Up up up...._老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-06-22

Up up up....

A Broad Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Is Unlikely: Goldman<blockquote>高盛：不太可能达成广泛的两党基础设施协议</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":129041884,"tweetId":"129041884","gmtCreate":1624347597948,"gmtModify":1634007447290,"author":{"id":3581676054477891,"idStr":"3581676054477891","authorId":3581676054477891,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":0,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Up up up....</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Up up up....</body></html>","text":"Up up up....","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/129041884","repostId":1195801914,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1195801914","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624346913,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1195801914?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-22 15:28","market":"us","language":"en","title":"A Broad Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Is Unlikely: Goldman<blockquote>高盛：不太可能达成广泛的两党基础设施协议</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1195801914","media":"zerohedge","summary":"In its latest Q&A assessment of the state of US fiscal policy, Goldman's economics team writes that ","content":"In its latest Q&amp;A assessment of the state of US fiscal policy, Goldman's economics team writes that while it \"still looks broadly on track to meet our expectations, risks continue to tilt in the direction of a smaller spending boost and smaller tax hike than the roughly $3 trillion and $1.5 trillion over ten years that we expect.\" The bank then notes that \"while a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure package cannot be ruled out, we continue to think the odds are against it, as there seems to be little agreement on financing it.\" Instead, Goldman expects Congress to pass a narrower infrastructure package focused mainly on transportation. If so, expect congressional Democrats to begin moving a broader fiscal package under the reconciliation process.<blockquote>高盛经济团队在对美国财政政策状况的最新问答评估中写道，虽然“看起来仍基本有望满足我们的预期，但风险继续倾向于支出增长和增税幅度小于美国的预期。”我们预计十年内将达到3万亿美元和1.5万亿美元。”该银行随后指出，“虽然不能排除两党就广泛的基础设施一揽子计划达成协议的可能性，但我们仍然认为可能性很小，因为在融资方面似乎几乎没有达成一致。”相反，高盛预计国会将通过一项范围较窄的基础设施计划，主要关注交通运输。如果是这样，预计国会民主党人将在和解进程下开始推进更广泛的财政方案。</blockquote> Reading recent headlines, one would be left with the impression of a wide range of spending outcomes – a boost of a few hundred billion to as much as $6 trillion over ten years – but the range of outcomes is not as wide as these figures imply. Most of the “traditional” infrastructure President Biden has proposed looks likely to pass, along with substantial R&amp;D spending and renewal of personal tax credits that expire at year end. Together, these cost around 1% of GDP on an annual basis over the next few years. The remainder of the Biden agenda might boost spending by another1% of GDP, but Congress is expected to pare these proposals considerably.<blockquote>阅读最近的头条新闻，人们会留下广泛的支出结果的印象——十年内增加了几千亿美元到高达6万亿美元——但结果的范围并不像这些数字暗示的那样广泛。拜登总统提出的大部分“传统”基础设施看起来很可能会获得通过，同时还有大量的研发支出和年底到期的个人税收抵免的更新。在接下来的几年里，这些费用每年约占GDP的1%。拜登议程的其余部分可能会将支出再增加GDP的1%，但预计国会将大幅削减这些提案。</blockquote> Meanwhile, tax increases also still look likely, assuming that Democrats pass legislation using the reconciliation process. That's why Goldman has not changed its views much in this area, and still expectsthe corporate tax rate to settle around 25% along with more incremental versions of the international tax changes Biden has proposed.A capital gains rate increase is a close call, but a 28%capital gains rate is slightly more likely than the status quo.<blockquote>与此同时，假设民主党利用和解程序通过立法，增税看起来仍有可能。这就是为什么高盛在这方面的观点没有太大改变，并且仍然预计企业税率将稳定在25%左右，以及拜登提出的更多增量版本的国际税收改革。资本利得税率上调是一个接近看涨期权，但28%的资本利得税率比现状的可能性略大。</blockquote> Finally, the likely timing of fiscal action has also changed more noticeably,with likely enactment slipping from mid/late Q3 to Q4.This is due in large part to the continuation of bipartisan negotiations for longer than we had expected, which has led congressional Democratic leaders to delay the first procedural steps necessary to pass a reconciliation bill.<blockquote>最后，财政行动的可能时机也发生了更明显的变化，颁布可能会从第三季度中后期推迟到第四季度。这在很大程度上是由于两党谈判持续的时间比我们预期的要长，这导致国会民主党领导人推迟了通过和解法案所需的第一步程序步骤。</blockquote> Below we republish the key aspects of Goldman's FIscal Policy Status Check Q&amp;A:<blockquote>下面我们重新发布高盛财政政策状况检查问答的关键方面：</blockquote> Q: Will there be a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure bill?<blockquote>问：两党会就一项广泛的基础设施法案达成协议吗？</blockquote> A broad bipartisan infrastructure package still looks somewhat unlikely to us.Negotiations in the Senate have progressed and the odds have increased somewhat that a bipartisan bill covering many areas in President Biden’s program might pass. However, we still think there are obstacles to a broad deal and expect that most of the fiscal boost Congress approves this year will come through a reconciliation bill that passes with only Democratic support.<blockquote>在我们看来，广泛的两党基础设施一揽子计划仍然不太可能。参议院的谈判取得了进展，涵盖拜登总统计划中许多领域的两党法案获得通过的可能性有所增加。然而，我们仍然认为达成广泛协议存在障碍，并预计国会今年批准的大部分财政刺激将通过一项只有民主党支持才能通过的和解法案。</blockquote> Unsurprisingly, there appears to be the most agreement on boosting traditional infrastructure spending. As shown in Exhibit 1, the current Senate bipartisan proposal comes close to matching the White House proposal in most areas of transportation infrastructure.<blockquote>不出所料，在增加传统基础设施支出方面似乎达成了最多的共识。如图表1所示，目前参议院两党提案在交通基础设施的大多数领域接近白宫提案。</blockquote> More controversial is how to address non-traditional infrastructure and how to finance the cost of any new spending. The latest bipartisan effort appears to have made some inroads on the former. It includes $65bn for broadband, which falls short of the roughly $100bn that the White House proposed but it would be the greatest federal investment to date and seems close enough to the Democratic target that this issue alone looks unlikely to hold up an agreement.<blockquote>更有争议的是如何解决非传统基础设施以及如何为任何新支出的成本融资。两党的最新努力似乎在前者上取得了一些进展。其中包括650亿美元的宽带投资，低于白宫提议的约1000亿美元，但这将是迄今为止最大的联邦投资，而且似乎足够接近民主党的目标，仅这个问题似乎不太可能阻碍达成协议。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/70d0d7b968b10f5764ef17cd3c787d53\" tg-width=\"944\" tg-height=\"1186\"><blockquote></blockquote> Other areas of non-traditional infrastructure in bipartisan discussions are much farther away from White House goals. Senate Republicans look unlikely to support substantial funding for electric vehicles or construction of affordable housing, for example. Clean energy is more of a gray area; Congress has previously approved, on a bipartisan basis, a number of different incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy like wind, solar, and biofuels. However, the program President Biden proposes is on a much larger scale than existing subsidies and the latest bipartisan proposal includes only a fraction of what the White House is seeking in this area.<blockquote>两党讨论中的其他非传统基础设施领域与白宫的目标相去甚远。例如，参议院共和党人看起来不太可能支持为电动汽车或经济适用房建设提供大量资金。清洁能源更多是一个灰色地带；国会此前已在两党基础上批准了一系列针对能源效率和风能、太阳能和生物燃料等可再生能源的不同激励措施。然而，拜登总统提出的计划比现有补贴规模大得多，最新的两党提案仅包括白宫在这一领域寻求的一小部分。</blockquote> The greatest obstacle to prior political efforts at enacting an infrastructure program has been financing it. Here, there appears to have been much less progress (Exhibit 2). Each side has drawn lines they seem unlikely to cross: most Republicans oppose reversing any of the 2017 tax law or otherwise increasing income taxes—corporate or personal—to pay for the proposal. Most Democrats, including the White House, have ruled out increasing the user fees that finance most current infrastructure spending and appear uninterested in redirecting unspent COVID-relief funds.<blockquote>之前制定基础设施计划的政治努力的最大障碍是融资。在这里，进展似乎要小得多（图表2）。双方都划定了他们似乎不太可能跨越的界限：大多数共和党人反对推翻2017年的任何税法或以其他方式增加所得税（企业或个人）来支付该提案。包括白宫在内的大多数民主党人已经排除了增加为当前大多数基础设施支出提供资金的使用费的可能性，并且似乎对重新分配未用完的新冠救助资金不感兴趣。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9578698f5c5efa5311cc0e31be31f715\" tg-width=\"939\" tg-height=\"509\">The most likely area of overlapping support is closing the “tax gap” through greater enforcement of existing tax laws, but even this faces challenges. Congressional estimates of the potential revenue gain from closing the tax gap are much smaller than the Administration’s. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2020 that increasing IRS funding by $20 billion over ten years would produce $60bn in additional revenue, while a $40bn increase would raise $103bn (i.e., the first $20bn bump would raise $3 for each dollar spent, while the next $20bn bump in funding would raise only $2 for each dollar of extra spending). While it is possible that CBO might revise its estimate in light of arguments from the Administration, or that Republicans might agree to policies beyond an IRS funding increase, it seems unlikely that additional IRS funding would come anywhere close to covering the cost of an infrastructure proposal, at least according to the official estimate that Congress will rely on.