JCT Distributional analysis of Ways and Means tax proposals.
Given temporary nature of some major proposals (the CTC expansion, primarily), the impact on low- and middle-income households depends on the year.
In 2023, federal effective tax rates decline for those earning less than $200k. They go up for those earning more than $500k.
In 2031, however, you start to see tax increases on households earning between $50,000 and $200,000.
Looks like we have another distributional table choose your own adventure:

Tables show, on average, no pledge violation early in decade, but show a pledge violation at the end of the decade.
Went back and checked:

The Dem's plan does more than reverse the TCJA for those earning more than $1 million.

Effective tax rate prior to TCJA: 32.2%
Effective tax rate W+M proposal: 37.3%

(standard caveat regarding comparing baselines, etc.)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Kyle Pomerleau

Kyle Pomerleau Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @kpomerleau

5 Feb
Redoing thread to fix a spelling error:

Romney's proposal does, however, change the tax code in ways that raise and lower marginal rates for different people.

The overall effect on work incentives is more complex than just the isolated effect of the allowance.

I think it's correct to say: enacting a child allowance in isolation would have little impact on work incentives.

Income effects are small. No phase-out. That's good.

But that's not the entire proposal.

The allowance is replacing/reforming a number of policies that have both positive and negative incentives on work: CTC, EITC, Head of Household filing status.

Read 5 tweets
4 Feb
Sen. Romney has released a big, serious proposal for a child allowance:

It would provide $3,000 per child ($4,200 per child under 6), paid out monthly through the Social Security Administration.

Max benefit of $15,000 per year.

It would not be universal: it would phase-out for those with income over $200,000 ($400,000 married filing jointly).
His proposal would be financed (until 2025) by:

-Eliminating the Head of Household filing status
-Removing child benefits from the EITC
-Eliminating the Child and Dependent Care Credit
-Eliminating TANF
-Eliminating the SALT Deduction
-Small reforms to SNAP
Read 5 tweets
3 Feb
Biden's slightly more targeted proposal for $1,400 rebates would go to 87.9% of households.

This is down from 92.9% under his original proposal.

Not all that much more "targeted" I suppose.

Compare this to the GOP proposal, which would send $1k checks ($500 for dependents) to with a 40k/80k threshold, which would go to ~71% of households.
People seem to be having a reaction to the Dem's slimmed down version that's out of proportion with its impact on the number of eligible households.
Read 4 tweets
10 Nov 20
This tweet now in blog form:

"Expect tax legislation even with a Republican Senate"

I think the conventional wisdom is right: Much of Biden's tax plan is not going anywhere with a Republican Senate.

I don't see Senate Rs signing onto a package that scales back their major legislative achievement.
Instead I think three scenarios are possible, ranked by how likely I think they are:

1) Lawmakers turn upcoming TCJA change into extenders.
2) Lawmakers deal with upcoming TCJA changes in a COVID relief package.
3) Lawmakers pass a PATH Act 2022.
Read 4 tweets
17 Aug 18
This research estimates that a one-degree increase in temperatures reduces GDP growth by between 0.15% and 0.25%

I don't know much about how these estimates are done, but these effects are significant if true. 1/
Put this into a little context.

When we model, say, Trump's tariffs, we estimate that the level of GDP declines by 0.6%. This means that eventually GDP is going to permanently be 0.6% lower than otherwise. The growth rate, however, doesn't permanently change 2/
These results imply a drop in the growth rate by 0.15 percentage points! That means GDP will be lower than otherwise each year and the output gap will continue to grow as time goes on.

In ten years, GDP will be ~1.5% lower and in twenty, GDP will be 2.9% lower, and so on. 3/
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!