Top
Brief, Tax Policy, Economic Growth
Penn Wharton Budget Model
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax: ...

  • 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.

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax: Budgetary and Economic Effects
Blog Post, Tax Policy
Penn Wharton Budget Model
The Revenue-Maximizing Capital Gains Tax Rate: ...

Under current law, PWBM estimates that a 33% capital gains tax rate maximizes revenue, but this rate increases to 42% if stepped-up cost basis at death were eliminated.

Blog Post, Tax Policy, Economic Growth
Penn Wharton Budget Model
Policy Options: Increase Tax Rates on Capital ...

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.

Blog Post, Tax Policy, Economic Growth
Penn Wharton Budget Model
Policy Options: A 1% Value-Added Tax

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.

Blog Post, Tax Policy, Economic Growth
Penn Wharton Budget Model
Policy Options: A Carbon Tax of $30 per ton

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.

Public Investment

, , , ,

Total Cost of Universal Pre-K, Including New Facilities

, , , ,
Total Cost of Universal Pre-K, Including New Facilities

We estimate that each new preschooler for a universal pre-K program requires about $21,000 in new construction costs for facilities expansion. Including non-construction costs, a universal pre-K program for three- and four-year-olds will cost about $351 billion over the 10-year budget window. If made permanent after 10 years, this program will have essentially no impact on long-run GDP. A pre-K program for just four-year-olds reduces the 10-year cost to $196 billion and slightly increases long-run GDP, if that program is made permanent.

, , , , , , , ,

President Biden’s FY2023 Budget Proposal: Budgetary and Economic Effects

, , , , , , , ,
President Biden’s FY2023 Budget Proposal: Budgetary and Economic Effects

We project that President Biden’s FY2023 Budget, taken as a whole, would reduce debt and grow the economy by 0.4 percent over time, with two major components of the Budget---"Build Back Better” and “New Provisions”---working in opposite directions.

, , , , , ,

The Impact of the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376) on Inflation

, , , , , ,
The Impact of the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376) on Inflation

PWBM projects that the spending and taxes in the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376), as written, would add up to 0.2 percentage points to inflation over the next two years and reduce inflation by similar amounts later in the decade. As an illustrative alternative, if temporary major spending provisions were made permanent, the bill would add up to a third of a percentage point to near-term inflation and have a negligible impact on inflation later in the decade.

, , , ,

Macroeconomic Effects of the White House Build Back Better Budget Reconciliation Framework

, , , ,
Macroeconomic Effects of the White House Build Back Better Budget Reconciliation Framework

PWBM estimates that the White House’s Build Back Better reconciliation framework would increase spending by $1.87 trillion over the 10-year budget window and revenues by $1.56 trillion over the same period. By 2050, the proposal would increase federal debt by 2.0 percent and decrease GDP by 0.1 percent, relative to the current law baseline.

, , , , , ,

Sens. Manchin and Schumer’s 2021 Senate Budget Reconciliation Agreement: Macroeconomic and Distributional Effects

, , , , , ,
Sens. Manchin and Schumer’s 2021 Senate Budget Reconciliation Agreement: Macroeconomic and Distributional Effects

PWBM projects that the long-run aggregate macroeconomic effects of Senator Joe Manchin's $1.5T reconciliation framework would be negligible. The economic benefits would largely accrue to younger, poorer households while the economic costs would fall mostly on richer households.

, , , , , , , ,

The Macroeconomic Effects of the August 2021 Senate Budget Reconciliation Package

, , , , , , , ,
The Macroeconomic Effects of the August 2021 Senate Budget Reconciliation Package

  • Drafting a budget from the August 2021 Senate reconciliation framework that satisfies the Senate rules of reconciliation (“Byrd Rule”) will require a decrease in new outlays or a large increase in revenues (or both) after the standard 10-year budget window.

  • One such potential reduction in spending would allow the new non-healthcare related discretionary spending provisions to expire after 2031.

  • With this reduced spending in 2031, we project that the reconciliation package will decrease GDP by 4.0 percent in 2050. Without this spending decrease (and where the Byrd Rule is not satisfied), we project a 4.8 percent fall in GDP in 2050.

, , , ,

Economic Effects from Preschool and Childcare Programs

, , , ,
Economic Effects from Preschool and Childcare Programs

By 2051, we find that a combination of targeted preschool and targeted childcare programs increase GDP by 0.1 percent relative to current policy, even if deficit financed. Universal versions of these programs are more costly and would instead reduce GDP by 0.2 percent by 2051.

, ,

Updated Bipartisan Senate Infrastructure Deal: Budgetary and Economic Effects

, ,
Updated Bipartisan Senate Infrastructure Deal: Budgetary and Economic Effects

The bipartisan Senate infrastructure deal, endorsed by President Biden, authorizes about $548 billion in additional infrastructure investments, which we estimate is funded by $132 billion in new tax provisions and $351 billion in new deficits. We project that proposal would have no significant effect on GDP by end of the budget window (2031) or in the long run (2050).

