Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed a wealth tax equal to 2 percent of net worth above $50 million and 6 percent of net worth above $1 billion, which her campaign estimates would raise $3.75 trillion over 10 years.
PWBM estimates that the proposal would raise about $2.7 trillion over fiscal years 2021-2030, not including macroeconomic effects. Including macroeconomic effects, PWBM estimates that the proposal would raise about $2.3 trillion over the same period.
PWBM projects that the proposal would reduce GDP by 0.9 percent in 2050 under the standard budget scoring convention that additional revenues reduce the deficit. If the revenues were instead spent on public investments, PWBM projects GDP in 2050 would fall between 1.0 and 2.1 percent, depending on the productivity of the investment. Average hourly wages in the economy in 2050, including wages earned by households not directly subject to the wealth tax, would fall between 0.8 and 2.3 percent due to the reduction in private capital formation.
We estimate the budgetary and economic effects of increasing the top rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends from 20 percent to 24.2 percent, which is enacted on January 1st, 2021. We project that it will raise around $60 billion of additional revenue on a conventional basis over the 10-year budget window and increase GDP by 0.1 percent by 2050.
We estimate the budgetary and economic effects of a new broad-based 1 percent value-added tax (VAT) with a progressive universal rebate calculated based on earnings, which is enacted on January 1st, 2021. We project that it will raise $700 billion of additional revenue on a conventional basis over the 10-year budget window and increase GDP by 0.8 percent by 2050.
We estimate the budgetary and economic effects of a new carbon tax of $30 per ton of emissions, which is enacted on January 1st, 2021, rising by inflation plus 5 percent through 2050. We project that it raises $1.6 trillion of additional revenue on a conventional basis over the 10-year budget window and increases GDP by 2.2 percent by 2050.
PWBM projects that the ongoing coronavirus pandemic reduces the OASDI trust fund depletion date by four years, from 2036 to 2032, under the “U-shaped” recession projected by PWBM. If the recovery is faster (“V-shaped”), the trust depletion date falls by two years, from 2036 to 2034. The conventionally-measured OASDI 75-year actuarial balance worsens between 0.07 and 0.13 percent of future payroll.
Without the CARES Act, PWBM projects that U.S. GDP would have fallen at an annualized rate of 37 percent in 2020 Q2, with the unemployment rate reaching 12 percent by 2020 Q3.
PWBM estimates that the CARES Act will dampen the short-term decline in GDP to a 30 percent annualized rate in 2020 Q2, with the unemployment rate reaching 11 percent by 2020 Q3.
We project that the CARES Act will produce around 1.5 million additional jobs by 2020 Q3 and increase GDP by $812 billion over the next two years.
In response to the economic effects of the coronavirus, President Trump has proposed a payroll tax holiday that would temporarily eliminate all Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes through December 31st, 2020. PWBM projects that this payroll tax holiday would cost $807 billion if the holiday were run from April 1 through December 31, 2020.
Households in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution—those households with the highest willingness to spend their tax savings—would receive about 2 percent of the total tax cut and only a third of these households would see any tax savings due to low levels of taxable income. Tax savings would also accumulate slowly over time relative to direct government spending.
PWBM estimates that eliminating payroll taxes would have little net impact on the economy in the short run and would reduce the size of the economy by 0.1 percent in 2030 and 0.2 percent in 2050 due to additional debt.
Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s updated tax plan includes a “donut hole” payroll tax and repeals major provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for higher-income tax filers.
Relative to current law, PWBM projects that the updated Biden tax plan would raise between $3.1 trillion (including macroeconomic effects) and $3.7 trillion (not including macroeconomic effects) over fiscal years 2021-2030 while decreasing GDP by 0.6 percent in 2030 and 0.7 percent in 2050.
We project that 54 percent of the updated Biden tax plan falls on the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution, corresponding to an average tax increase of more than $1.3 million per taxpayer and an 18 percent reduction in their after-tax income. The top 1 percent of the income distribution pays about 80 percent of the tax change.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed changes to Social Security policy that increase benefits for low earners and increase program income by levying “donut hole” payroll taxes on those with earnings above $250,000 and by dedicating proceeds from a new tax on high investment income to the program.
The plan would reduce the conventionally-measured long-range imbalance by 2.3 percent of taxable payroll, leaving an imbalance of 1.2 percent of taxable payroll.
The plan would decrease GDP by 0.9 percent in 2030 and 1.0 percent in 2050 as a result of reduced capital formation due to the increased tax on investment as well as the new type of payroll tax (the “donut hole” tax) which distorts labor supply by more than the standard payroll tax.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has proposed changes to Social Security policy that would increase benefits, especially for low earners, while raising more revenues from high-earning individuals.
