What a Tax Deal Might Look Like

A new emphasis on revenue, rather than rates, indicates that some grounds exist for a fiscal-cliff-averting compromise.

Add to Briefcase
Nancy Cook
Nov. 15, 2012, noon

Pres­id­ent Obama and con­gres­sion­al lead­ers have laid out the para­met­ers of a com­prom­ise on taxes, even if it’s not im­me­di­ately ap­par­ent un­der­neath their heightened par­tis­an rhet­or­ic this past week.

That com­prom­ise starts with the simple word “rev­en­ue.”

Rev­en­ue is the money flow­ing in­to the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. Talk­ing about “ad­di­tion­al rev­en­ue” does not spe­cify where that money must come from — high­er tax rates on in­di­vidu­als or in­vest­ment in­come, or caps on tax de­duc­tions, or the clos­ing of loop­holes, or even a com­pre­hens­ive over­haul of the tax sys­tem.

White House press sec­ret­ary Jay Car­ney hin­ted at the new­found flex­ib­il­ity dur­ing a Tues­day press brief­ing. He in­dic­ated that al­though the pres­id­ent already put forth a budget plan, “he is not wed­ded to every de­tail.” This leaves “rev­en­ue,” as broad as this term is, as one of the few signs of hope that Con­gress might reach a deal be­fore the fisc­al-cliff dead­line of Jan. 1.

“One thing that makes me a little san­guine is that after the elec­tion, there is less to be gained by paint­ing the oth­er side in­to a corner; 2013 is not an elec­tion year,” says Joshua Fein­man, chief glob­al eco­nom­ist at DB Ad­visors.

One pos­sible com­prom­ise between the two parties could come from lim­it­ing tax de­duc­tions — an idea that gained trac­tion this week and has been sanc­tioned by every­one from Mitt Rom­ney and oth­ers in the GOP to Demo­crat­ic lead­ers such as Sens. Dick Durbin and Max Baucus.

Lim­it­ing tax de­duc­tions isn’t a new idea. Har­vard-based eco­nom­ist Mar­tin Feld­stein has pro­posed cap­ping the de­duc­tions that tax­pay­ers could col­lect at 2 per­cent of ad­jus­ted gross in­come. Rom­ney put forth a fixed dol­lar cap, some­where between $17,000 and $50,000. And, in past budgets, Pres­id­ent Obama has sug­ges­ted lim­it­ing the value of item­ized de­duc­tions and tax ex­pendit­ures to 28 per­cent, al­though the idea has nev­er gone far in Con­gress.

“It’s very dif­fi­cult to see how you make up that tril­lion dol­lars. “ — Pres­id­ent Obama

A big prob­lem is that lim­it­ing de­duc­tions for high-in­come earners, as the pres­id­ent has pro­posed, won’t, by it­self, raise enough to sat­is­fy the pres­id­ent’s open­ing bid this week for $1.6 tril­lion in new rev­en­ue. The most re­strict­ive cap in Rom­ney’s plan of $17,000 in de­duc­tions could raise as much as $1.7 tril­lion over the next dec­ade if it is ap­plied to all tax­pay­ers, ac­cord­ing to an ana­lys­is by the Tax Policy Cen­ter. But lim­it­ing the cap to high-in­come house­holds above the $250,000 threshold re­duces the amount of money the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment could col­lect to roughly $573 bil­lion over the next dec­ade, the Treas­ury De­part­ment es­tim­ates.

“It’s very dif­fi­cult to see how you make up that tril­lion dol­lars, if we’re ser­i­ous about de­fi­cit re­duc­tion, just by clos­ing loop­holes and de­duc­tions,” Obama said at a press con­fer­ence on Wed­nes­day. “The math tends not to work.”

An­oth­er op­tion for adding rev­en­ue could be in­creas­ing taxes on in­vest­ment in­come. The House Ways and Means and Sen­ate Fin­ance com­mit­tees held a joint hear­ing re­cently on  the fu­ture of cap­it­al-gains tax rates. An ad­ded at­trac­tion of this idea, at least for lib­er­als, is that it dir­ectly hits the wealthy and thus fits in­to Obama’s tax-the-rich cam­paign nar­rat­ive.

Cur­rently, cap­it­al gains and qual­i­fied di­vidends are taxed at a rate of 15 per­cent. On Jan. 1, those rates are sched­uled to in­crease to 20 per­cent for cap­it­al gains and a top rate of 39.6 per­cent for di­vidend in­come. Treas­ury es­tim­ates that these in­creases would net the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment $242 bil­lion over the next 10 years.

Third Way, a cent­rist Demo­crat­ic think tank, cal­cu­lates that rais­ing both tax rates to 20 per­cent, as some of pres­id­ent’s pre­vi­ous budgets have sug­ges­ted, would bring in $130 bil­lion over 10 years. That’s less dough, but it would ac­tu­ally come from the rich. The Tax Policy Cen­ter es­tim­ates that 75 per­cent of
the be­ne­fits from low rates on cap­it­al gains and qual­i­fied di­vidends go to the top 1 per­cent of tax­pay­ers.

In­creas­ing these rates to some middle ground would al­low both parties to save face on the tax is­sue. The Re­pub­lic­ans could sell it as a tri­umph be­cause it doesn’t raise in­di­vidu­al tax rates, and the Demo­crats could treat it as win be­cause it would truly tar­get the well-off, not middle-class salar­ied work­ers.

The fi­nal plank in the rev­en­ue com­prom­ise could come from flex­ib­il­ity on rais­ing the up­per in­come-tax rates. Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden seemed to sig­nal some wiggle room on the Demo­crats’ po­s­i­tion dur­ing his de­bate with Paul Ry­an, when he re­peatedly re­ferred to rais­ing taxes on “mil­lion­aires.” He said it enough times that it seemed un­likely to be merely a Biden gaffe.

Demo­crats such as Sen. Chuck Schu­mer and House Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi have also sup­por­ted the idea of in­creas­ing taxes only on house­hold in­come above $1 mil­lion, while Sen­ate Fin­ance Com­mit­tee Chair­man Baucus has in­dic­ated that the top tax rate should fall some­where above 35 per­cent but not as high as the pres­id­ent pro­posed. Baucus has yet not provided a sug­ges­ted al­tern­at­ive fig­ure.

Mov­ing the defin­i­tion of an up­per-in­come earner to the high­er mark would cost the gov­ern­ment po­ten­tial rev­en­ue (as much as $366 bil­lion over the next dec­ade, says the Cen­ter on Budget and Policy Pri­or­it­ies). But, polit­ic­ally, it seems like a vi­able op­tion when paired with some com­bin­a­tion of oth­er sources of ad­di­tion­al money. For one thing, the idea en­joys broad-based sup­port among the Amer­ic­an pub­lic, and it could be easy to con­cep­tu­al­ize when selling an over­all pack­age. But wheth­er Re­pub­lic­ans are will­ing to bend at all on in­di­vidu­al in­come rates re­mains to be seen.

The real move­ment on rev­en­ue, as well as oth­er fisc­al-cliff is­sues, will have to wait un­til after Thanks­giv­ing. For now, con­ver­sa­tions are go­ing on only be­hind closed doors and only among a hand­ful of top staffers in the Sen­ate, the House, and the ad­min­is­tra­tion. But the fact that the Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans keep talk­ing about rev­en­ue in a broad man­ner, as op­posed to tax rates, leaves room for a deal. If and when they re­vert to harp­ing solely on tax rates, it will be a sure sign that ne­go­ti­ations have soured. 

This art­icle ap­peared in print as “Man­euv­er­ing Room.”


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.