Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Tax-code reforms vital to reeling in US deficit
Print Edition
THE US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has just delivered the bad news that the national debt is now rising faster than GDP and heading toward ratios that we usually associate with Italy or Spain. That confirms my view that the fiscal deficit is the most serious long-term economic problem facing US policymakers.
A decade ago, the federal debt was just 35 percent of GDP. It is now more than double that and projected to reach 86 percent in 2026. But that’s just the beginning. The annual budget deficit projected for 2026 is five percent of GDP. If it stays at that level, the debt ratio would eventually rise to 125 percent.
Even that projection assumes that interest rates on the national debt will rise slowly, averaging less than 3.5 percent in 2026. But if the US debt ratio really is on the fast track to triple-digit levels, investors in the US and abroad may rightly fear that the government has lost control of the budget process.
With debt exploding, foreign bondholders could begin to worry that the US will find a way to reduce its real value by stoking inflation or imposing a withholding tax on all government bond interest. In that case, investors will insist on a risk premium: higher interest rates on Treasury debt. Higher interest rates, in turn, would increase the deficit — and thus the future level of the debt ratio — even more.
The high and rising level of the national debt hurts the US economy in many ways. Paying the interest requires higher federal taxes or a larger budget deficit. In 2016, the interest on the national debt is equal to nearly 16 percent of the revenue from personal income tax. By 2026, the projected interest on the national debt will equal more than 31 percent of this revenue, even if interest rates rise as slowly as the CBO projects.
Foreign investors now own more than half of net government debt, and that proportion is likely to keep growing. Even if they are now willing to accept newly issued bonds when interest and principal on outstanding ones are due, the time will come when the US will have to pay the interest by exporting more goods and services than it imports. And boosting net exports will require a weaker dollar to make US products more attractive to foreign buyers and foreign goods more expensive to US buyers, implying a loss in Americans’ standard of living.
Increased borrowing by the federal government also means crowding out the private sector. Lower borrowing and capital investment by firms reduces future productivity growth and growth in real incomes.
So it is important to find ways to reduce the budget deficit and minimize the future debt ratio. The good news is that a relatively small reduction in the deficit can put the debt ratio on a path to a much lower level. Cutting the deficit to two percent of GDP, for example, would cause the debt ratio eventually to reach 50 percent.
Deficit reduction requires cutting government spending, increasing revenue, or both. Neither is politically easy; but neither should be impossible.
Cutting spending is made more difficult by the reductions in relative outlays that have already occurred. The share of GDP devoted to defense has fallen from 7.5 percent of GDP in 1966 to 3.2 percent of GDP this year, and the CBO projects it to fall to 2.6 percent during the next decade.
Higher marginal tax rates
Other spending is split between the annually appropriated amounts (known as non-defense discretionary spending) and the programs in which spending follows from established rules that are not subject to annual review (known as the “mandatory” spending programs, primarily Social Security retirement benefits and health-care spending).
The non-defense discretionary spending is also heading toward 2.6 percent of GDP — also the smallest share of GDP since WWII. It is the mandatory programs that have grown rapidly, driving up the deficit. The mandatory programs’ share of GDP, only 4.5 percent in 1966, is now 13.3 percent and projected to reach 15 percent in 2026. These programs are largely benefits for middle-class seniors and not welfare programs targeted at the relatively poor. That’s why most experts agree that slowing the rise in these so-called entitlement programs has to be part of reducing future deficits.
Federal taxes now take 18.3 percent of GDP and are projected to remain at that level for the next decade, unless tax rules or rates are changed. The rate structure for personal taxation has changed over the past 30 years, with the top tax rate rising from 28 percent in 1986 to more than 40 percent now. The corporate rate of 35 percent is already the highest in the industrial world.
Higher marginal tax rates would weaken incentives and distort economic decisions. That’s why I and others who think about shrinking the deficit focus on changing tax rules to limit the special features known as “tax expenditures,” which represent government spending built into the tax code. These items range from small ones, like the US$7,500 tax credit that goes to a buyer of an electric car, to large (for example, the deduction for mortgage interest and the exclusion from taxable income of employer payments for employee health insurance).
Martin Feldstein, Professor of Economics at Harvard University and President Emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research, chaired President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984. Copyright: Project Syndicate.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