<blockquote>重叠支持最有可能的领域是通过加强现有税法的执行来缩小“税收差距”，但即使这样也面临挑战。国会对缩小税收差距的潜在收入收益的估计远小于政府的估计。国会预算办公室（Congressional Budget Office）在2020年估计，在十年内增加200亿美元的国税局资金将产生600亿美元的额外收入，而增加400亿美元将筹集1030亿美元（即，第一个200亿美元的增加将为每1美元的支出筹集3美元，而下一个200亿美元的增加将为每1美元的额外支出筹集2美元）。虽然CBO可能会根据政府的论点修改其估计，或者共和党人可能会同意国税局增加资金以外的政策，但国税局的额外资金似乎不太可能接近支付基础设施提案的成本，至少根据国会将依赖的官方估计。</blockquote> In our view, the only way that Congress will reach a bipartisan agreement on a broad infrastructure package is if lawmakers decide not to offset the new spending with savings elsewhere. So far, the White House and congressional Republicans have insisted that the bill should be paid for.<blockquote>我们认为，国会就广泛的基础设施一揽子计划达成两党协议的唯一途径是立法者决定不用其他地方的储蓄来抵消新支出。到目前为止，白宫和国会共和党人坚持认为该法案应该得到支付。</blockquote> Q: Without a bipartisan deal, what happens with infrastructure legislation?<blockquote>问：如果没有两党协议，基础设施立法会发生什么？</blockquote> If a broad bipartisan deal fails, a narrow one is likely to pass.While a broad bipartisan agreement covering several aspects of the Biden proposal looks difficult to achieve, a narrower deal that primarily boosts transportation infrastructure looks likely to become law, for three reasons.<blockquote>如果广泛的两党协议失败，狭隘的协议很可能会通过。虽然涵盖拜登提案几个方面的广泛两党协议看起来很难实现，但一项主要促进交通基础设施建设的范围较窄的协议看起来很可能成为法律，原因有三。</blockquote> First, federal programs for most areas of traditional infrastructure—highways, public transit, rail, airports, waterways and drinking/ wastewater—already exist. The largest of them, which are collectively funded by the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), expire September 30. Traditionally, Congress reauthorizes these programs in five-year increments,sometimes after one or more short-term extensions until lawmakers reach agreement.The legislation to renew these programs cannot pass via the reconciliation process, soDemocrats will need Republican support for any short- or long-term extension. Theupshot is that it is nearly certain that some type of infrastructure legislation passes on abipartisan basis to avoid a lapse in the programs.<blockquote>首先，针对传统基础设施大多数领域——高速公路、公共交通、铁路、机场、水路和饮用水/废水处理——的联邦计划已经存在。其中最大的一笔由公路信托基金（HTF）集体资助，将于9月30日到期。传统上，国会以五年为增量重新授权这些项目，有时在一次或多次短期延期之后，直到立法者达成协议。更新这些项目的立法无法通过和解程序，民主党人将需要共和党的支持才能进行任何短期或长期的延期。结果是，几乎可以肯定的是，某种类型的基础设施立法将在两党的基础上通过，以避免项目中的失误。</blockquote> Second, some progressive Democrats seem likely to oppose an infrastructure bill that does not include substantial new policies related to climate and clean energy. Without their votes, greater support among congressional Republicans in the House and Senate would be necessary. To win greater support, the bill might need to narrow its scope further, to the point that it mainly extends existing infrastructure spending programs.<blockquote>其次，一些进步民主党人似乎可能会反对一项不包括与气候和清洁能源相关的实质性新政策的基础设施法案。如果没有他们的投票，众议院和参议院共和党人的更大支持将是必要的。为了赢得更大的支持，该法案可能需要进一步缩小其范围，主要扩展现有的基础设施支出计划。</blockquote> Third, financing a narrow infrastructure deal would not be nearly as difficult as financing the sort of bill currently under discussion. Existing transportation infrastructure programs already have dedicated revenue streams that fund most of their spending. Financing an incremental boost in spending on existing programs would be far easier than finding bipartisan agreement on several hundred billion dollars in new revenue or spending cuts.<blockquote>第三，为一项狭隘的基础设施交易融资不会像为目前正在讨论的那种法案融资那么困难。现有的交通基础设施项目已经有专门的收入来源，为其大部分支出提供资金。为增加现有项目的支出提供资金比就数千亿美元的新收入或削减支出达成两党协议要容易得多。</blockquote> Q: What difference does it make if Congress reaches a bipartisan deal on infrastructure?<blockquote>问：如果国会就基础设施达成两党协议，会有什么不同？</blockquote> A broad bipartisan infrastructure bill could reduce the odds that the rest of the Biden fiscal agenda becomes law. A broader bipartisan deal that overlaps with many areas of the Biden proposal could reduce centrist Democratic support for passing subsequent fiscal legislation through the reconciliation process. If this occurred, the spending boost over the next few years might be smaller than we have been expecting but corporate and capital gains taxes would also be less likely to increase.<blockquote>一项广泛的两党基础设施法案可能会降低拜登财政议程其余部分成为法律的可能性.一项与拜登提案的许多领域重叠的更广泛的两党协议可能会减少中间派民主党对通过和解进程通过后续财政立法的支持。如果发生这种情况，未来几年的支出增长可能会小于我们的预期，但公司税和资本利得税也不太可能增加。</blockquote> By contrast, a narrower bipartisan deal limited to traditional infrastructure would still leave the door open for Democrats to pass a separate fiscal package through the reconciliation process that addresses much of the remainder of President Biden’s proposals. Relative to the scenario in which Congress passes a broad bipartisan infrastructure deal, passing a narrow transportation bill followed by a separate reconciliation bill would likely result in a greater overall increase in spending, partly offset by tax increases.<blockquote>相比之下，仅限于传统基础设施的范围较窄的两党协议仍将为民主党通过和解进程通过单独的财政方案敞开大门，该方案解决了拜登总统其余大部分提案。相对于国会通过一项广泛的两党基础设施协议的情况，通过一项狭隘的交通法案，然后通过一项单独的和解法案，可能会导致支出的总体增加，部分被增税抵消。</blockquote> Q: What are the risks around spending levels under the different scenarios?<blockquote>问：不同情景下支出水平的风险是什么？</blockquote> Congress seems very likely to approve spending and tax benefits equal to at least 1% of GDP over the next few years, but unlikely to go beyond 2% of GDP.Headlines regarding fiscal proposals over the last few weeks have run the gamut from a boost of only a few hundred billion at the low end (the Republican infrastructure proposal) to $6 trillion over ten years at the high end (the reported spending total Senate Democrats are considering).<blockquote>国会似乎很有可能在未来几年批准至少相当于GDP 1%的支出和税收优惠，但不太可能超过GDP的2%。过去几周关于财政提案的头条新闻涵盖了从低端仅增加几千亿美元（共和党的基础设施提案）到高端十年内增加6万亿美元（参议院民主党人正在考虑的报告支出总额）。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c29c240e9afe9bc1a84d4f359152bb57\" tg-width=\"937\" tg-height=\"675\">However, these large figures overstate the range of realistic scenarios. At a minimum, we expect Congress to enact three sets of policies this year: the infrastructure proposals that already have bipartisan support, the R&amp;D and manufacturing incentives that recently passed the Senate, and extension of the personal tax credits that Congress approved earlier this year. As Exhibit 3 shows, these policies would total around 1% of GDP by 2023, and would cost about $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. At this point, it is difficult to imagine Congress approving less this year.<blockquote>然而，这些大数字夸大了现实情景的范围。至少，我们预计国会今年将颁布三套政策：已经获得两党支持的基础设施提案、参议院最近通过的研发和制造激励措施，以及国会今年早些时候批准的个人税收抵免延期。如图表3所示，到2023年，这些政策总计将占GDP的1%左右，未来十年将花费约1.6万亿美元。在这一点上，很难想象国会今年会批准更少。</blockquote> At the other end of the range of outcomes, it seems unlikely that Congress will enact spending worth more than 2% of GDP on an annual basis. As shown in Exhibit 3, Congress would need to pass nearly all of President Biden’s proposals to reach this level, or around $4.25 trillion over the next ten years.<blockquote>另一方面，国会似乎不太可能制定每年超过GDP 2%的支出。如图表3所示，国会需要通过拜登总统的几乎所有提案才能达到这一水平，即未来十年约4.25万亿美元。</blockquote> The uncertainty is mainly related to new benefits for child care, education, and paid leave under the “American Families Plan” as well as the remaining areas of infrastructure that any sort of bipartisan infrastructure deal would likely omit. These areas depend most on the use of budget reconciliation legislation, as it seems very unlikely that any of the proposals would attract much Republican support.<blockquote>不确定性主要与“美国家庭计划”下的儿童保育、教育和带薪休假的新福利以及任何两党基础设施协议都可能忽略的剩余基础设施领域有关。这些领域最依赖于预算调节立法的使用，因为任何提案似乎都不太可能吸引共和党的支持。</blockquote> That said, even if Congress enacts nearly all of President Biden’s proposed policies, fiscal support will diminish substantially from 2021 to 2022. Exhibit 4 shows the deficit effect of legislation enacted since the pandemic began, as well as the fiscal effects of President Biden’s proposals using our own categorization.<blockquote>也就是说，即使国会颁布了拜登总统提出的几乎所有政策，从2021年到2022年，财政支持也将大幅减少。图表4显示了自疫情开始以来颁布的立法的赤字效应，以及拜登总统使用我们自己的分类提出的提案的财政效应。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/812bd47cecb22835bb2a223a3ddecb8f\" tg-width=\"925\" tg-height=\"620\">Q: How much will legislation this year increase spending?<blockquote>问：今年的立法将增加多少支出？</blockquote> We think the overall boost could amount to $2.5 to $3 trillion over the next ten years.Assuming congressional Democrats take advantage of the reconciliation process to pass fiscal legislation, there will still be two constraints on the amount of additional spending Congress might approve.