Posted December 2, 2011
A payroll tax cut is one of the most efficient policies for creating jobs and growing the economy
By Loren Adler and Shai Akabas
Jonathan Goldstein contributed to this post.
As Europe stands on the brink of economic collapse, the American economy continues to putter along with slow growth and a relatively stable (though severely elevated) unemployment rate. That is the good news. The flip side is that given the United States’ precarious position, a sudden fall in Europe’s balancing act or any other unforeseen shock could easily throw the nation back into recession.
With the current payroll tax cut scheduled to expire next month, Congress should take advantage of this opportunity to significantly expand the policy – making it a complete payroll tax holiday for both employees and employers – to accelerate growth.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a payroll tax cut is one of the most efficient policies for creating jobs and growing the economy. BPC’s proposal will relieve workers of their payroll tax burden for the year – putting that money back in their pockets – which will increase consumer demand. On the business side, the holiday will incentivize companies to increase wages and lower the costs of hiring and retaining workers.
Critically – as this has been the topic of much discussion, of late – this policy will not have any detrimental effect on Social Security’s finances. Let’s take a step back to see why.
Almost all workers in America are taxed on their wages up to a certain income level for the purpose of funding the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program (or informally, Social Security). Normally, the rate is 6.2 percent for employees, and an identical tax is levied on their employers’ payroll, for a total of 12.4 percent of payroll. These revenues are received by the Social Security Administration, and utilized to purchase special interest-earning securities that are placed into the Social Security Trust Fund.* When beneficiaries are due to receive payments, securities are redeemed from the Trust Fund in order to pay them.
For many years (until this past one, which we will return to momentarily), the revenues collected have exceeded the benefits paid out, creating surpluses that have built up the Trust Fund’s value. This was orchestrated during the 1980s, as policymakers anticipated the retirement of the baby boomers and attempted to ease the coming demographic shift. Additionally, the Trust Fund’s securities have earned interest, further boosting its total holdings. As a result of these two sources combined, the Trust Fund has accumulated roughly $2.6 trillion of assets.
As of last year, however, Social Security began to pay out more in benefits on an annual basis than it collected in revenues. With the retirement of the baby boomers accelerating in the coming years, this shortfall will grow. While entering the red is not cause for panic, it does mean that the Trust Fund will be drawn down and eventually exhausted over the next few decades, leaving the program on unstable financial footing. (That is why BPC’s Domenici-Rivlin Task Force, the president’s Fiscal Commission, and many others have developed packages of modest reforms that would strengthen the program for future generations.)
Wouldn’t expanding the payroll tax holiday just make this problem worse? No. Under the current payroll tax cut that expires at the end of this year, employees are only paying 4.2 percent – instead of the standard 6.2 percent – of their wages into the Trust Fund. The original legislation for this policy (as well as the BPC proposal for a full holiday), however, ensures that the Trust Fund is not shortchanged. The General Fund of the government will transfer the foregone revenue dollar for dollar back to the Trust Fund, such that it is made whole in real time with no impact on Social Security’s financing. This is one apprehension that can be put to rest.
But this response begs the question: Since you cannot make the money appear out of thin air, if you implement this policy, aren’t you simply adding to the deficit? Yes, but that is precisely why the payroll tax holiday should not be done in a legislative bubble. Both parties acknowledged this in yesterday’s Senate votes, each providing deficit reduction policies to offset the costs. Ideally, a holiday would be tied to a comprehensive long-term deficit reduction plan – one that will do far more than just pay for the holiday. Such a package should be built to stabilize the debt and put America on a path towards fiscal responsibility. With time running short before the end of the year, however, policymakers should compromise on a pay-for that at least offsets the cost of the holiday, and then revisit the larger deficit issues shortly thereafter.
The challenge of deficit reduction becomes impossible if strong economic growth remains beyond our grasp. Allowing taxes to rise next year on every working American is entirely the wrong way to encourage immediate growth. Increased revenues must be part of the long-term fiscal solution, but they should not come from middle-class families in the midst of a delicate recovery.