, , , , , , , , ,

President Biden’s FY2022 Budget Proposal: Budgetary and Economic Effects

, , , , , , , , ,
President Biden’s FY2022 Budget Proposal: Budgetary and Economic Effects

PWBM estimates that President Biden’s FY2022 budget proposal would increase spending by $6.1 trillion and increase revenue by $3.9 trillion over the 2022-2031 budget window. By 2050, we project that the President’s budget proposals would decrease public debt by 5.1 percent and decrease GDP by 1.5 percent relative to current law.

, ,

Bipartisan Senate Infrastructure Deal: Budgetary and Economic Effects

, ,
Bipartisan Senate Infrastructure Deal: Budgetary and Economic Effects

The bipartisan Senate infrastructure deal, endorsed by President Biden, authorizes $1.2 trillion of spending, representing about $579 billion in additional infrastructure investments funded by a mix of deficits, user fees, and other tax provisions. This proposal would increase output in 2050 by 0.1 percent.

, , ,

Republican and Bipartisan Infrastructure Proposals: Budget and Economic Effects

, , ,
Republican and Bipartisan Infrastructure Proposals: Budget and Economic Effects

We estimate that Sen. Capito’s $330 billion infrastructure package, funded by user fees over 8 years, would increase GDP by about 0.05 percent in 2050. A $579 billion infrastructure investment being considered by a bipartisan group of senators, would increase output in 2050 by 0.1 percent if funded by user fees or have roughly zero net effect on GDP if deficit financed.

, ,

Explainer: Economic Effects of Infrastructure Investment

, ,

Public infrastructure investment boosts the productivity of private capital and labor, leading to higher output, but this positive effect can be offset if the investment is financed with additional government borrowing. PWBM estimates that an illustrative 10-year, $2 trillion public investment plan will raise public capital by 4.6 percent but lower private capital by 0.8 percent in 2040, with a net zero effect on GDP in 2040.

, , ,

President Biden's American Families Plan: Budgetary and Macroeconomic effects

, , ,
President Biden's American Families Plan: Budgetary and Macroeconomic effects

PWBM projects that the American Families Plan (AFP) would spend $2.5 trillion, about $700 billion more than the White House’s estimate, over the 10-year budget window, 2022-2031. We estimate that AFP would raise 1.3 trillion in new tax revenue over the same period. By 2050, the AFP would increase government debt by almost 5 percent and decrease GDP by 0.4 percent.

, , ,

President Biden’s $2.7 Trillion American Jobs Plan: Budgetary and Macroeconomic Effects

, , ,
President Biden’s $2.7 Trillion American Jobs Plan: Budgetary and Macroeconomic Effects

PWBM projects that the American Jobs Plan proposed by President Biden would spend $2.7 trillion and raise $2.1 trillion dollars over the 10-year budget window 2022-2031. The proposal’s business tax provisions continue past the budget window, decreasing government debt by 6.4 percent and decreasing GDP by 0.8 percent in 2050, relative to current law.

, , , , ,

Dynamic Distributional Analysis of the Biden Platform

, , , , ,
Dynamic Distributional Analysis of the Biden Platform

PWBM uses dynamic distributional analysis to evaluate the effects of the Biden platform on different age and income groups. We find that working-age individuals in the bottom 40 percent of taxable income benefit the most due to expanded health insurance, increases in housing subsidies, and lower cost of prescriptions in the Biden platform, while young, high-income individuals and wealthy retirees see net losses due to tax increases and lower returns on their savings.

, , , , , , , , ,

PWBM Analysis of the Biden Platform

, , , , , , , , ,
PWBM Analysis of the Biden Platform

Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign has released a substantial list of policy proposals. PWBM finds that over the 10-year budget window 2021 – 2030, the Biden platform would raise $3.375 trillion in additional tax revenue and increase spending by $5.37 trillion. Including macroeconomic and health effects, by 2050 the Biden platform would decrease the federal debt by 6.1 percent and increase GDP by 0.8 percent relative to current law. Almost 80 percent of the increase in taxes under the Biden tax plan would fall on the top 1 percent of the income distribution.

, ,

Short-Term Economic Effects of the Trump $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

, ,

We estimate that the anticipated Trump administration bill to invest $1 trillion in infrastructure would increase GDP up to $720 billion through June 2022.

, , ,

Short-Term Economic Effects of a “Phase 4” Infrastructure Response to Coronavirus

, , ,

We estimate that a large infrastructure bill would increase GDP by no more than $360 billion per year for 2020 and 2021. Short-run GDP expansion from new infrastructure spending is limited by available projects and likely social distancing measures, and so states could not absorb more than $300 billion per year in new federal aid over the next two years.

, , ,

Program Choice and Financing Matter for Infrastructure Plans

, , ,

PWBM’s Jon Huntley and Richard Prisinzano discussed how the financing of a federal infrastructure plan influences its effect on economic growth. Even though infrastructure investments increase productivity, plans that are deficit-financed can reduce GDP relative to current policy.

, , ,

The $2 Trillion Congressional Democrat and White House Infrastructure Proposal

, , ,
The $2 Trillion Congressional Democrat and White House Infrastructure Proposal

  • 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.

Subscribe to Newsletter
×

Sign up for our Newsletter

Subscribe:
Please select at least one option.
Subscribe