<blockquote>我们认为未来十年的总体增长可能达到2.5至3万亿美元。假设国会民主党人利用和解程序通过财政立法，国会可能批准的额外支出金额仍将受到两个限制。</blockquote> Centrist Democrats in the House and Senate are likely to object to legislation that raises the deficit substantially over the next ten years. This will become relevant in the next few weeks, when Congress considers its budget resolution. To use the reconciliation process, the resolution must include instructions to the relevant committees to increase the deficit (or alternatively to increase spending and increase taxes) by specific amounts. The deficit impact of the reconciliation bill that follows will be limited to those amounts. It is extremely unlikely that any Republicans will vote for the Democratic budget resolution, so every Democratic senator and virtually every Democratic member of the House will need to vote for the resolution. It is not yet clear how much deficit expansion Democrats will be willing to support, but we expect centrist Democrats to draw the line at somewhere around $1 trillion. For context, President Biden’s recent budget submission to Congress proposed increasing the deficit by $800bn over the next ten years.<blockquote>众议院和参议院的中间派民主党人可能会反对在未来十年大幅增加赤字的立法。这将在未来几周国会审议其预算决议时变得相关。要使用调节程序，决议必须包括对相关委员会的指示，以具体金额增加赤字（或增加支出和增加税收）。随后的调节法案对赤字的影响将仅限于这些金额。任何共和党人都不太可能投票支持民主党的预算决议，因此每一位民主党参议员和几乎每一位众议院民主党议员都需要投票支持该决议。目前尚不清楚民主党人愿意支持多少赤字扩张，但我们预计中间派民主党人将在1万亿美元左右划清界限。作为背景，拜登总统最近向国会提交的预算提议在未来十年将赤字增加8000亿美元。</blockquote> Assuming a limit on the overall amount of deficit expansion, the amount of tax increases and other budgetary savings that lawmakers can agree to will determine how much they can increase spending. At the moment, we expect that Congress might be able to agree on around $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings, nearly all of which could come from tax increases, as discussed later. If so, a reconciliation bill would be limited to around $2.5 trillion in new spending. However, we expect that some additional spending might be approved as part of other legislation. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act that recently passed the Senate would authorize up to $250bn in spending (around $200bn of this appears to be new money that does not overlap with existing spending). Most of the proposals are similar to policies in President Biden’s American Jobs Plan. However, much of this spending would depend on future Congresses to appropriate, making the overall amount somewhat uncertain. Similarly, a narrow infrastructure bill that passes separately from the larger reconciliation bill might add somewhat to the total. Overall, if Congress approves a reconciliation bill of around $2.5 trillion over ten years, this suggests a total bump to spending approaching $3 trillion over that period.<blockquote>假设赤字扩张的总量受到限制，立法者能够同意的增税和其他预算节省的金额将决定他们能够增加多少支出。目前，我们预计国会可能能够就约1.5万亿美元的预算节省达成一致，其中几乎所有资金都可能来自增税，正如稍后讨论的那样。如果是这样，和解法案将被限制在2.5万亿美元左右的新支出。然而，我们预计一些额外支出可能会作为其他立法的一部分获得批准。参议院最近通过的美国创新和竞争力法案将授权高达2500亿美元的支出（其中约2000亿美元似乎是与现有支出不重叠的新资金）。大多数提议与拜登总统的美国就业计划中的政策类似。然而，这笔支出的大部分将取决于未来的国会拨款，这使得总金额有些不确定。同样，与更大的和解法案分开通过的狭隘的基础设施法案可能会在一定程度上增加总数。总体而言，如果国会批准十年内约2.5万亿美元的和解法案，这意味着在此期间支出总额将接近3万亿美元。</blockquote> Q: Will taxes increase?<blockquote>问：税收会增加吗？</blockquote> Assuming Congress passes any legislation using the reconciliation process, tax increases still seem likely.Any bipartisan agreement on infrastructure or competitiveness is unlikely to include meaningful tax increases. If those bills pass and reduce support for subsequent reconciliation legislation, it is conceivable that Congress could fail to enact any tax increases this year, or before the mid-term election in 2022. However, this scenario looks fairly unlikely.<blockquote>假设国会利用和解程序通过任何立法，增税似乎仍有可能。任何关于基础设施或竞争力的两党协议都不太可能包括有意义的增税。如果这些法案获得通过并减少对后续和解立法的支持，可以想象，国会可能无法在今年或2022年中期选举之前颁布任何增税措施。然而，这种情况看起来不太可能发生。</blockquote> Instead, we assume that Congress will pass around $1.5 trillion in tax increases over the next ten years, as outlined in Exhibit 5. A corporate tax increase still seems fairly likely, in our view, with a rate of around 25%. Some of the other international corporate provisions the Biden Administration has proposed also look likely to pass, though we expect the specifics to diverge from the Treasury proposals. Despite the recent attention a global minimum tax has received, we expect Congress to focus instead on revising the existing GILTI tax, which serves a similar purpose. We do not expect Congress to pass the separate minimum tax on book income that the Administration has proposed, as it looks unlikely to win unanimous support among Democrats and would add complexity without generating substantial revenue.<blockquote>相反，我们假设国会将在未来十年通过约1.5万亿美元的增税，如图表5所示。我们认为，公司税上调的可能性仍然很大，税率在25%左右。拜登政府提出的其他一些国际企业条款看起来也有可能获得通过，尽管我们预计具体细节将与财政部的提案有所不同。尽管全球最低税最近受到了关注，但我们预计国会将重点放在修订现有的GILTI税上，这也有类似的目的。我们预计国会不会通过政府提议的单独的账面收入最低税，因为它看起来不太可能赢得民主党人的一致支持，而且会在不产生大量收入的情况下增加复杂性。</blockquote> On the individual side, we continue to believe a capital gains tax increase is slightly more likely than not, though we expect it would rise only to 28% rather than the ordinary income tax rate. It also seems fairly unlikely that Congress will adopt the Administration’s proposal that unrealized capital gains should be taxed at death, as there has already been pushback among centrist Democrats against the concept.<blockquote>就个人而言，我们仍然认为资本利得税上调的可能性略大，尽管我们预计它只会升至28%，而不是普通所得税税率。国会似乎也不太可能采纳政府关于未实现资本收益应在死亡时征税的提议，因为中间派民主党人已经反对这一概念。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ce834610ea19589696b1afcd4ca32a3\" tg-width=\"1064\" tg-height=\"1379\"><blockquote></blockquote> Q: When will all of this happen?<blockquote>问：这一切什么时候会发生？</blockquote> We expect a budget resolution to pass in July, a narrow infrastructure bill in September, and reconciliation legislation in Q4.As noted earlier, before they use the budget reconciliation legislation to pass a fiscal package, congressional Democrats will first need to pass a budget resolution. We expect the details to become clear over the next few weeks, with passage ahead of the congressional recess that starts August 6.<blockquote>我们预计7月份将通过一项预算决议，9月份将通过一项狭义的基础设施法案，并在第四季度通过和解立法。如前所述，在利用预算协调立法通过财政方案之前，国会民主党人首先需要通过一项预算决议。我们预计细节将在未来几周内变得清晰，并在8月6日开始的国会休会前通过。</blockquote> In September, we expect Congress to focus on other issues. First, some type of infrastructure legislation seems likely to pass by late September ahead of the Sep. 30 expiration of the highway program. A short-term extension is possible absent an agreement on a long-term extension.<blockquote>9月份，我们预计国会将关注其他问题。首先，在9月30日高速公路计划到期之前，某种类型的基础设施立法似乎可能会在9月下旬通过。如果没有就长期延期达成协议，短期延期是可能的。</blockquote> Second, Congress will need to extend spending authority for the rest of the federal government past September 30, the end of the fiscal year. At this point, a short-term continuing resolution looks likely, which will leave longer-term decisions until late in the year. The risk of a government shutdown around this deadline is low, in our view.<blockquote>其次，国会需要将联邦政府其他部门的支出授权延长至9月30日（本财年结束）之后。在这一点上，短期的持续解决方案看起来是可能的，这将把更长期的决定留到今年晚些时候。我们认为，在此截止日期前后政府关门的风险很低。</blockquote> Third, Congress will need to address the debt limit. We expect that Congress will need to raise the limit by early October, with a chance it might need to be raised in September. In theory, this could be done as part of a reconciliation bill (either the large reconciliation package we expect Congress to consider, or a standalone bill dealing with just the debt limit). However, the debt limit cannot be suspended under the reconciliation process, only raised, and this would involve specifying an explicit and very large dollar amount. Instead, we expect Democratic leaders to pass a debt limit suspension along with the extension of spending authority, though other scenarios are clearly possible.<blockquote>第三，国会需要解决债务上限问题。我们预计国会需要在10月初之前提高限额，并有可能在9月份提高。理论上，这可以作为和解法案的一部分（要么是我们希望国会考虑的大型和解方案，要么是仅处理债务限额的独立法案）。然而，在和解程序下，债务限额不能暂停，只能提高，这将涉及指定一个明确的和非常大的美元数额。相反，我们预计民主党领导人将在延长支出权力的同时通过暂停债务限额，尽管其他情况显然是可能的。</blockquote> With those issues out of the way, we expect congressional Democrats to attempt to finalize a fiscal package in Q4. It is possible that the legislation could be ready for a vote as early as October. However, since essentially every Democrat in both chambers of Congress will need to agree, reaching a final political compromise could take longer. It is entirely possible that it takes until December for Congress to finalize the fiscal package, ahead of the holiday recess at year-end.<blockquote>随着这些问题的解决，我们预计国会民主党人将试图在第四季度敲定财政方案。这项立法最早可能在10月份进行投票。然而，由于国会参众两院的每个民主党人都需要同意，达成最终的政治妥协可能需要更长的时间。国会完全有可能要到12月才能在年底假期休会之前敲定财政方案。