* The "Social Security Trust Fund" refers to two separately managed accounts: the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund -- each of which funds the corresponding program. Payroll taxes are split percentage-wise between the two. For purposes of this post, they are described jointly for simplicity.
Related Posts
Economic Policy Project
Comments
signspeaker (not verified)
Feb. 17, 2012
Loren is correct. The problem this "payroll tax" misdirection exacerbates is that the "payroll tax" is not even a tax, is a mandatory savings contribution with a mandatory payout that's not going to be adjusted......unless/when we get to Greek levels of mismanagement consequences.
Add to the the fact that pulling the funds from the General Fund will increase the pressure on the 53% who pay FEDERAL INCOME TAXES to pay even more, and Obama is lobbying for that NOW.
You guys lobbying for this were steadfastly opposed to modifying, or even considering exploring SS solvency options just 4 years ago and now you're completely transforming it from a mandatory savings plan to a transfer payment.
Loren Adler (not verified)
Feb. 22, 2012
While Social Security functions similar to a mandatory savings plan, it has always been a pay-as-you-go system. Structuring it in this manner benefits our economy by limiting the amount of money that America needs to borrow from outside investors, which would compete directly with private borrowing.
I'm confused by your last paragraph. Alice Rivlin and Senator Domenici have long supported small, gradual adjustments in order to maintain Social Security's solvency for future generations. Otherwise, without any changes, Social Security benefits will be automatically cut by 22 percent when the Trust Fund runs out in the early 2030s (http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/CBO%20Report%206.pdf). Also, to clarify, the payroll tax holiday that we recommend is meant to be temporary.
On a separate note, yes, the U.S. will have to raise taxes, but this can be done through broadening the base and lowering rates as we have shown (http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Tax%20Reform%20Quick...). The percentage of people who pay income taxes is only this low because of the great recession. Plus, it's worth considering why some people don't pay income tax (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/07/27/why-do-people-pay-no-federa...). Also, to clarify, the payroll tax holiday that we recommend is meant to be temporary.
Solomon Kleinsmith (not verified)
Dec. 2, 2011
This is a pointless point. It's the same thing. Putting less money into the trust fund equals debt, and taking it out of the general fund equals debt. This guy tries to spin this, pretending that one debt is better than another.
I expect better from the BPC.
Loren Adler (not verified)
Dec. 5, 2011
I'm a little confused by your comment. We explicitly make that point in the second to last paragraph.
The impetus for this post, rather, is to explain that a payroll tax holiday is not "raiding the Trust Fund," since it will be reimbursed dollar for dollar in real time.
We have always made clear that short-term growth measures are not free though, and as such, should be implemented in conjunction with a deficit reduction plan.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sept. 6, 2012
That's a distinction without a difference, Loren. Whether the money for the Trust Fund comes from a payroll deduction or from general revenues, either way the result is more debt. It doesn't matter if it is inside the Trust Fund -- which, incidentally, is only an accounting gimmick to make the books balance -- or from the general Treasury.
Debt is debt.
Loren Adler (not verified)
Sept. 6, 2012
Please point to me where we indicated otherwise. Of course the debt build-up is the same whether the money comes from the Trust Fund or general Treasury funds -- the post makes this quite clear:
"But this response begs the question: Since you cannot make the money appear out of thin air, if you implement this policy, aren’t you simply adding to the deficit? Yes."
Also, although the Trust Fund's primary purpose is for accounting, that the money to pay for a payroll tax holiday comes instead from general funds is not a "distinction without a difference." There are real world consequences to an evaporation of the Social Security Trust Fund -- benefits would be cut by almost 25 percent (not to mention political effects).
Tax cuts aren't free and debt reduction is of vital importance, but getting the economy back on track is important too.
Post new comment