What changing the consumer price index would mean for taxpayers

Julie Jacobson/AP/File
In this November 2012 file photo, prices for shoes sit on display on a shelf at a Sears store, in Henderson, Nev. Changing the cost-of-living measure would also result in a gradual tax increase for many households that would average about $140 a decade from now, Gleckman writes.

President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner may be close to agreeing on a plan that, among other things, would revise the way government programs are adjusted for inflation. Most attention is focused on what this means for Social Security recipients. But the Tax Policy Center estimates that changing the cost-of-living measure would also result in a gradual tax increase for many households that would average about $140 a decade from now.

Before delving into the substance, I can’t help but note one delicious irony. Three decades ago, Ronald Reagan fundamentally changed the nature of the income tax by mostly ending what was called bracket creep—the phenomenon where people would slip into higher tax brackets as their incomes rose with inflation. Reagan convinced Congress to stop this by indexing tax brackets by the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  Now, at the insistance of Republicans, Obama seems to have agreed to open the door to a bit more bracket creep.

So what’s this all about? At its heart is a technical argument about what measure of inflation best captures the fact that people respond to price changes. The model that Congress may adopt assumes that people adjust their behavior when prices rise (or fall). So, if beef gets more expensive, they buy chicken.

By buying the less expensive fowl, a shopper’s cost of food does not go up as much as it would if he stuck with beef. As a result, the rate of food inflation is a bit less than otherwise. While the traditional CPI reflects some of this, another version, called chained CPI, may do a better job

At first, this is one of those arguments only economists could love, except for the real world consequences: Taxes and government benefits are adjusted each year to account for cost-of-living changes, and the way those are measured directly affects taxes and benefits.

Adjusting Social Security this way would reduce projected benefits by about $100 billion over a decade, according to a 2010 Congressional Budget Office analysis. CBO estimates that shifting to chained CPI would increase revenues by about another $100 billion over 10 years. And keep in in mind that, because inflation compounds, those cost savings and revenues will gradually but inexorably grow.

What would chained CPI mean for taxpayers? The Tax Policy Center, in a 2011 analysis, projected such a shift would boost taxes by an average of about $140 in 2021 under a current policy baseline (where today’s tax rules remain in place). Compared to current law, (that is, where all the 2001-2010 tax cuts expire), it would raise taxes by about $75.  

About three-quarters of households would see their taxes rise relative to current policy. Those making $30,000-$40,000 would face the biggest percentage cut in after-tax income—about 0.3 percent on average.

While nearly all those at the top would pay higher taxes, they’d see only a very small change in after-tax income on average—only about 0.1 percent.   

Stepping away from the highly-charged deficit debate, chained CPI seems to be a better measure of inflation. Shifting to that model makes some sense. But it would result in higher taxes for tens of millions of households, all else equal.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to What changing the consumer price index would mean for taxpayers
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today