an end in
itself, but as a precursor to extending good policy across the
nation. The Senate bill also has a "hold harmless" provision for
the alternative minimum tax. This is the largest tax cut in the
bill, but lowering the rate associated with the AMT is the approach
that would generate economic benefits.
Conclusion
The House and Senate tax bills represent a tiny blip in
the government's finances. The basis for judging the two bills is
not the size of the tax cut, but the bills' components. The House
legislation is far superior. The good provisions, particularly the
extension of the 15 percent rate for dividends and capital gains,
exceed the bad provisions. All told, the House bill gets a
"B."
The Senate does not fare as well. Its one genuinely desirable
provision deals with small-business expensing. Its other provisions
are bad, repugnant, or irrelevant. Even though the Senate bill is a
net tax cut, it arguably would give America a worse tax code. At
best, the Senate bill deserves a "D."
Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D., is McKenna Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.