3rd release of Build Back Better: 7 million less employment

Last night a third release of BBB was shown to the public.  Both in pages and overall economics, it is in between the 1st and 2nd editions.

First-release items resurrected yesterday

• Repeal of Trump's terrible rebate rule (Section 139301).  It is likely illegal so repealing it does nothing but CBO probably will credit Dems with cutting about spending by about $200B with this provision.
• Drug "Price Negotiation Program" (Section 139001).
• Rx "Drug Inflation Rebates" (Section 139101).
• Favors to labor unions such as allowing union dues to be tax deductible (Section 138514) and giving the National Labor Relations Board new authority to levy hefty penalties on employers (Section 21006, which was also in previous releases).  
• E-cigarette and tobacco taxes (Section 138520).
• Federal family leave (Section 130001).

Important items maintained from the 2nd release

• Affordable housing (still $150B across various sections such as 40001ff).
• Expanded ACA premium tax credits (Sections 137301ff).
• New federal childcare (Section 23001) and preK programs (Section 23002), including massive hidden taxes on marriage.
• Child Tax Credit expansion (Section 137101ff).
• Partial launch of the Green New Deal (various sections such as 136001ff).
• Medicaid expansions (various sections).
• Privacy regulation (Section 31501).

New item: Increase annual cap for deduction of State and Local Taxes (SALT) from $10K to $72.5K (Section 137601).  About 8 percent of filers are affected by this.  I guess that about 6 percent of filers are workers who would go from a binding cap to a nonbinding cap.   For such people, IF the federal and SALT rates remain constant, the overall marginal tax rate on labor income falls.  This is my assumption for the table below, but I note that lifting the SALT cap encourages states to increase SALT rates (for everyone, not just the 8 percent) and discourages states from cutting rates.  Moreover, the additional SALT revenues from those rate changes may well be spent on programs that pay people not to work.

This table shows 14 BBB provisions with significant hidden effects on incentives to work.  (My earlier post provides more detail on those incentives).  The final column of the table shows an estimated impact of these hidden incentives on FTE employment, allocated among the 14 provisions.  This does not include any employment effects of funding BBB with income taxes on households (Sections 138201ff) and businesses (Sections 138101ff).

Revised Build Back Better: Cliffnotes

Hidden Work Disincentives

I had been tracking 13 types.  Three disappeared from today's revised bill.  The Medicaid expansions appear to be less.  Affordable housing was cut in half (still at $150B).  Dems once aspired to allow union dues to be tax deductible but that was cut.  Many other pro-union provisions remain.

The new childcare program has now replaced an income phaseout above 250% median income with a cliff.  This change from last month's bill to lastest draft has little effect on the average marginal tax rate because the same funds are being phased out over a narrower range.  I.e., a few people see very large additions to their marginal tax rate while others disincentivized with a phaseout now see no addition.

The "green energy" provisions have a lot of producer-protectionist elements in them, which add to the labor wedge much like excise taxes do.  However, the green energy provisions were scaled back in today's revision.

The Obamacare expansion (pp. 1458ff) is a bit more aggressive than last month's BBB bill.  The revision stops indexing -- ie health insurance gets more expensive over time and it is 100% taxpayer problem rather than plan members'.

My summary of marginal-tax-rate and employment effects are shown in the table below.  More derivations are available in my report although that report refers to last-month version.

Hidden Marriage Disincentives

Replacing the childcare phaseout with a cliff increases the (already remarkably large) marriage disincentive because even a father with moderate earnings will, if he joins the family, push them beyond the range of eligibility.  I.e., the family with married parents will likely be paying full price.  The various, and extreme, provisions to inflate the full price of childcare remain in the revised bill.

Pharma scores two wins

The news came out early that this bill would not have prescription-drug price controls.  But it also allows Trump's terrible rebate rule to continue.  Even Biden was expecting the revised bill to contain a repeal, with much savings in corporate welfare that could be put toward "transforming America."  Should I start calling it "Biden's terrible rebate rule"?

Employers are still the enemy

The revision maintains the directive for OSHA to increase employer fines by at least 10X (Section 21004).  Among other things, a private-sector employer with an unvaccinated employee on the payroll will be punishable by a fine of up to $1,365,320 PLUS up to $136,532 per day that employment continues (yes, $51 million per employee per year; note that the statute dictates specific amounts and that the amounts be annually indexed).  This far exceeds the social cost, if any, of employing such a person.

However, revised bill does not mandate employers to provide retirement accounts.  I am expecting this onerous mandate to show up in the new retirement bills introduced this week in House and Senate, but for now this element of freedom remains in employer-employee relations.

Childcare in "Build Back Better"

Because childcare is said to be a highlight of the “Build Back Better” bill, I read through the bill and made notes here as to childcare provisions and some of their economic incentives, aside from the obvious that new spending must someday be financed with taxes.  You will be surprised at the disparity between what the bill incentivizes and what we're told it will do.

[For provisions less related to childcare, see my earlier summary.]

