Tax Reform Debate

The House Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) Wednesday. Proponents of the law likely will use the occasion to tout its alleged economic benefits and argue that its temporary provisions should be made permanent. The title of the hearing is “Growing Our Economy and Creating Jobs,” but there is little evidence that the law does either of these things.

The Trump Administration is pushing to add or strengthen work requirements for programs that benefit low- and middle-income people but holds a different view when it comes to the wealthy. Most tax cuts enjoyed by the richest 1 percent of households under the recently enacted Tax Cuts and Job Act (TCJA) are tax cuts for unearned income.

President Trump and his allies in Congress have made many wild claims about economic growth that would result from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. And the Congressional Budget Office just released a report revealing the TCJA will, in fact, create economic growth — for foreign investors.

A new ITEP report estimates the impacts in every state of the much-discussed idea of extending the temporary provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which will expire after 2025 without further action from Congress. The report concludes that extending or making permanent these provisions would be just as skewed to the wealthy as the original law.

The campaign by Republican leaders in Congress to promote their new tax law has two prongs. One is the claim that corporate income tax cuts are already trickling down to workers, which, as we have explained, is believed by basically no economists anywhere. The other prong of their campaign is to argue that the personal income tax cuts will provide a noticeable decline in withholding from paychecks that middle-class people will notice soon. At this point, it’s helpful to look at some actual data and see how small the boost in take-home pay will really be for most Americans.

States’ attempts to work around the new federal tax law and ensure their residents continue to maximally benefit from state and local tax (SALT) deductions have been in the news since the beginning of the year. At a panel discussion for tax professionals in Washington Thursday, Thomas West, tax legislative counsel at the Treasury Department, cast doubt on proposed work-around schemes that would convert state income tax payments into “charitable contributions.”

A bipartisan proposal in Congress to eliminate the new $10,000 cap on federal deductions for state and local taxes (SALT) would cost more than $86 billion in 2019 alone and two-thirds of the benefits would go to the richest 1 percent of households. Unfortunately, “work around” proposals in some states to allow their residents to avoid the new federal cap would likely have the same regressive effect on the overall tax code.

While many provisions targeting higher education in previous versions of the tax plan were eventually dropped, little thought has been given to how the bill still raises taxes on parents at the time they are trying to pay for college tuition.

In his inaugural speech, President Trump told the world that Washington would be driven by a principle of “America First.” But the tax plans moving through Congress only put the richest Americans first. Everyone else comes after foreign investors.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin claimed for weeks that his department would release a study showing that the $1.5 trillion tax cut moving through Congress would “pay for itself.” On Monday he released a one-page memo that asserts, without evidence, that  economic growth resulting from President Trump’s policies would raise enough revenue to more than offset the costs of the tax cuts.

Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Steve Daines of Montana want the tax bill on the Senate floor to be amended to offer a more generous tax break for “pass-through” businesses. We have estimated how all the provisions in the tax bill would impact each income group under three possible scenarios. The only thing different in each scenario is the size of the deduction for pass-through income: 17.4 percent (the deduction in the bill as this is written), 20 percent and 27 percent. We find that the size of the pass-through break makes no difference for anyone who is not well off.