Camp Plan’s Tax Expenditure Cap Marks a Step Forward

February 28, 2014 at 11:33 am

We’ve criticized its harsh cuts to many working-poor families and likely adverse long-term fiscal effects, but House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp’s tax reform proposal has positive elements as well.  One that’s received little attention is its 25 percent cap on the value of most major deductions and exclusions (such as mortgage interest and employer-provided health insurance), which would make the tax code fairer and more economically efficient.

Itemized deductions and exclusions are “upside down.”  Their value is tied to the taxpayer’s marginal tax rate, so the higher one’s tax bracket, the greater the tax benefit for each dollar that’s deducted or excluded.  Thus, the biggest tax subsidies go to high-income people, who least need them to do whatever the tax break is designed to promote, like buy a house.

For example, a banker making $675,000 receives a subsidy worth about 35 cents for every dollar of mortgage interest she deducts (assuming her itemized deductions are typical for filers at that income level), whereas a nurse making $60,000 receives a subsidy of just 15 cents on the dollar.  That’s both inequitable and inefficient.  There’s no reason why a high-income person needs a larger tax subsidy to buy a home or why the economy is better off with this tilt; if anything, a buyer with a more modest income would likely respond more to a larger tax subsidy.

Retirement accounts like 401(k)s are another example.  People with low and modest incomes are much less likely than higher-income people to have enough retirement savings, yet their 401(k) contributions receive a much smaller tax subsidy.

The Camp plan recognizes this inefficiency and reduces it.  It sets tax rates of 10, 25, and 35 percent but caps the value of many individual deductions and exclusions at 25 percent.  This limits the benefit for about the top 1 percent of filers to 25 cents on the dollar for a wide range of tax breaks, including eligible mortgage interest, contributions to retirement accounts like 401(k)s, employer-provided health insurance, and tax-exempt interest.

Making tax expenditures (like deductions and exclusions) more efficient and equitable has been at the heart of other tax reform proposals.  Examples include the tax reform plans of Fiscal Commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force, and an advisory panel on tax reform that President George W. Bush established.  President Obama has also proposed similar reforms to some major tax expenditures, as did Governor Romney.  Now, fortunately, the House’s top Republican tax-writer has effectively embraced the goal of limiting the “upside-down” nature of many provisions of the tax code.

Print Friendly

More About Chuck Marr

Chuck Marr

Chuck Marr is the Director of Federal Tax Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at CBPP.org

2 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. Tom Williams #
    1

    Really ought to go further and turn all deductions into credits at, say, 20 percent.

    • Chuck Marr #
      2

      Flat rate refundable credits would be the most efficient and equitable. The Camp plan does not go that far but it is a step forward.



Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact communications@cbpp.org.




− one = 4

 characters available