</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>A Broad Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Is Unlikely: Goldman<blockquote>高盛：不太可能达成广泛的两党基础设施协议</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nA Broad Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Is Unlikely: Goldman<blockquote>高盛：不太可能达成广泛的两党基础设施协议</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-06-22 15:28\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn its latest Q&amp;A assessment of the state of US fiscal policy, Goldman's economics team writes that while it \"still looks broadly on track to meet our expectations, risks continue to tilt in the direction of a smaller spending boost and smaller tax hike than the roughly $3 trillion and $1.5 trillion over ten years that we expect.\" The bank then notes that \"while a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure package cannot be ruled out, we continue to think the odds are against it, as there seems to be little agreement on financing it.\" Instead, Goldman expects Congress to pass a narrower infrastructure package focused mainly on transportation. If so, expect congressional Democrats to begin moving a broader fiscal package under the reconciliation process.<blockquote>高盛经济团队在对美国财政政策状况的最新问答评估中写道，虽然“看起来仍基本有望满足我们的预期，但风险继续倾向于支出增长和增税幅度小于美国的预期。”我们预计十年内将达到3万亿美元和1.5万亿美元。”该银行随后指出，“虽然不能排除两党就广泛的基础设施一揽子计划达成协议的可能性，但我们仍然认为可能性很小，因为在融资方面似乎几乎没有达成一致。”相反，高盛预计国会将通过一项范围较窄的基础设施计划，主要关注交通运输。如果是这样，预计国会民主党人将在和解进程下开始推进更广泛的财政方案。</blockquote> Reading recent headlines, one would be left with the impression of a wide range of spending outcomes – a boost of a few hundred billion to as much as $6 trillion over ten years – but the range of outcomes is not as wide as these figures imply. Most of the “traditional” infrastructure President Biden has proposed looks likely to pass, along with substantial R&amp;D spending and renewal of personal tax credits that expire at year end. Together, these cost around 1% of GDP on an annual basis over the next few years. The remainder of the Biden agenda might boost spending by another1% of GDP, but Congress is expected to pare these proposals considerably.<blockquote>阅读最近的头条新闻，人们会留下广泛的支出结果的印象——十年内增加了几千亿美元到高达6万亿美元——但结果的范围并不像这些数字暗示的那样广泛。拜登总统提出的大部分“传统”基础设施看起来很可能会获得通过，同时还有大量的研发支出和年底到期的个人税收抵免的更新。在接下来的几年里，这些费用每年约占GDP的1%。拜登议程的其余部分可能会将支出再增加GDP的1%，但预计国会将大幅削减这些提案。</blockquote> Meanwhile, tax increases also still look likely, assuming that Democrats pass legislation using the reconciliation process. That's why Goldman has not changed its views much in this area, and still expectsthe corporate tax rate to settle around 25% along with more incremental versions of the international tax changes Biden has proposed.A capital gains rate increase is a close call, but a 28%capital gains rate is slightly more likely than the status quo.<blockquote>与此同时，假设民主党利用和解程序通过立法，增税看起来仍有可能。这就是为什么高盛在这方面的观点没有太大改变，并且仍然预计企业税率将稳定在25%左右，以及拜登提出的更多增量版本的国际税收改革。资本利得税率上调是一个接近看涨期权，但28%的资本利得税率比现状的可能性略大。</blockquote> Finally, the likely timing of fiscal action has also changed more noticeably,with likely enactment slipping from mid/late Q3 to Q4.This is due in large part to the continuation of bipartisan negotiations for longer than we had expected, which has led congressional Democratic leaders to delay the first procedural steps necessary to pass a reconciliation bill.<blockquote>最后，财政行动的可能时机也发生了更明显的变化，颁布可能会从第三季度中后期推迟到第四季度。这在很大程度上是由于两党谈判持续的时间比我们预期的要长，这导致国会民主党领导人推迟了通过和解法案所需的第一步程序步骤。</blockquote> Below we republish the key aspects of Goldman's FIscal Policy Status Check Q&amp;A:<blockquote>下面我们重新发布高盛财政政策状况检查问答的关键方面：</blockquote> Q: Will there be a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure bill?<blockquote>问：两党会就一项广泛的基础设施法案达成协议吗？</blockquote> A broad bipartisan infrastructure package still looks somewhat unlikely to us.Negotiations in the Senate have progressed and the odds have increased somewhat that a bipartisan bill covering many areas in President Biden’s program might pass. However, we still think there are obstacles to a broad deal and expect that most of the fiscal boost Congress approves this year will come through a reconciliation bill that passes with only Democratic support.<blockquote>在我们看来，广泛的两党基础设施一揽子计划仍然不太可能。参议院的谈判取得了进展，涵盖拜登总统计划中许多领域的两党法案获得通过的可能性有所增加。然而，我们仍然认为达成广泛协议存在障碍，并预计国会今年批准的大部分财政刺激将通过一项只有民主党支持才能通过的和解法案。</blockquote> Unsurprisingly, there appears to be the most agreement on boosting traditional infrastructure spending. As shown in Exhibit 1, the current Senate bipartisan proposal comes close to matching the White House proposal in most areas of transportation infrastructure.<blockquote>不出所料，在增加传统基础设施支出方面似乎达成了最多的共识。如图表1所示，目前参议院两党提案在交通基础设施的大多数领域接近白宫提案。</blockquote> More controversial is how to address non-traditional infrastructure and how to finance the cost of any new spending. The latest bipartisan effort appears to have made some inroads on the former. It includes $65bn for broadband, which falls short of the roughly $100bn that the White House proposed but it would be the greatest federal investment to date and seems close enough to the Democratic target that this issue alone looks unlikely to hold up an agreement.<blockquote>更有争议的是如何解决非传统基础设施以及如何为任何新支出的成本融资。两党的最新努力似乎在前者上取得了一些进展。其中包括650亿美元的宽带投资，低于白宫提议的约1000亿美元，但这将是迄今为止最大的联邦投资，而且似乎足够接近民主党的目标，仅这个问题似乎不太可能阻碍达成协议。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/70d0d7b968b10f5764ef17cd3c787d53\" tg-width=\"944\" tg-height=\"1186\"><blockquote></blockquote> Other areas of non-traditional infrastructure in bipartisan discussions are much farther away from White House goals. Senate Republicans look unlikely to support substantial funding for electric vehicles or construction of affordable housing, for example. Clean energy is more of a gray area; Congress has previously approved, on a bipartisan basis, a number of different incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy like wind, solar, and biofuels. However, the program President Biden proposes is on a much larger scale than existing subsidies and the latest bipartisan proposal includes only a fraction of what the White House is seeking in this area.<blockquote>两党讨论中的其他非传统基础设施领域与白宫的目标相去甚远。例如，参议院共和党人看起来不太可能支持为电动汽车或经济适用房建设提供大量资金。清洁能源更多是一个灰色地带；国会此前已在两党基础上批准了一系列针对能源效率和风能、太阳能和生物燃料等可再生能源的不同激励措施。然而，拜登总统提出的计划比现有补贴规模大得多，最新的两党提案仅包括白宫在这一领域寻求的一小部分。</blockquote> The greatest obstacle to prior political efforts at enacting an infrastructure program has been financing it. Here, there appears to have been much less progress (Exhibit 2). Each side has drawn lines they seem unlikely to cross: most Republicans oppose reversing any of the 2017 tax law or otherwise increasing income taxes—corporate or personal—to pay for the proposal. Most Democrats, including the White House, have ruled out increasing the user fees that finance most current infrastructure spending and appear uninterested in redirecting unspent COVID-relief funds.<blockquote>之前制定基础设施计划的政治努力的最大障碍是融资。在这里，进展似乎要小得多（图表2）。双方都划定了他们似乎不太可能跨越的界限：大多数共和党人反对推翻2017年的任何税法或以其他方式增加所得税（企业或个人）来支付该提案。包括白宫在内的大多数民主党人已经排除了增加为当前大多数基础设施支出提供资金的使用费的可能性，并且似乎对重新分配未用完的新冠救助资金不感兴趣。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9578698f5c5efa5311cc0e31be31f715\" tg-width=\"939\" tg-height=\"509\">The most likely area of overlapping support is closing the “tax gap” through greater enforcement of existing tax laws, but even this faces challenges. Congressional estimates of the potential revenue gain from closing the tax gap are much smaller than the Administration’s. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2020 that increasing IRS funding by $20 billion over ten years would produce $60bn in additional revenue, while a $40bn increase would raise $103bn (i.e., the first $20bn bump would raise $3 for each dollar spent, while the next $20bn bump in funding would raise only $2 for each dollar of extra spending). While it is possible that CBO might revise its estimate in light of arguments from the Administration, or that Republicans might agree to policies beyond an IRS funding increase, it seems unlikely that additional IRS funding would come anywhere close to covering the cost of an infrastructure proposal, at least according to the official estimate that Congress will rely on.<blockquote>重叠支持最有可能的领域是通过加强现有税法的执行来缩小“税收差距”，但即使这样也面临挑战。国会对缩小税收差距的潜在收入收益的估计远小于政府的估计。国会预算办公室（Congressional Budget Office）在2020年估计，在十年内增加200亿美元的国税局资金将产生600亿美元的额外收入，而增加400亿美元将筹集1030亿美元（即，第一个200亿美元的增加将为每1美元的支出筹集3美元，而下一个200亿美元的增加将为每1美元的额外支出筹集2美元）。虽然CBO可能会根据政府的论点修改其估计，或者共和党人可能会同意国税局增加资金以外的政策，但国税局的额外资金似乎不太可能接近支付基础设施提案的成本，至少根据国会将依赖的官方估计。</blockquote> In our view, the only way that Congress will reach a bipartisan agreement on a broad infrastructure package is if lawmakers decide not to offset the new spending with savings elsewhere. So far, the White House and congressional Republicans have insisted that the bill should be paid for.<blockquote>我们认为，国会就广泛的基础设施一揽子计划达成两党协议的唯一途径是立法者决定不用其他地方的储蓄来抵消新支出。