Daily Report for Executives provides in-depth coverage of unfolding legislative, regulatory, and judicial news from the nation’s capital, the states, and around the world. This daily news service...
President Donald Trump has said the Republican-backed overhaul of the nation’s tax laws would yield the biggest tax cut in U.S. history. A Treasury Department analysis of past tax cuts, however, shows that the cut would probably have to be much larger to achieve that distinction.
Instead, according to estimates by tax and budget think tanks, the resulting loss in tax revenue would be smaller than Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts, and smaller than the 2012 “fiscal cliff” deal and the 2010 tax cut extension that preceded it.
The White House, though, said it is looking at the changes in tax rates, not the amount of revenue that would be forgone, when discussing the size of the tax proposal, and that that supports Trump’s claim.
The proposal’s size will likely take on a higher profile in coming weeks as lawmakers begin to discuss tax reform’s thorniest issues in an attempt to pass an overhaul before 2018 begins. While Republican lawmakers in 2016 largely sold the overhaul as a revenue-neutral way to make the IRS code more efficient—and thus not a tax cut, at least in revenue terms—Trump has recently taken to touting it as either the biggest tax cut in history or, sometimes, merely the biggest since Ronald Reagan.
“My administration is working every day to lift the burdens on our companies and on our workers so that you can thrive, compete, and grow. And at the very center of that plan is a giant, beautiful, massive—the biggest ever in our country—tax cut,” Trump said in a speech to the National Association of Manufacturers Sept. 29.
Trump repeated the claim in a televised interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity Oct. 12. “It’s a reform, but it’s a massive tax cut,” he said. “This is the largest tax cut in the history of our country.”
On Oct. 11, Trump tweeted, “Republicans want the biggest tax cut in history & the WALL!”
In a speech in Indianapolis two days earlier, Trump said, “Before we go on to discuss the largest tax cut in our county’s history, I also want to provide a brief update on health care.”
Measured on revenue, the Republican tax plan would need to be much larger to be the biggest tax cut, according to a ranking of tax bills compiled by a Treasury Department analyst in 2006 and updated in 2013. Jerry Tempalski, with the department’s Office of Tax Analysis, ranked tax bills from the 1940s through 2012 by the amount of revenue raised or lost, as measured by several different metrics. Those included both dollar amounts, as well as the amounts in proportion to the size of the economy and as a proportion of projected federal revenue.
“The single best measure for most purposes is probably the revenue effect as a percentage of GDP, because it eliminates the effects of inflation, real economic growth, and the size of total federal receipts,” Tempalski wrote.
While data until 1968 weren’t as consistent compared with the post-1968 era, Tempalski wrote that the biggest tax bills were World War II-related. The Revenue Act of 1942 (Pub. L. No. 77-753) raised revenue equivalent to more than 5 percent of gross domestic product. At the war’s end, much of it was reversed, as the Revenue Act of 1945 (Pub. L. No. 79-214) cut tax revenue by 2.67 percent of GDP.
Post-1968, Tempalski’s rankings were led by the 1981 tax cut and the moves to either extend or make permanent the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.
The 1981 tax cut—the Economic Recovery Tax Act (Pub. L. No. 97-34)—was projected to cut revenue by 2.89 percent of GDP, while the fiscal cliff deal—the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-240)—was projected to cut revenue by 1.78 percent of GDP. That law made permanent most of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 as temporary measures under President George W. Bush.
The 2010 tax cut—the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-312)—was the first, two-year extension of those tax cuts and the third-biggest tax cut in the post-1968 period in Tempalski’s rankings, at 1.31 percent of GDP. Tax-cut advocates often dismiss the 2010 and 2013 bills as not being true tax cuts because they mostly extended existing tax breaks, saying it was politically untenable to think those would be allowed to expire.
After those two bills, the next largest tax cut on the percentage of GDP basis was under President Jimmy Carter—the Revenue Act of 1978 (Pub. L. No. 95-600)—at 0.83 percent of GDP.
Len Burman, co-founder of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and an institute fellow at the Urban Institute, said Reagan’s 1981 tax cut would be equivalent to about $7 trillion over 10 years in today’s dollars.
In contrast, estimates of the revenue loss from the GOP tax plan range from $1.5 trillion to $2.4 trillion over the next decade. The first figure is the amount in the Senate Budget Committee budget resolution that a tax cut would be allowed to increase the 10-year deficit and still pass the Senate with 51 votes. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has put the shortfall at $2.2 trillion, while the Tax Policy Center has put the gap at $2.4 trillion.
Translated into percentage of GDP figures, those estimates would equal 0.5 percent to 0.6 percent of GDP over 10 years.
Some lawmakers and Kevin Hassett, chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, have questioned the accuracy of the Tax Policy Center estimates, saying important details of the plan that would affect the deficit estimate haven’t been settled on yet.
The White House also challenged the idea of using revenue as the yardstick of a tax cut. A White House spokeswoman emailed Bloomberg BNA Oct. 6 to say, “It’s the biggest rate cut when you include the corporate side since we’re cutting the corporate rate by 15 points.”
Asked if that meant the change in rates was the metric by which the administration was measuring the tax cut, the spokeswoman said, “It is one of the metrics we’re using.”
On that basis, the proposal still draws a mixed comparison with the previous, largely revenue-neutral tax reform effort in 1986. Unless lawmakers include a higher fourth tax bracket, the GOP proposal would bring the individual income tax bracket down from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, a cut of 4.6 basis points, and the corporate income tax rate down to 20 percent from 35 percent, a decrease of 15 basis points. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-514) cut the top individual rate to 28 percent from 50 percent, a decrease of 22 basis points, and the corporate rate to 33 percent from 46 percent, a cut of 13 basis points.
In Burman’s view, aiming to have the largest tax cut in history is a misguided impulse.
“It’s a terrible idea,” Burman said. “Debt is about 75% of GDP, the highest level in about 70 years, and unlike 70 years ago, we can’t look forward to a baby boom to spur GDP growth in decades ahead. Instead, we are retiring, putting huge demands on the federal budget.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan Nicholson in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Paul Hendrie at pHendrie@bna.com
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)