Before We Reform Tax Policy, We Need to Know What Is Working

This post originally appeared on TaxVox

Med_Capitol

Congress and President Trump are embarking on what is likely to be a major rewrite of the federal income tax code. Yet, neither they nor anyone else knows whether the hundreds of tax preferences embedded in the law accomplish their stated purposes.

Federal agencies routinely collect and assess evidence of the success—or failure—of spending programs. But the IRS is an outlier. Although it manages a broad range of federal programs through the tax code, including housing, health, wage subsidies, and retirement, it has made little effort to evaluate its portfolio.

These policies, sometimes called tax expenditures, add up to more than $1 trillion per year and comprise approximately one-quarter to one-third of combined spending and tax subsidies. Yet the IRS appears to do less than any other agency to gather evidence on the efficacy of the programs it runs.

Years ago, the Office of Management and Budget instructed executive branch agencies to measure performance. Many did so. But the IRS essentially said it didn’t have the information, and did not comply.

Over the years, government has tried repeatedly to gather solid evidence to justify new and existing government policies. Success has been limited. It has tried “Planning, Programming, and Budgeting,” and “Zero-Based Budgeting.” Congress enacted the Government Performance and Review Act (GPRA). Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) advanced this goal recently through the creation of the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking.

The National Academies of Science has appointed committees to investigate both how to improve the quality of economic evidence and encourage its use to inform policy. I was fortunate enough to chair one of those committees. Jason Furman, President Obama’s last chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, recently noted how new evidence advances our ability to design social policy.

Overall, success has been mixed. But rarely have we learned less than at the IRS. My purpose is not to assess blame. Congress has given the IRS far more responsibility than it can possibly manage, even as it has slashed its budget.  That is not likely to change any time soon. But even in that environment, there are ways the IRS can develop and present economic evidence on the programs it runs.

I have two simple suggestions. Both require the Commissioner to place greater priority on generating evidence.

First, the IRS should report administrative information to Congress on each program or subprogram it operates. It should describe how tax subsidies are distributed by taxpayer income and geographical location.  It should report on noncompliance or on gaps in its ability to enforce the law in each program. To assess a program adequately, we need solid evidence on how well IRS can administer it.

Beyond basic administrative information, the agency could at least on a rotating basis start to evaluate program benefits and costs.

Second, the IRS commissioner should hire a Chief Evaluation Officer who would  work closely with the Taxpayer Advocate to teach and encourage staff to make better use of the tools that generate such evidence. Demetra Nightingale, who recently served in this capacity for the Labor Department, says these tools were most successful when staffers believed they could help them do their jobs better, and not simply the result of some top-down command.

The most successful of modern reforms, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, succeeded in eliminating some tax breaks and deterring some shelters. But even it added new complexity to the code. If Congress is going to look seriously at the scores of subsidies in the current code, it needs better evidence about which achieve their goals and which can be properly administered. To do that, Congress needs to give the agency the resources it needs to properly evaluate the programs it manages. And the agency needs to do more analysis with whatever resources it has.

Photo courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons.


One Comment on “Before We Reform Tax Policy, We Need to Know What Is Working”

  1. Michael_Bindner says:

    It is likely that the IRS does not want to touch an analysis of tax expenditures because of both their political nature and values basis. I fear the best they can do is cite TPC and Urban studies on these topics. They simply give out money (or refuse to tax it). There is no administrative follow-up, like with other agencies. The Federal Reserve, with their comprehensive survey tools, is much better placed for this analysis. Indeed, they could probably answer the politically thorny question of who owns the debt held by the public at the U.S. household level (both through mutual funds and directly).
    The options here are all political, none administrative. My favorite is to make the Child Tax Credit between $500 and $1000 per month, finance by getting rid of the child exemption, the EITC (raise the floor to help low income adults), end the home mortgage interest and property tax deductions and trim welfare programs targeting children, such as Social Security Survivors and Disabled Dependent Benefits. A higher net business receipt tax rate than is justified by current revenues would get you to $1000 a month per child. Assuming such a reform, you could then analyze whether the amount is adequate each year and how much tax rates need to go up if it is not. You could also analyze fraud. IRS is good at that.
    Could this pass? Yes. If the Catholic bishops got behind the idea and forced the National Right to Life Committee to score this as a pro-life vote, it would pass easily. I doubt, given their ties to the GOP, that they would go that far, but it could happen.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.