到目前为止，白宫和国会共和党人坚持认为该法案应该得到支付。</blockquote> Q: Without a bipartisan deal, what happens with infrastructure legislation?<blockquote>问：如果没有两党协议，基础设施立法会发生什么？</blockquote> If a broad bipartisan deal fails, a narrow one is likely to pass.While a broad bipartisan agreement covering several aspects of the Biden proposal looks difficult to achieve, a narrower deal that primarily boosts transportation infrastructure looks likely to become law, for three reasons.<blockquote>如果广泛的两党协议失败，狭隘的协议很可能会通过。虽然涵盖拜登提案几个方面的广泛两党协议看起来很难实现，但一项主要促进交通基础设施建设的范围较窄的协议看起来很可能成为法律，原因有三。</blockquote> First, federal programs for most areas of traditional infrastructure—highways, public transit, rail, airports, waterways and drinking/ wastewater—already exist. The largest of them, which are collectively funded by the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), expire September 30. Traditionally, Congress reauthorizes these programs in five-year increments,sometimes after one or more short-term extensions until lawmakers reach agreement.The legislation to renew these programs cannot pass via the reconciliation process, soDemocrats will need Republican support for any short- or long-term extension. Theupshot is that it is nearly certain that some type of infrastructure legislation passes on abipartisan basis to avoid a lapse in the programs.<blockquote>首先，针对传统基础设施大多数领域——高速公路、公共交通、铁路、机场、水路和饮用水/废水处理——的联邦计划已经存在。其中最大的一笔由公路信托基金（HTF）集体资助，将于9月30日到期。传统上，国会以五年为增量重新授权这些项目，有时在一次或多次短期延期之后，直到立法者达成协议。更新这些项目的立法无法通过和解程序，民主党人将需要共和党的支持才能进行任何短期或长期的延期。结果是，几乎可以肯定的是，某种类型的基础设施立法将在两党的基础上通过，以避免项目中的失误。</blockquote> Second, some progressive Democrats seem likely to oppose an infrastructure bill that does not include substantial new policies related to climate and clean energy. Without their votes, greater support among congressional Republicans in the House and Senate would be necessary. To win greater support, the bill might need to narrow its scope further, to the point that it mainly extends existing infrastructure spending programs.<blockquote>其次，一些进步民主党人似乎可能会反对一项不包括与气候和清洁能源相关的实质性新政策的基础设施法案。如果没有他们的投票，众议院和参议院共和党人的更大支持将是必要的。为了赢得更大的支持，该法案可能需要进一步缩小其范围，主要扩展现有的基础设施支出计划。</blockquote> Third, financing a narrow infrastructure deal would not be nearly as difficult as financing the sort of bill currently under discussion. Existing transportation infrastructure programs already have dedicated revenue streams that fund most of their spending. Financing an incremental boost in spending on existing programs would be far easier than finding bipartisan agreement on several hundred billion dollars in new revenue or spending cuts.<blockquote>第三，为一项狭隘的基础设施交易融资不会像为目前正在讨论的那种法案融资那么困难。现有的交通基础设施项目已经有专门的收入来源，为其大部分支出提供资金。为增加现有项目的支出提供资金比就数千亿美元的新收入或削减支出达成两党协议要容易得多。</blockquote> Q: What difference does it make if Congress reaches a bipartisan deal on infrastructure?<blockquote>问：如果国会就基础设施达成两党协议，会有什么不同？</blockquote> A broad bipartisan infrastructure bill could reduce the odds that the rest of the Biden fiscal agenda becomes law. A broader bipartisan deal that overlaps with many areas of the Biden proposal could reduce centrist Democratic support for passing subsequent fiscal legislation through the reconciliation process. If this occurred, the spending boost over the next few years might be smaller than we have been expecting but corporate and capital gains taxes would also be less likely to increase.<blockquote>一项广泛的两党基础设施法案可能会降低拜登财政议程其余部分成为法律的可能性.一项与拜登提案的许多领域重叠的更广泛的两党协议可能会减少中间派民主党对通过和解进程通过后续财政立法的支持。如果发生这种情况，未来几年的支出增长可能会小于我们的预期，但公司税和资本利得税也不太可能增加。</blockquote> By contrast, a narrower bipartisan deal limited to traditional infrastructure would still leave the door open for Democrats to pass a separate fiscal package through the reconciliation process that addresses much of the remainder of President Biden’s proposals. Relative to the scenario in which Congress passes a broad bipartisan infrastructure deal, passing a narrow transportation bill followed by a separate reconciliation bill would likely result in a greater overall increase in spending, partly offset by tax increases.<blockquote>相比之下，仅限于传统基础设施的范围较窄的两党协议仍将为民主党通过和解进程通过单独的财政方案敞开大门，该方案解决了拜登总统其余大部分提案。相对于国会通过一项广泛的两党基础设施协议的情况，通过一项狭隘的交通法案，然后通过一项单独的和解法案，可能会导致支出的总体增加，部分被增税抵消。</blockquote> Q: What are the risks around spending levels under the different scenarios?<blockquote>问：不同情景下支出水平的风险是什么？</blockquote> Congress seems very likely to approve spending and tax benefits equal to at least 1% of GDP over the next few years, but unlikely to go beyond 2% of GDP.Headlines regarding fiscal proposals over the last few weeks have run the gamut from a boost of only a few hundred billion at the low end (the Republican infrastructure proposal) to $6 trillion over ten years at the high end (the reported spending total Senate Democrats are considering).<blockquote>国会似乎很有可能在未来几年批准至少相当于GDP 1%的支出和税收优惠，但不太可能超过GDP的2%。过去几周关于财政提案的头条新闻涵盖了从低端仅增加几千亿美元（共和党的基础设施提案）到高端十年内增加6万亿美元（参议院民主党人正在考虑的报告支出总额）。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c29c240e9afe9bc1a84d4f359152bb57\" tg-width=\"937\" tg-height=\"675\">However, these large figures overstate the range of realistic scenarios. At a minimum, we expect Congress to enact three sets of policies this year: the infrastructure proposals that already have bipartisan support, the R&amp;D and manufacturing incentives that recently passed the Senate, and extension of the personal tax credits that Congress approved earlier this year. As Exhibit 3 shows, these policies would total around 1% of GDP by 2023, and would cost about $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. At this point, it is difficult to imagine Congress approving less this year.<blockquote>然而，这些大数字夸大了现实情景的范围。至少，我们预计国会今年将颁布三套政策：已经获得两党支持的基础设施提案、参议院最近通过的研发和制造激励措施，以及国会今年早些时候批准的个人税收抵免延期。如图表3所示，到2023年，这些政策总计将占GDP的1%左右，未来十年将花费约1.6万亿美元。在这一点上，很难想象国会今年会批准更少。</blockquote> At the other end of the range of outcomes, it seems unlikely that Congress will enact spending worth more than 2% of GDP on an annual basis. As shown in Exhibit 3, Congress would need to pass nearly all of President Biden’s proposals to reach this level, or around $4.25 trillion over the next ten years.<blockquote>另一方面，国会似乎不太可能制定每年超过GDP 2%的支出。如图表3所示，国会需要通过拜登总统的几乎所有提案才能达到这一水平，即未来十年约4.25万亿美元。</blockquote> The uncertainty is mainly related to new benefits for child care, education, and paid leave under the “American Families Plan” as well as the remaining areas of infrastructure that any sort of bipartisan infrastructure deal would likely omit. These areas depend most on the use of budget reconciliation legislation, as it seems very unlikely that any of the proposals would attract much Republican support.<blockquote>不确定性主要与“美国家庭计划”下的儿童保育、教育和带薪休假的新福利以及任何两党基础设施协议都可能忽略的剩余基础设施领域有关。这些领域最依赖于预算调节立法的使用，因为任何提案似乎都不太可能吸引共和党的支持。</blockquote> That said, even if Congress enacts nearly all of President Biden’s proposed policies, fiscal support will diminish substantially from 2021 to 2022. Exhibit 4 shows the deficit effect of legislation enacted since the pandemic began, as well as the fiscal effects of President Biden’s proposals using our own categorization.<blockquote>也就是说，即使国会颁布了拜登总统提出的几乎所有政策，从2021年到2022年，财政支持也将大幅减少。图表4显示了自疫情开始以来颁布的立法的赤字效应，以及拜登总统使用我们自己的分类提出的提案的财政效应。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/812bd47cecb22835bb2a223a3ddecb8f\" tg-width=\"925\" tg-height=\"620\">Q: How much will legislation this year increase spending?<blockquote>问：今年的立法将增加多少支出？</blockquote> We think the overall boost could amount to $2.5 to $3 trillion over the next ten years.Assuming congressional Democrats take advantage of the reconciliation process to pass fiscal legislation, there will still be two constraints on the amount of additional spending Congress might approve.<blockquote>我们认为未来十年的总体增长可能达到2.5至3万亿美元。假设国会民主党人利用和解程序通过财政立法，国会可能批准的额外支出金额仍将受到两个限制。</blockquote> Centrist Democrats in the House and Senate are likely to object to legislation that raises the deficit substantially over the next ten years. This will become relevant in the next few weeks, when Congress considers its budget resolution. To use the reconciliation process, the resolution must include instructions to the relevant committees to increase the deficit (or alternatively to increase spending and increase taxes) by specific amounts. The deficit impact of the reconciliation bill that follows will be limited to those amounts. It is extremely unlikely that any Republicans will vote for the Democratic budget resolution, so every Democratic senator and virtually every Democratic member of the House will need to vote for the resolution. It is not yet clear how much deficit expansion Democrats will be willing to support, but we expect centrist Democrats to draw the line at somewhere around $1 trillion. For context, President Biden’s recent budget submission to Congress proposed increasing the deficit by $800bn over the next ten years.