WASHINGTON, DC
– Tax time in the United States
– the dreaded mid-April deadline for filing annual income-tax forms – has come
and gone. The system, Americans have been reminded, has become painfully
complex, with many a loophole through which one might try to squeeze. The fear
of an audit by the Internal Revenue Service lurks in homes across the country.
In the
policy jargon increasingly heard in today’s political discourse, tax reform
will be “revenue neutral” – meaning that it will not worsen the budget deficit
or drive up the national debt. The broader subliminal message is that you can
have whatever you currently expect in terms of government services for less
than it costs you now.
The
problem with this vision of tax reform is that it is magical – an attractive
illusion with no basis in reality. Consider the recent pronouncements of Mitt
Romney – now the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge President Barack
Obama in November. Romney wants to cut tax rates, mainly benefiting those at
the upper end of the income distribution. He also wants to close loopholes, but
none of the details that he has offered add up to much. His boldest proposal –
eliminating deductions for interest paid on mortgages on second homes – is trivial
in terms of generating revenue.
Obama is
only slightly better. While he talks less about “tax reform,” he is currently
communicating the message that merely raising taxes on rich people – the
infamous 1% – will bring the budget and national debt under control. That, too,
is a pipedream.
Americans
– and taxpayers in many other countries – need a more transparent approach to
assessing candidates’ budget proposals. In the US,
there are groups that offer their own assessments. For example, the Committee
for a Responsible Federal Budget performed an admirable service in “scoring”
the fiscal plans of rival candidates for the Republican nomination.
The
problem is that in an election with high stakes and deep polarization, who,
exactly, can voters trust? Everyone has an agenda, perceived or real. The
veracity of any organization that is funded by particular individuals, or
through less transparent corporate channels, will be called into question.
What the US
and many other countries need is an independent, competent, and experienced
body that leans neither right nor left. Fortunately, the US
has the Congressional Budget Office, which scores legislation in terms of its
budgetary impact, assesses official budget proposals, and formulates its own
economic projections. (I serve on the CBO’s Panel of Economic Advisers, which
comments on the draft forecast twice a year, but does not assess budget
proposals or anything else.)
Because
the CBO reports to the relevant congressional committees – those dealing with
tax and budgets – both Republicans and Democrats watch its every move. But the
CBO, created in the 1970’s precisely to bring greater transparency and
accountability to the rather byzantine congressional budget process, really is
independent and run by professionals.
The CBO
does not, however, score proposals by political candidates, and that is part of
the problem. In the run-up to the pre-election debates between Obama and
Romney, both sides should agree to submit detailed budget proposals in the
correct format for CBO assessment. The relevant congressional committees also
should agree to this exercise.
If one
presidential candidate refuses to cooperate in this manner, that should confer
an advantage on the candidate who is willing to disclose more fully the
specifics of his plan. And, to make this pressure to disclose meaningful, part
of one debate should focus on budget proposals, with the questions being
structured around how the CBO has reacted to specifics. If either candidate
does not want to bring the national debt under control, he should be pressed to
explain why.
This is
not a matter only for the world’s largest economies. Candidates to lead their
countries should not be allowed to get away with speaking in generalities or
engaging in vague rhetorical flourishes. Democracy can and should be better
than that.
Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, is co-founder of a
leading economics blog, http://BaselineScenario.com,
a professor at MIT Sloan, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for
International Economics, and co-author, with James Kwak, of White
House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters to
You.
老套的稅收魔術
華盛頓—美國的稅收時刻——令人不寒而栗的每年四月中旬所得稅申報截止期——來了又走了。美國人都知道，美國稅收系統極其復雜，到處都是可以利用的漏洞。每家每戶都得對國稅局的審計提心吊膽。
在如此敏感的時刻，毫不奇怪，政客們又開始兜售他們的“稅收改革”計劃了——他們說，他們可以簡化稅收系統，堵上漏洞，用堵漏得到的稅金來降低稅率。這些方案的誘惑之處在於，其他人不再能夠避稅意味著你個人可以繳納更少的稅。
用當今政治討論中越來越流行的政策術語講，稅收改革將是“收入中性”的，也就是說，它不會讓預算赤字惡化或增加國民債務。更廣義的潛台詞是，你可以以較現在更少的花費獲得當前可以得到的所有政府服務。
這一稅改願景的問題在於它隻是一種魔術——一種令人向往的幻象，根本沒有現實基礎。以羅姆尼（Mitt Romney）的最新建議為例——他大概將在11月大選中代表共和黨挑戰現任總統奧巴馬。羅姆尼希望降低稅率，受益者主要是處於收入分配頂端的人群。他還希望堵上漏洞，但他所提出的詳細方案不會有太大作用。他最激進的方案是取消第二套住房的按揭利息優惠，這對於增加稅收收入根本沒什麼效果。
奧巴馬也好不到哪裡去。他倒是不再言必稱“稅收改革”了，其最新的觀點是隻提高富人——也就是那不仁的1%——的稅收有助於控制預算和國民債務。這也隻是妄想而已。
美國人——以及許多其他國家的納稅人——需要更透明的方法來評估候選人的預算方案。在美國，有不少團體都提出了自己的評估。比如，盡責聯邦預算委員會（Committee for a Responsible
Federal Budget）就有一項上佳的服務，可對共和黨提名的候選對手所提出的財政計劃進行“評分”。
問題是在一個事關重大又涇渭分明的選戰中，選民到底可以信任誰？每個人都有各自的日程，不管是裝模作樣還是確有其實。任何組織，隻要它依靠某些個人提供資金，或者通過不太透明的公司渠道融資，其可信性都會受到質疑。
美國和其他不少國家所需要的是獨立、勝任且經驗豐富又不偏不倚的機構。幸運的是，美國還有國會預算辦公室，它可以根據預算沖擊給立法打分，評估官方預算方案，並給出自己的經濟預測。（我便是國會預算辦公室經濟顧問委員會成員，每年兩次對預測草案進行評論，但經濟顧問委員會不會評估預算方案或其他事項。）
國會預算辦公室將向處理稅收和預算事宜的相關國會委員會提交報告，共和黨和民主黨都盯著它的一舉一動。但國會預算辦公室的確是獨立的，由專業人士運作，其在20世紀70年代創立的初衷就是向拜佔庭式的國會預算過程注入透明度和可問責性。
但當前國會預算辦公室並不對政治候選人提出的方案打分，這便是問題的一部分。奧巴馬和羅姆尼就要進入選前辯論了，雙方應該都會投以提交格式正確的詳細預算方案讓國會預算辦公室評估。相關的國會各委員會應該也會同意這樣操作。
如果某位總統候選人拒絕這樣做，那麼願意充分披露其計劃細節的候選人就會贏得優勢。此外，為了讓披露壓力變得更有效，選前辯論的一部分應該聚焦於預算方案，問題可以圍繞國會預算辦公室對具體細節如何反應來展開。如果某方候選人不願讓國民債務處於可控范圍，那麼他將被迫對此作出解釋。
這並不是世界最大經濟體獨有的問題。要想成為國家領導人，候選人就不能隻談整體輪廓，用如簧巧舌給選民畫餅。民主可以也應該比這做得更好。
