The Corner

No Easy Exclusions in Tax Reform

As the debate over tax reform and revenue increases has developed, Mitt Romney’s suggestion to raise taxes (on the rich, essentially) with a cap on itemized deductions has gained some traction. The Tax Policy Center has assessed the idea at a few different levels, and the amount of revenue you can raise is really quite substantial: A $25,000 cap could raise about $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, which is substantially more than the president’s proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for high-income earners would raise. (The president also has a plan to limit the value of deductions for those earning over $250,000 by capping the value of these deductions at 28 percent, down the 30 or so percent those taxpayers would otherwise get; this raises, according to the president’s budget, $584 billion over ten years.)

One of the problems with a cap like that, however, is that it would dramatically alter the incentives for wealthy Americans to give generously to charity. While political conservatives are understandably wary of government’s using tax policy to encourage certain activities, the charitable tax deduction has a fairly simple defense to recommend it: Americans, especially wealthy ones, are generous partly because tax policy has made it a really useful way to reduce their tax liabilities, and that generosity is a lot of the reason why American civil society flourishes. Someone’s got to pay for the little platoons, basically.

Yuval Levin has written a lot for NR about this president’s efforts to remake America as a “hollow republic“; it seems like the wrong time for conservatives to propose diverting funds Americans might send to charity to the federal government instead.

But unfortunately if unsurprisingly, exempting the charitable deduction from the cap significantly reduces the revenue the cap can be expected to raise, by a third or more (the higher the cap, the bigger the relative losses of exempting the charitable deduction). The chart below tells the story:

The moral here is that tax reform is hardly a free lunch — the president hates accelerated depreciation for corporate jets and the Right hates tax credits for solar panels, but they’re not the really big expenditures in our tax code. However, despite the revenue lost by excluding the charitable deduction, one fact to recommend the policy is that, obviously, no one is too worried about the distortionary effects of Americans’ giving too much to charity, or less so, you assume than we should be about inflating the housing market or accruing unnecessary health-care costs.

Patrick Brennan — Patrick Brennan is a writer and policy analyst based in Washington, D.C. He was Director of Digital Content for Marco Rubio's presidential campaign, writing op-eds, policy content, and leading the ...

Most Popular

Culture

Cold Brew’s Insidious Hegemony

Soon, many parts of the United States will be unbearably hot. Texans and Arizonans will be able to bake cookies on their car dashboards; the garbage on the streets of New York will be especially pungent; Washington will not only figuratively be a swamp. And all across America, coffee consumers will turn their ... Read More
National Security & Defense

The Warmonger Canard

Whatever the opposite of a rush to war is — a crawl to peace, maybe — America is in the middle of one. Since May 5, when John Bolton announced the accelerated deployment of the Abraham Lincoln carrier group to the Persian Gulf in response to intelligence of a possible Iranian attack, the press has been aflame ... Read More
NR Webathon

We’ve Had Bill Barr’s Back

One of the more dismaying features of the national political debate lately is how casually and cynically Attorney General Bill Barr has been smeared. He is routinely compared to Roy Cohn on a cable-TV program that prides itself on assembling the most thoughtful and plugged-in political analysts and ... Read More