<blockquote>众议院和参议院的中间派民主党人可能会反对在未来十年大幅增加赤字的立法。这将在未来几周国会审议其预算决议时变得相关。要使用调节程序，决议必须包括对相关委员会的指示，以具体金额增加赤字（或增加支出和增加税收）。随后的调节法案对赤字的影响将仅限于这些金额。任何共和党人都不太可能投票支持民主党的预算决议，因此每一位民主党参议员和几乎每一位众议院民主党议员都需要投票支持该决议。目前尚不清楚民主党人愿意支持多少赤字扩张，但我们预计中间派民主党人将在1万亿美元左右划清界限。作为背景，拜登总统最近向国会提交的预算提议在未来十年将赤字增加8000亿美元。</blockquote> Assuming a limit on the overall amount of deficit expansion, the amount of tax increases and other budgetary savings that lawmakers can agree to will determine how much they can increase spending. At the moment, we expect that Congress might be able to agree on around $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings, nearly all of which could come from tax increases, as discussed later. If so, a reconciliation bill would be limited to around $2.5 trillion in new spending. However, we expect that some additional spending might be approved as part of other legislation. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act that recently passed the Senate would authorize up to $250bn in spending (around $200bn of this appears to be new money that does not overlap with existing spending). Most of the proposals are similar to policies in President Biden’s American Jobs Plan. However, much of this spending would depend on future Congresses to appropriate, making the overall amount somewhat uncertain. Similarly, a narrow infrastructure bill that passes separately from the larger reconciliation bill might add somewhat to the total. Overall, if Congress approves a reconciliation bill of around $2.5 trillion over ten years, this suggests a total bump to spending approaching $3 trillion over that period.<blockquote>假设赤字扩张的总量受到限制，立法者能够同意的增税和其他预算节省的金额将决定他们能够增加多少支出。目前，我们预计国会可能能够就约1.5万亿美元的预算节省达成一致，其中几乎所有资金都可能来自增税，正如稍后讨论的那样。如果是这样，和解法案将被限制在2.5万亿美元左右的新支出。然而，我们预计一些额外支出可能会作为其他立法的一部分获得批准。参议院最近通过的美国创新和竞争力法案将授权高达2500亿美元的支出（其中约2000亿美元似乎是与现有支出不重叠的新资金）。大多数提议与拜登总统的美国就业计划中的政策类似。然而，这笔支出的大部分将取决于未来的国会拨款，这使得总金额有些不确定。同样，与更大的和解法案分开通过的狭隘的基础设施法案可能会在一定程度上增加总数。总体而言，如果国会批准十年内约2.5万亿美元的和解法案，这意味着在此期间支出总额将接近3万亿美元。</blockquote> Q: Will taxes increase?<blockquote>问：税收会增加吗？</blockquote> Assuming Congress passes any legislation using the reconciliation process, tax increases still seem likely.Any bipartisan agreement on infrastructure or competitiveness is unlikely to include meaningful tax increases. If those bills pass and reduce support for subsequent reconciliation legislation, it is conceivable that Congress could fail to enact any tax increases this year, or before the mid-term election in 2022. However, this scenario looks fairly unlikely.<blockquote>假设国会利用和解程序通过任何立法，增税似乎仍有可能。任何关于基础设施或竞争力的两党协议都不太可能包括有意义的增税。如果这些法案获得通过并减少对后续和解立法的支持，可以想象，国会可能无法在今年或2022年中期选举之前颁布任何增税措施。然而，这种情况看起来不太可能发生。</blockquote> Instead, we assume that Congress will pass around $1.5 trillion in tax increases over the next ten years, as outlined in Exhibit 5. A corporate tax increase still seems fairly likely, in our view, with a rate of around 25%. Some of the other international corporate provisions the Biden Administration has proposed also look likely to pass, though we expect the specifics to diverge from the Treasury proposals. Despite the recent attention a global minimum tax has received, we expect Congress to focus instead on revising the existing GILTI tax, which serves a similar purpose. We do not expect Congress to pass the separate minimum tax on book income that the Administration has proposed, as it looks unlikely to win unanimous support among Democrats and would add complexity without generating substantial revenue.<blockquote>相反，我们假设国会将在未来十年通过约1.5万亿美元的增税，如图表5所示。我们认为，公司税上调的可能性仍然很大，税率在25%左右。拜登政府提出的其他一些国际企业条款看起来也有可能获得通过，尽管我们预计具体细节将与财政部的提案有所不同。尽管全球最低税最近受到了关注，但我们预计国会将重点放在修订现有的GILTI税上，这也有类似的目的。我们预计国会不会通过政府提议的单独的账面收入最低税，因为它看起来不太可能赢得民主党人的一致支持，而且会在不产生大量收入的情况下增加复杂性。</blockquote> On the individual side, we continue to believe a capital gains tax increase is slightly more likely than not, though we expect it would rise only to 28% rather than the ordinary income tax rate. It also seems fairly unlikely that Congress will adopt the Administration’s proposal that unrealized capital gains should be taxed at death, as there has already been pushback among centrist Democrats against the concept.<blockquote>就个人而言，我们仍然认为资本利得税上调的可能性略大，尽管我们预计它只会升至28%，而不是普通所得税税率。国会似乎也不太可能采纳政府关于未实现资本收益应在死亡时征税的提议，因为中间派民主党人已经反对这一概念。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ce834610ea19589696b1afcd4ca32a3\" tg-width=\"1064\" tg-height=\"1379\"><blockquote></blockquote> Q: When will all of this happen?<blockquote>问：这一切什么时候会发生？</blockquote> We expect a budget resolution to pass in July, a narrow infrastructure bill in September, and reconciliation legislation in Q4.As noted earlier, before they use the budget reconciliation legislation to pass a fiscal package, congressional Democrats will first need to pass a budget resolution. We expect the details to become clear over the next few weeks, with passage ahead of the congressional recess that starts August 6.<blockquote>我们预计7月份将通过一项预算决议，9月份将通过一项狭义的基础设施法案，并在第四季度通过和解立法。如前所述，在利用预算协调立法通过财政方案之前，国会民主党人首先需要通过一项预算决议。我们预计细节将在未来几周内变得清晰，并在8月6日开始的国会休会前通过。</blockquote> In September, we expect Congress to focus on other issues. First, some type of infrastructure legislation seems likely to pass by late September ahead of the Sep. 30 expiration of the highway program. A short-term extension is possible absent an agreement on a long-term extension.<blockquote>9月份，我们预计国会将关注其他问题。首先，在9月30日高速公路计划到期之前，某种类型的基础设施立法似乎可能会在9月下旬通过。如果没有就长期延期达成协议，短期延期是可能的。</blockquote> Second, Congress will need to extend spending authority for the rest of the federal government past September 30, the end of the fiscal year. At this point, a short-term continuing resolution looks likely, which will leave longer-term decisions until late in the year. The risk of a government shutdown around this deadline is low, in our view.<blockquote>其次，国会需要将联邦政府其他部门的支出授权延长至9月30日（本财年结束）之后。在这一点上，短期的持续解决方案看起来是可能的，这将把更长期的决定留到今年晚些时候。我们认为，在此截止日期前后政府关门的风险很低。</blockquote> Third, Congress will need to address the debt limit. We expect that Congress will need to raise the limit by early October, with a chance it might need to be raised in September. In theory, this could be done as part of a reconciliation bill (either the large reconciliation package we expect Congress to consider, or a standalone bill dealing with just the debt limit). However, the debt limit cannot be suspended under the reconciliation process, only raised, and this would involve specifying an explicit and very large dollar amount. Instead, we expect Democratic leaders to pass a debt limit suspension along with the extension of spending authority, though other scenarios are clearly possible.<blockquote>第三，国会需要解决债务上限问题。我们预计国会需要在10月初之前提高限额，并有可能在9月份提高。理论上，这可以作为和解法案的一部分（要么是我们希望国会考虑的大型和解方案，要么是仅处理债务限额的独立法案）。然而，在和解程序下，债务限额不能暂停，只能提高，这将涉及指定一个明确的和非常大的美元数额。相反，我们预计民主党领导人将在延长支出权力的同时通过暂停债务限额，尽管其他情况显然是可能的。</blockquote> With those issues out of the way, we expect congressional Democrats to attempt to finalize a fiscal package in Q4. It is possible that the legislation could be ready for a vote as early as October. However, since essentially every Democrat in both chambers of Congress will need to agree, reaching a final political compromise could take longer. It is entirely possible that it takes until December for Congress to finalize the fiscal package, ahead of the holiday recess at year-end.<blockquote>随着这些问题的解决，我们预计国会民主党人将试图在第四季度敲定财政方案。这项立法最早可能在10月份进行投票。然而，由于国会参众两院的每个民主党人都需要同意，达成最终的政治妥协可能需要更长的时间。国会完全有可能要到12月才能在年底假期休会之前敲定财政方案。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/broad-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal-unlikely-goldman\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","SPY":"标普500ETF"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/broad-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal-unlikely-goldman","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1195801914","content_text":"In its latest Q&A assessment of the state of US fiscal policy, Goldman's economics team writes that while it \"still looks broadly on track to meet our expectations, risks continue to tilt in the direction of a smaller spending boost and smaller tax hike than the roughly $3 trillion and $1.5 trillion over ten years that we expect.\" The bank then notes that \"while a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure package cannot be ruled out, we continue to think the odds are against it, as there seems to be little agreement on financing it.\" Instead, Goldman expects Congress to pass a narrower infrastructure package focused mainly on transportation. If so, expect congressional Democrats to begin moving a broader fiscal package under the reconciliation process.