Section 23001 of the "Build Back Better" bill would use the Obamacare mold to create a federal childcare program.

• Low-cost (a.k.a., "low quality") childcare would be prohibited unless the provider were to forgo all federal dollars, which would involve something like having zero children from a family at or below $200K annual income.
• Childcare workers would have to be paid as much as elementary-school teachers.
• According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, elementary school teachers earned an average of $63,930 annually in 2019.
• The same BLS data show childcare workers earning an average of $25,510.  I.e., under BBB childcare would have to pay them 151% more.
• A 151% increase is similar to the increase in individual health insurance premiums that occurred when Obamacare came into effect.
• See also Section 132002f (which appears to be eliminated in the Nov 3 revision).  Complying with all of these statutes, certifications, and the implementing final rules will add administrative costs to childcare.  E.g., just as physicians today complain about paperwork taking away from their real job, so will childcare providers under BBB.
• Much of the extant supply of childcare is provided at a church or other faith-based location, but federal funds for expanding supply cannot be used there (this prohibition is about 80% of the way through the long Section 23001).  The result will be creating supply at locations that could not otherwise pass the market test because they are too costly or offer insufficient quality (by parents' assessment).    
• When quality regulation was tried in Quebec, the results were opposite of advertized intentions:
• there were “increases in early childhood anxiety and aggression”
• “there was a large, significant, negative shock to the preschool, noncognitive development and health of children exposed to the new program, with little measured impact on cognitive skills.”
• “worse health, lower life satisfaction, and higher crime rates later in life.”
• HT Ryan Bourne
• Families would pay on a sliding scale.  i.e., earning more means paying more for the same childcare.
• Above 150% median family income ($102K annually), the implicit marginal tax rate would be 7% until the benefit is exhausted.
• For a family with two children, they would face the 7 percent rate until income was beyond $400K
• Between 75% and 150% median, the implicit marginal tax rate is about 14 percent.
• The sliding scale is based on HOUSEHOLD income: the implicit marriage tax could easily be $20K per year that a couple has children under age 5.  [this is not the only marriage tax in BBB]
• The unintended (?) consequences do not stop there.  Adding to the pool of "deadbeat dads" further discourages work because of the "overhang" (an economics term) of mounting child support debt.  As a UWisconsin study put it, "greater debt has a substantial negative effect on both fathers’ formal employment and child support payments."  See also this article.  
• For most families, the childcare costs of having additional children 0-4 would be zero.  This will affect the number and spacing of births , and by this channel could reduce employment of mothers.  Also incentives to keep cousins in the household.
• Although there are loopholes, child eligibility requires a parent to be employed (part-time is OK), self-employed, engaged in job search, job training, school, or on medical leave.  It’s OK if a second parent does no work (but see the marriage tax above).

Section 23002 creates a universal public pre-school program

• no tuition charged to parents
• applies to exactly two cohorts of children (age 3 and age 4).

Section 132001: Federal funding for childcare information services (i.e., finding childcare).  Less than 1/1000th of the funds spent in Sections 23001 and 23002.

Sections 137102f: Expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC).  See here for a detailed analysis of how the expansions discourage work, especially among single mothers.

Section 137201: Expanded Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC, not to be confused with the CTC).  This credit is tied to employment.  On the other hand, it is phaseout with income.  Therefore its net effect on national employment (not counting the tax increases that will eventually be needed to pay for it) will be less than the effects cited above.  Section 137202 is a similar provision administered on the employer side, but is not phased out with income and therefore expanding it is more likely to encourage work.  However, this provision is apparently rarely used by employers: see CBO's revenue score from the American Rescue Plan, which had the same provision except on a temporary basis.

Section 137301: a per-employee business credit of up to $5,000 annually is available for operators of childcare facilities (I don't think a household employing a nanny would count).  This might, to a small degree, offset the higher wages that such facilities would be required to pay (recall the 151% increase cited above).   [This was eliminated from later drafts]

The Marriage Tax and the Labor Tax

I received this question by email

If households respond to -- what I understand is -- a steep marriage penalty embedded in the subsidy formulae by postponing marriage or even by divorcing, would not this further broaden the effect of the Act in the labor market. In the limit, if every household sought subsidies under such an "income splitting" basis, would not more households qualify, and would not more households be influenced over a larger range of the income curve than even your study assumed? And thus would not the impact on the labor market be even larger [than calculated here]?

My answer:

It depends, even though I agree that the ACA includes a steep marriage tax as well as its steep taxes on labor income. My labor income MTR estimates are based on, among other things, estimates (from the CBO and others) of the number of people participating in the ACA exchanges. Your email provides a good reason to suspect that exchange participation will ultimately exceed the estimates. There are other reasons too.

Table 8 in my paper shows what would happen if one increased the exchange participation estimates -- see esp. the "exchange take-up" and "percentage of ESI moving to exchanges" rows.

But if the exchange participation estimates are accurate (maybe other factors offset the one you mentioned), then my headline estimates (Table 1) are fine even though the ACA reduces the incidence of marriage.