The plan would reduce the conventionally-measured long-range imbalance by 1.5 percent of taxable payroll, leaving an imbalance of 2.0 percent of taxable payroll.
The plan would decrease GDP by 0.6 percent in 2030 and 0.8 percent in 2050 due to a reduction in capital formation as well as a new type of payroll tax (the “donut hole” tax) that distorts labor supply by more than the standard payroll tax.
PWBM’s new interactive health insurance policy map allows you to see how health insurance coverage, costs and outcomes differ across states.
States with lower income and lower employment rates tend to also have lower health insurance coverage and broad measures of health outcomes.
These differences imply that proposed changes to health insurance policies, including those proposed by presidential candidates in the 2020 election, will affect each state differently.
Under current law, we recently projected that the percent of the population without medical insurance will more than double over the next 40 years, growing from around 10 percent today to over 27 percent by 2060. Under Sanders’ Medicare for All, the uninsured rate would essentially fall to zero by design.
We project that the Sanders’ Medicare for All would improve population health by 2060, reduce the share of the population that is seriously ill from 15 percent to 13 percent, increase life expectancy by 2 years, grow the population 3 percent, and increase worker productivity.
Taken literally, Sanders’ plan lacks a financing mechanism, which by long-standing CBO and PWBM convention implies deficit financing. Under deficit financing, we project that the Medicare for All Act would reduce GDP by 24 percent by 2060, despite large efficiency gains from lower overhead and reimbursement costs.
As a presidential candidate, Senator Sanders, however, has stated his intent to also increase taxes, although he has not specified the actual tax changes tied to Medicare for All. Accordingly, we also analyze two alternative financing mechanisms that mostly finance benefits received by workers. With premium financing, where most workers pay the same insurance premium (subsidized for lower-income workers)—similar to private insurance with no risk adjustments—we project that GDP increases slightly by 0.2 percent by 2060. With payroll tax financing, where workers with higher wages pay more, GDP falls by 15 percent.
We also provide various robustness checks to key model assumptions and plan design. For example, without the expansion of plan benefits to include long-term care or dental, but still including the elimination of most deductibles while covering all workers, GDP increases by 12 percent under premium financing. These results indicate that Medicare for All could be designed in a way that boosts economic growth.
We analyze a stylized mandatory single payer system (“Medicare for All” or “M4A”) system that provides the same benefits currently available under Medicare to the working-age population. This brief lays the foundation for future analysis of plans that expand Medicare benefits and coverage while also seeking additional cost savings.
We project that under current law, the percent of the population without medical insurance will more than double over the next 40 years, growing from around 10 percent today to over 27 percent by 2060.
We project that a shift to a mandatory single-payer system (Medicare for All) increases life expectancy by almost 2 years, grows the population size by 3 percent, and increases worker productivity through improved health, before macroeconomic feedback effects.
The choice of funding mechanism, however, is critical for macroeconomic performance. We project that financing M4A with a premium that is independent of a worker’s labor income would increase GDP by about 16 percent by 2060 through a combination of cost savings and productivity increases. In contrast, financing M4A with a new payroll tax that is proportional to a worker’s labor income would reduce GDP by roughly 3 percent, whereas deficit financing would reduce GDP by almost 15 percent by 2060.
Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed a graduated wealth tax starting at 1 percent of net worth above $32 million and climbing to 8 percent on net worth above $10 billion, which his presidential campaign has reported as raising $4.35 trillion over 10 years.
PWBM estimates that the proposal would raise about $3.3 trillion over fiscal years 2021-2030, not including macroeconomic effects. Including macroeconomic effects, PWBM estimates that the proposal would raise about $2.8 trillion over the same period.
PWBM projects that the proposal would reduce GDP by 1.1 percent in 2050. Average hourly wages in the economy in 2050, including wages earned by households not directly subject to the wealth tax, would fall by 1.0 percent due to the reduction in private capital
Former Vice President Joe Biden has proposed a plan to raise taxes on high-income households, which the Biden presidential campaign estimates would raise $3.2 trillion over 10 years. PWBM projects that this plan would raise between $2.3 trillion (including macroeconomic effects) and $2.6 trillion (not including macroeconomic effects) over fiscal years 2021-2030.
We project that more than half of the tax change falls on the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution, corresponding to an average tax increase of more than $1 million per taxpayer and a 14 percent reduction in their after-tax income. For all groups outside of the top 5 percent, average after-tax income decreases by less than 1 percent.
PWBM projects that this plan would have little impact on the aggregate economy, decreasing GDP by 0.1 percent by 2030 and increasing GDP by 0.1 percent by 2050.
Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed expanding the federal estate tax by lowering the exemption to $3.5 million for singles and $7 million for married couples as well as creating four new brackets with marginal rates up to 77 percent.
Not including macroeconomic effects, PWBM projects that this plan would raise about $267 billion in additional revenue over fiscal years 2020 - 2029.
PWBM projects that this plan would increase the percentage of decedents that would face any estate tax liability to about 0.5 percent in 2030.
We project that five major tax proposals included in Senator Michael Bennet’s “The Real Deal” would raise over $4.5 trillion dollars over the 10-year budget window (2020 - 2029) on a conventional basis before economic feedback effects.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed a wealth tax equal to 2 percent of net worth above $50 million and 6 percent of net worth above $1 billion, which her campaign estimates would raise $3.75 trillion over 10 years.
PWBM estimates that the proposal would raise about $2.7 trillion over fiscal years 2021-2030, not including macroeconomic effects. Including macroeconomic effects, PWBM estimates that the proposal would raise about $2.3 trillion over the same period.
PWBM projects that the proposal would reduce GDP by 0.9 percent in 2050 under the standard budget scoring convention that additional revenues reduce the deficit. If the revenues were instead spent on public investments, PWBM projects GDP in 2050 would fall between 1.0 and 2.1 percent, depending on the productivity of the investment. Average hourly wages in the economy in 2050, including wages earned by households not directly subject to the wealth tax, would fall between 0.8 and 2.3 percent due to the reduction in private capital formation.
The Social Security Trust Fund is projected to be depleted between 2032 - 2035, depending on various assumptions.
Upon Trust Fund depletion, Social Security’s “payable” benefits--corresponding to a precise “current law” definition and based on annual payroll taxes collected in each year-- will equal between 70 - 75 percent of the “scheduled” benefits, based on the statutory formulas currently used to determine benefit levels (“current policy”).
Since Social Security’s financial projections typically extend beyond the depletion date, a modeling assumption must be made for benefit payments (“payable” or “scheduled,” “current law” or “current policy”) after Trust Fund depletion when projecting the impact of potential Social Security reforms on the economy. This decision plays a major role in projections of different potential reforms on the economy.
In this update to our analysis, we project that the Social Security 2100 Act would eliminate Social Security’s conventional long-range imbalance while reducing the program’s short-range imbalance on a dynamic basis.
The Act reduces annual shortfalls that would otherwise add to national deficits under current policy, but at the cost of new tax distortions. In the short run, the two effects nearly offset in the macroeconomy. We project that the Act decreases GDP by 0.7 percent by 2029 and decreases GDP by 2.7 percent by 2049.
PWBM previously analyzed the Social Security 2100 bill in March of this year. Since that time, PWBM has made enhancements to both our Social Security and our dynamic overlapping generations equilibrium models. These enhancements were made as part of our ongoing process to continually develop the most flexible and dependable model possible.
Using PWBM’s new dynamic distributional analysis, we find that the Social Security 2100 Act benefits wealthy, retired households at the expense of young, high-income households.
Due to various offsets, a $2 trillion federal investment would increase infrastructure spending across all levels of government increases between $440 billion and $2,033 billion---including the original $2 trillion---based on evidence of past experience.
If a gas tax were used to fully fund the $2 trillion investment, the gas tax would have to rise by $1.67 per gallon for 10 years, thereby increasing the current federal gas tax from $0.184 (18.4 cents) per gallon to $1.854 per gallon.
If fully deficit-financed, the $2 trillion infrastructure proposal lowers GDP between 0.1 and 0.5 by 2043, relative to current policy. If fully financed with user fees or higher gas taxes it typically boosts GDP, between -0.1 and 0.4 percent by 2043.
We examine a range of policy options that put Social Security on a sustainable path.
The analysis emphasizes the need for analyzing Social Security reforms using deep modeling that reveals important interactions that challenge conventional wisdom.
Tax increases generally produce more growth than “current policy” analysis where shortfalls are combined with the standard unified surplus measure. Additional debt can be combined with changes in benefits to produce even more economic growth. Reforms that combine tax increases and progressive benefit reductions produce the most growth.
Recently, the House Ways and Means Committee introduced “Tax Reform 2.0” that includes new incentives to start up a business, enhanced savings accounts and makes permanent the individual tax cuts in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
In April of 2018, PWBM anticipated and estimated the effects of the largest piece of this legislation that makes the TCJA individual tax cuts permanent.
This brief updates that analysis for the new 10-year budget window and incorporates the rest of the provisions in “Tax Reform 2.0.”