\nReading recent headlines, one would be left with the impression of a wide range of spending outcomes – a boost of a few hundred billion to as much as $6 trillion over ten years – but the range of outcomes is not as wide as these figures imply. Most of the “traditional” infrastructure President Biden has proposed looks likely to pass, along with substantial R&D spending and renewal of personal tax credits that expire at year end. Together, these cost around 1% of GDP on an annual basis over the next few years. The remainder of the Biden agenda might boost spending by another1% of GDP, but Congress is expected to pare these proposals considerably.\nMeanwhile, tax increases also still look likely, assuming that Democrats pass legislation using the reconciliation process. That's why Goldman has not changed its views much in this area, and still expectsthe corporate tax rate to settle around 25% along with more incremental versions of the international tax changes Biden has proposed.A capital gains rate increase is a close call, but a 28%capital gains rate is slightly more likely than the status quo.\nFinally, the likely timing of fiscal action has also changed more noticeably,with likely enactment slipping from mid/late Q3 to Q4.This is due in large part to the continuation of bipartisan negotiations for longer than we had expected, which has led congressional Democratic leaders to delay the first procedural steps necessary to pass a reconciliation bill.\nBelow we republish the key aspects of Goldman's FIscal Policy Status Check Q&A:\nQ: Will there be a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure bill?\nA broad bipartisan infrastructure package still looks somewhat unlikely to us.Negotiations in the Senate have progressed and the odds have increased somewhat that a bipartisan bill covering many areas in President Biden’s program might pass. However, we still think there are obstacles to a broad deal and expect that most of the fiscal boost Congress approves this year will come through a reconciliation bill that passes with only Democratic support.\nUnsurprisingly, there appears to be the most agreement on boosting traditional infrastructure spending. As shown in Exhibit 1, the current Senate bipartisan proposal comes close to matching the White House proposal in most areas of transportation infrastructure.\nMore controversial is how to address non-traditional infrastructure and how to finance the cost of any new spending. The latest bipartisan effort appears to have made some inroads on the former. It includes $65bn for broadband, which falls short of the roughly $100bn that the White House proposed but it would be the greatest federal investment to date and seems close enough to the Democratic target that this issue alone looks unlikely to hold up an agreement.\n\nOther areas of non-traditional infrastructure in bipartisan discussions are much farther away from White House goals. Senate Republicans look unlikely to support substantial funding for electric vehicles or construction of affordable housing, for example. Clean energy is more of a gray area; Congress has previously approved, on a bipartisan basis, a number of different incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy like wind, solar, and biofuels. However, the program President Biden proposes is on a much larger scale than existing subsidies and the latest bipartisan proposal includes only a fraction of what the White House is seeking in this area.\nThe greatest obstacle to prior political efforts at enacting an infrastructure program has been financing it. Here, there appears to have been much less progress (Exhibit 2). Each side has drawn lines they seem unlikely to cross: most Republicans oppose reversing any of the 2017 tax law or otherwise increasing income taxes—corporate or personal—to pay for the proposal. Most Democrats, including the White House, have ruled out increasing the user fees that finance most current infrastructure spending and appear uninterested in redirecting unspent COVID-relief funds.\nThe most likely area of overlapping support is closing the “tax gap” through greater enforcement of existing tax laws, but even this faces challenges. Congressional estimates of the potential revenue gain from closing the tax gap are much smaller than the Administration’s. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2020 that increasing IRS funding by $20 billion over ten years would produce $60bn in additional revenue, while a $40bn increase would raise $103bn (i.e., the first $20bn bump would raise $3 for each dollar spent, while the next $20bn bump in funding would raise only $2 for each dollar of extra spending). While it is possible that CBO might revise its estimate in light of arguments from the Administration, or that Republicans might agree to policies beyond an IRS funding increase, it seems unlikely that additional IRS funding would come anywhere close to covering the cost of an infrastructure proposal, at least according to the official estimate that Congress will rely on.\nIn our view, the only way that Congress will reach a bipartisan agreement on a broad infrastructure package is if lawmakers decide not to offset the new spending with savings elsewhere. So far, the White House and congressional Republicans have insisted that the bill should be paid for.\nQ: Without a bipartisan deal, what happens with infrastructure legislation?\nIf a broad bipartisan deal fails, a narrow one is likely to pass.While a broad bipartisan agreement covering several aspects of the Biden proposal looks difficult to achieve, a narrower deal that primarily boosts transportation infrastructure looks likely to become law, for three reasons.\nFirst, federal programs for most areas of traditional infrastructure—highways, public transit, rail, airports, waterways and drinking/ wastewater—already exist. The largest of them, which are collectively funded by the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), expire September 30. Traditionally, Congress reauthorizes these programs in five-year increments,sometimes after one or more short-term extensions until lawmakers reach agreement.The legislation to renew these programs cannot pass via the reconciliation process, soDemocrats will need Republican support for any short- or long-term extension. Theupshot is that it is nearly certain that some type of infrastructure legislation passes on abipartisan basis to avoid a lapse in the programs.\nSecond, some progressive Democrats seem likely to oppose an infrastructure bill that does not include substantial new policies related to climate and clean energy. Without their votes, greater support among congressional Republicans in the House and Senate would be necessary. To win greater support, the bill might need to narrow its scope further, to the point that it mainly extends existing infrastructure spending programs.\nThird, financing a narrow infrastructure deal would not be nearly as difficult as financing the sort of bill currently under discussion. Existing transportation infrastructure programs already have dedicated revenue streams that fund most of their spending. Financing an incremental boost in spending on existing programs would be far easier than finding bipartisan agreement on several hundred billion dollars in new revenue or spending cuts.\nQ: What difference does it make if Congress reaches a bipartisan deal on infrastructure?\nA broad bipartisan infrastructure bill could reduce the odds that the rest of the Biden fiscal agenda becomes law. A broader bipartisan deal that overlaps with many areas of the Biden proposal could reduce centrist Democratic support for passing subsequent fiscal legislation through the reconciliation process. If this occurred, the spending boost over the next few years might be smaller than we have been expecting but corporate and capital gains taxes would also be less likely to increase.\nBy contrast, a narrower bipartisan deal limited to traditional infrastructure would still leave the door open for Democrats to pass a separate fiscal package through the reconciliation process that addresses much of the remainder of President Biden’s proposals. Relative to the scenario in which Congress passes a broad bipartisan infrastructure deal, passing a narrow transportation bill followed by a separate reconciliation bill would likely result in a greater overall increase in spending, partly offset by tax increases.\nQ: What are the risks around spending levels under the different scenarios?