How Far Would $50 Billion in Taxes on the Rich Go?
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
See all Government We Deserve commentaries
To subscribe, visit the newsletter page.
How Far Would $50 Billion in Taxes on the Rich Go?
Democrats at Congress's helm are discovering what Republicans learned by the end of President Bush's
first term: they have little leeway to do anything. But, you say, isn't Congress going to try to rescind
some of the Bush tax cuts? Most likely, yes, but not enough to make much headway against many problems
that each entail annual shortfalls of hundreds of billions of dollars. By contrast, the tax changes
being considered might, at best, add $50 billion a year in increased revenues.
Where does the $50 billion come from? The only revenue increase even vaguely mentioned is repealing
recent tax cuts for the super rich (perhaps those making $200,000 a year or more). According to the
Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, $50 billion is also the approximate revenue pickup from an earlier
proposal by presidential candidate John Kerry to repeal high-income tax cuts. Even that estimate is
an overstatement, the Center indicates, since some of the increase would be dodged when individuals
take additional deductions and engage in other tax-sheltering activity.
No one has suggested abandoning the middle-class tax relief enacted over the past decade. Neither
congressional leaders nor presidential candidates would reduce many of the more expensive Bush tax
cuts: the child credit that was increased from $500 to $1,000, the "marriage penalty" relief for households
filing joint returns, and some of the rate cuts that applied to middle-income taxpayers. There's simply
not much political capital in proclaiming that the "Smith" family, with two children and $50,000 in
income, should now pay $1,500 more in income tax, losing half its child credits and paying a higher
marriage penalty and higher tax rates.
The decision to try to leave the middle class alone should not be surprising. Outside of wartime,
legislated tax increases of any significant size on America's great middle are almost nonexistent.
But, then again, so are cutbacks in their benefits.
So where will the $50 billion wrung from the rich go? Here's a tally of the many possibilities that
tempt our elected leaders:
- It might pay for one-half or one-quarter of alternative minimum tax (AMT) reform, depending on how
extensive the changes are. Both the president and the Democratic Congress have said they want the revenues
the AMT would raise, and they count it in their budget projections. These same leaders have also said
they don't want taxpayers to pay any additional AMT. In apolitical English, they need to raise taxes
on somebody to pay for AMT relief, and rescinding the Bush tax cuts on the rich isn't enough to pay
for complete reform.
- Divvy up the $50 billion and you've got about $150 per individual to alleviate middle-class worries.
Congressional Democrats have recently held various hearings on middle-class risks and concerns. They
would like to spend some money to reduce those fears. Our presidential candidates also want some of
that money to meet their promises and don't really want the current Congress to tap that well before
the election
- Both parties have now pledged themselves to deficit reduction. The $50 billion would cover a little less than one-third of the scheduled 2007 deficit.
- The $50 billion could slightly and temporarily slow down the inevitable crunch of growing Medicare
spending. It would cover just a few months of the increase in total government health costs projected
in 2010.
- Rescinding the tax cuts on the rich could cover about one-fifth of the annual shortfall predicted
for Social Security once all the baby boomers move into retirement. By then, Social Security revenues
are expected to fall short of expenses by about 2 percentage points of gross domestic product (GDP)
annually, or roughly $270 billion at today's level of output.
Blame whomever you want for today's current fiscal mess, but don't cling to any myths about how far
rescinding recent tax cuts for the rich would go toward meeting the nation's many budgetary shortfalls.
Our elected officials simply cannot get around the most fundamental of political dilemmas. Even if
they enact additional taxes on the rich—and that would not be easy—they still must either
retract many of the promises made to the middle class, increase its taxes, or both. Right now, the
leaders of both political parties consider it political suicide to lead the way.
Note to Editors: Publication of this column is encouraged and permission is hereby granted, provided
that the author is properly cited. For information or comments, e-mail [email protected].
The opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Urban Institute, its
trustees, or its sponsors.
Usage and reprints: Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site and may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact [email protected].
If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.
Disclaimer: The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute.