Tax Reform

Will a Lame-Duck Congress Once Again Overextend Itself?

It's time for a new approach on taxes.

|

Last year's tax reform represented a first step toward improving the tax code by making it simpler, fairer, and slightly less distortive. As Congress considers taking up a so-called tax-extenders bill before the new Democratic-controlled House is seated, any hope of continuing a reformation requires vigilance against returning to those old ways through a ritualistic revival of expired special-interest tax breaks.

Tax extenders are temporary and narrowly targeted tax provisions for individuals and businesses. Examples include the deductibility of mortgage-insurance premiums and tax credits for coal produced from reserves owned by Native American tribes. According to the Tax Foundation's Erica York, "twenty-six now expired provisions are under congressional review to determine whether they merit a permanent place in the tax code. The ten-year cost of making all 26 provisions a permanent part of the tax code would be $92.5 billion." She adds: "More than half of the remaining provisions are tax credits that subsidize certain economic activities."

These tax provisions were last authorized as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which retroactively extended them through the end of 2017, after which they have thus far been left to remain expired. If Congress indeed takes up extenders during the current lame-duck session, any extended provisions are likely to once again apply retroactively through the end of 2018, or perhaps longer.

There are several problems with this approach to tax policy. Frequently allowing tax provisions to expire before retroactively reauthorizing them creates uncertainty that undermines any potential benefits from incentivizing particular behaviors. Each extender provision restarts an economically unproductive political feeding frenzy that only benefits lobbyists.

Another issue is that not all tax extenders are a problem. Some are meant to avoid or limit the double taxation of income that's common in our tax code. Those extenders should be preserved. Yet others are straightforward giveaways to special interests. Those should be eliminated.

But this difference among tax extenders means that keeping all of them, terminating all of them or allowing them to expire (only to revive them every so often) is a terrible way to run tax policy. Unfortunately, such confusion and inefficiency are seldom obstacles to politicians who craft tax policy.

Tax extenders also enable deceptive budgeting practices. The budget baseline established by current law shows higher tax and revenue projections because it—unrealistically—assumes that the tax-extender policies last only until the end of their current extension. That means that the special-interest benefits thought to be temporary provisions aren't appropriately reflected in budget projections.

It's time for a new approach under which tax extenders are evaluated and debated on their individual merits. The emphasis should be on eliminating special-interest handouts or provisions that otherwise represent bad policy. Conversely, any and all worthy provisions should be made permanent features of the tax code.

As it happens, seven of the 26 extender provisions—namely, those dealing with business-cost recovery mechanisms like the "three-year write-off period for racehorses two years or younger"—were rendered moot by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This means that almost all of the provisions now up for consideration are exclusively special-interest privileges, which should be left to expire and never revived. They bestow narrow benefits on specific industries, such as credits for renewable energy production and biodiesel. Reauthorizing these provisions would be incompatible with any tax-reform effort that purports to make the tax code simpler and less distortionary in nature.

Earlier this year, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) proposed to do just that. He called for a "rigorous test" to determine which of the temporary provisions are worth keeping and which should be allowed to permanently expire, and he promised to draft legislation to achieve these laudable objectives.

That proposal just came out this week. Unfortunately, it fails to take a hard look at tax extenders, as Brady promised. In fact, it extends most of the provisions that should have been terminated, making this exercise—once again—a great example of the power of special-interest politics over good economics.

The dire need to fix the federal budget, along with the dysfunctional effects from extenders, should provide the additional motivation needed to end this practice once and for all.

NEXT: 8 Years in Prison for Voting Illegally Is Way Too Much

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Tax Code is too great a tool for lawmaker to purchase backing for anything to fix it short of scrapping the whole thing for a flat or consumption tax.

    1. I’ll trade you a flat-rate income tax for a 100% confiscatory inheritance tax with effective clawbacks.

      1. And I will offer you a head tax in place of all the rest.

        1. What do you have against beer? Or oral sex?

      2. “I’ll trade you a flat-rate income tax for a 100% confiscatory inheritance tax with effective clawbacks.”

        As long as I get to choose the rate, it’s a deal.

        1. You realize that the politicians will “adjust” your chosen rate, right?

  2. Alright, I am very staunchly in the hardline pro-simplification, targeted-tax-breaks-as-cronyism crowd. But even I think this is a bit much. “The dire need to fix the federal budget” should mean the dire need to reduce spending, period. It should never be used as an argument to make sure the government takes in enough tax revenue. VDR certainly knows her stuff, but the way this particular piece is written is embarrassing to our side (anti-tax-breaks). A whole article that does nothing but plead to vigilance against taxation being reduced, capped off with something about the deficits.

    There’s stuff in here that briefly touches on the economic costs of the political gamesmanship surrounding tax-break lobbying, and even more briefly upon those intrinsic to what is inherently a system of central economic planning on behalf of the politically powerful, no matter on what terms, even in the context of an overall high-taxation regime. But there’s so much material to be mined from those themes! A good piece against tax breaks should do nothing but hit them hard, not briefly glance at them and attempt to tug on our heartstrings about the needs of the poor Federal government.

  3. “Will a Lame-Duck Congress Once Again Overextend Itself?”

    Will a bear shit in the woods?

    Will Lucy snatch the football away when Charlie Brown tries to kick it?

    Will Charlie Brown try to kick the football again even though he knows Lucy will snatch it away at the last second?

    Will Trump feed the tribble he wears as a toupee?

    1. The congressional GOP pussies won’t do shot. They should. They should ram through as much shit as possible. The more controversial the better. And really stick it to the left.

      Don’t worry, none of it will happen with a pussy like Paul Ryan or a feckless technocrat like Mitch McConnell.

  4. Frequently allowing tax provisions to expire before retroactively reauthorizing them creates uncertainty that undermines any potential benefits from incentivizing particular behaviors.

    The particular behavior being incentivized is campaign contributions. As they say, when buying and selling is controlled by legislation the first thing to be bought and sold are legislators. It’s not just that hiring lobbyists and tax lawyers and accountants to mine the tax code for profit is a detraction from the core mission of producing stuff people want to buy as efficiently as possible, the heart of capitalism is foregoing short-term benefits for long-term gains and an ever-changing tax code makes it impossible to do the calculations necessary to weigh the two.

    And it’s not just the tax code itself, look at the current Trump v. GM grudge match. GM makes business decisions based on profitability under the current regime, Trump wants them to make business decisions based on his chances for re-election. If that means acting as though the primary purpose of GM is to produce jobs rather than cars, well, that’s how fascism works. Shouldn’t have gotten into bed with the bear if you’re going to complain about the occasional mauling.

  5. We’re referring to a Congress that barely accomplished anything. Why are we worried they’ll suddenly become effective legislators (where “effective” as applied to “legislators” means “able to craft legislation in such a way as to get it approved by the entire body)?”

    1. Because it’s the lame duck session. Simply put, a lot of the usual incentives that ramp up hyper partisanship are, for the moment, weaker. It’s one of the reasons you do see weird compromise legislation coming out of lame duck sessions with some regularity.

      1. “Because it’s the lame duck session. Simply put, a lot of the usual incentives that ramp up hyper partisanship are, for the moment, weaker”

        So is the influence of lobbyists, who can’t pile enough campaign money on the table to influence legislators who’ve already lost their re-election campaigns.

  6. Would be nice if they would overextend themselves into removing suppressors from NFA while they still have a chance.

  7. `yes you can essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty

    consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you

    for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins

    has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic

    media tech tab for extra element thank you…
    http://www.geosalary.com

  8. Working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    HERE http://www.SalaryHD.Com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.