\nCongress seems very likely to approve spending and tax benefits equal to at least 1% of GDP over the next few years, but unlikely to go beyond 2% of GDP.Headlines regarding fiscal proposals over the last few weeks have run the gamut from a boost of only a few hundred billion at the low end (the Republican infrastructure proposal) to $6 trillion over ten years at the high end (the reported spending total Senate Democrats are considering).\nHowever, these large figures overstate the range of realistic scenarios. At a minimum, we expect Congress to enact three sets of policies this year: the infrastructure proposals that already have bipartisan support, the R&D and manufacturing incentives that recently passed the Senate, and extension of the personal tax credits that Congress approved earlier this year. As Exhibit 3 shows, these policies would total around 1% of GDP by 2023, and would cost about $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. At this point, it is difficult to imagine Congress approving less this year.\nAt the other end of the range of outcomes, it seems unlikely that Congress will enact spending worth more than 2% of GDP on an annual basis. As shown in Exhibit 3, Congress would need to pass nearly all of President Biden’s proposals to reach this level, or around $4.25 trillion over the next ten years.\nThe uncertainty is mainly related to new benefits for child care, education, and paid leave under the “American Families Plan” as well as the remaining areas of infrastructure that any sort of bipartisan infrastructure deal would likely omit. These areas depend most on the use of budget reconciliation legislation, as it seems very unlikely that any of the proposals would attract much Republican support.\nThat said, even if Congress enacts nearly all of President Biden’s proposed policies, fiscal support will diminish substantially from 2021 to 2022. Exhibit 4 shows the deficit effect of legislation enacted since the pandemic began, as well as the fiscal effects of President Biden’s proposals using our own categorization.\nQ: How much will legislation this year increase spending?\nWe think the overall boost could amount to $2.5 to $3 trillion over the next ten years.Assuming congressional Democrats take advantage of the reconciliation process to pass fiscal legislation, there will still be two constraints on the amount of additional spending Congress might approve.\nCentrist Democrats in the House and Senate are likely to object to legislation that raises the deficit substantially over the next ten years. This will become relevant in the next few weeks, when Congress considers its budget resolution. To use the reconciliation process, the resolution must include instructions to the relevant committees to increase the deficit (or alternatively to increase spending and increase taxes) by specific amounts. The deficit impact of the reconciliation bill that follows will be limited to those amounts. It is extremely unlikely that any Republicans will vote for the Democratic budget resolution, so every Democratic senator and virtually every Democratic member of the House will need to vote for the resolution. It is not yet clear how much deficit expansion Democrats will be willing to support, but we expect centrist Democrats to draw the line at somewhere around $1 trillion. For context, President Biden’s recent budget submission to Congress proposed increasing the deficit by $800bn over the next ten years.\nAssuming a limit on the overall amount of deficit expansion, the amount of tax increases and other budgetary savings that lawmakers can agree to will determine how much they can increase spending. At the moment, we expect that Congress might be able to agree on around $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings, nearly all of which could come from tax increases, as discussed later. If so, a reconciliation bill would be limited to around $2.5 trillion in new spending. However, we expect that some additional spending might be approved as part of other legislation. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act that recently passed the Senate would authorize up to $250bn in spending (around $200bn of this appears to be new money that does not overlap with existing spending). Most of the proposals are similar to policies in President Biden’s American Jobs Plan. However, much of this spending would depend on future Congresses to appropriate, making the overall amount somewhat uncertain. Similarly, a narrow infrastructure bill that passes separately from the larger reconciliation bill might add somewhat to the total. Overall, if Congress approves a reconciliation bill of around $2.5 trillion over ten years, this suggests a total bump to spending approaching $3 trillion over that period.\nQ: Will taxes increase?\nAssuming Congress passes any legislation using the reconciliation process, tax increases still seem likely.Any bipartisan agreement on infrastructure or competitiveness is unlikely to include meaningful tax increases. If those bills pass and reduce support for subsequent reconciliation legislation, it is conceivable that Congress could fail to enact any tax increases this year, or before the mid-term election in 2022. However, this scenario looks fairly unlikely.\nInstead, we assume that Congress will pass around $1.5 trillion in tax increases over the next ten years, as outlined in Exhibit 5. A corporate tax increase still seems fairly likely, in our view, with a rate of around 25%. Some of the other international corporate provisions the Biden Administration has proposed also look likely to pass, though we expect the specifics to diverge from the Treasury proposals. Despite the recent attention a global minimum tax has received, we expect Congress to focus instead on revising the existing GILTI tax, which serves a similar purpose. We do not expect Congress to pass the separate minimum tax on book income that the Administration has proposed, as it looks unlikely to win unanimous support among Democrats and would add complexity without generating substantial revenue.\nOn the individual side, we continue to believe a capital gains tax increase is slightly more likely than not, though we expect it would rise only to 28% rather than the ordinary income tax rate. It also seems fairly unlikely that Congress will adopt the Administration’s proposal that unrealized capital gains should be taxed at death, as there has already been pushback among centrist Democrats against the concept.\n\nQ: When will all of this happen?\nWe expect a budget resolution to pass in July, a narrow infrastructure bill in September, and reconciliation legislation in Q4.As noted earlier, before they use the budget reconciliation legislation to pass a fiscal package, congressional Democrats will first need to pass a budget resolution. We expect the details to become clear over the next few weeks, with passage ahead of the congressional recess that starts August 6.\nIn September, we expect Congress to focus on other issues. First, some type of infrastructure legislation seems likely to pass by late September ahead of the Sep. 30 expiration of the highway program. A short-term extension is possible absent an agreement on a long-term extension.\nSecond, Congress will need to extend spending authority for the rest of the federal government past September 30, the end of the fiscal year. At this point, a short-term continuing resolution looks likely, which will leave longer-term decisions until late in the year. The risk of a government shutdown around this deadline is low, in our view.\nThird, Congress will need to address the debt limit. We expect that Congress will need to raise the limit by early October, with a chance it might need to be raised in September. In theory, this could be done as part of a reconciliation bill (either the large reconciliation package we expect Congress to consider, or a standalone bill dealing with just the debt limit). However, the debt limit cannot be suspended under the reconciliation process, only raised, and this would involve specifying an explicit and very large dollar amount. Instead, we expect Democratic leaders to pass a debt limit suspension along with the extension of spending authority, though other scenarios are clearly possible.\nWith those issues out of the way, we expect congressional Democrats to attempt to finalize a fiscal package in Q4. It is possible that the legislation could be ready for a vote as early as October. However, since essentially every Democrat in both chambers of Congress will need to agree, reaching a final political compromise could take longer. It is entirely possible that it takes until December for Congress to finalize the fiscal package, ahead of the holiday recess at year-end.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2737,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":10,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/129041884"}