companies and more including comcast. >> existed just a community center? no it's way more than that comcast is barnes 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled to students of low-income families and get the tools they need to get ready for anything. comcast support c-span as a public service. along with these oer television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> if you ever miss any of c-span coverage you can find it any time, online@c-span.org. videos have key hearings, debates and other events featuring markers that guide you into interesting and newsworthy highlights but these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when hit play on select videos. this timeline told makes it easy to quickly get an idea what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span points of interest.

>> coming up conversation but the biden administration tax policy priorities with white house national economic council director brainard. during a discussion brain it focuses on cutting taxes for the middle-class and having the wealthy pay their fair share. this conversation is part of the brookings institution hamilton project. >> good morning. thank you for joining us today for a discussion on tax policy. i am wendy director t of the hamilton project. we are delighted to have white house national economic advisor brainard here with us to discuss the administration taxa policy priorities. we are approaching a crucial time in tax policy. many of the provisions in the hetax cut are expected to expire in 2025 setting the stage for ar rigorous and consequential

debates. today's event is an important part of a series of work events the hamilton project has undertaken. to inform those debates. if policymakers work to enact new legislation rather than simply letting the 2017 tax act provision expire, they have an opportunity to improve the taxmp code, strengthen economic security, and stabilize the trajectory. if you care about climatea change, you should care about tax reform. much of u.s. climate policy currently operates the tax code. if you care about maintaining competitiveness, you should care about tax reform. a lengthy u.s. tax code of withinternational standards woud level the playing field for u.s. multilevel corporations. if you care about reducingho poverty should care about

reform. with support children, workers and many others. but what values should guide tax reform? the thp policy proposal offered four principles to guide taxa policyli choices. they argued reform should raise revenue on net to restore financial stability. productivity, minimize distortions and inefficiencies, which would indeed enhance productivity. tackle global collective action problem. altogether many of policy reforms would raise 3.5 chilean dollars of the coming decade. that would roughly stabilize the gdp radio and the efficiency of the system.

paying for our spending priorities through well designed taxa policy instead of borrowing would increase economicc output. it would also help if we improve the sensible notice of our tax system. moderate fiscal policy which are tax reform would likely only have a small effect on aggregate output in the long term. which is to say it to focus on how proposed tax reform will affect gdp is often misplaced. bent harris and i reviewed eight major tax reform since 1986 and we found no tax reform is a partially affected the size of the economy in the long term. the tax act. it only had a small effect on the size of the economy now, seven years later. but it did change the code and shift they weight of federal spending from a revenue to

borrowing. policymakers should prioritize the consideration on revenue, behavior, and income. over taxa forms projected impact on aggregateec output. today we continue our taxa policy discussions. he leaves the white house national economic council advising the president on u.s. and global economic c policy. she previously served as vice chair of the federal reserve, the r under secretary of treasuy for international affairs and of course vice president director of global economy and economy here at brookings were so glad she can joind us and for thosen the room you can submit questions by writing on index cards and raising it for a staff member to collect. for those of you joining us online you can tweet us at hamilton project i am sorry tweet us at at with the # taxa policy or e-mail us

info@hamilton project.org. thank you and i would not like to invite lael brainard to the stage. [applause] >> good morning. thank you for that terrific introduction. it is great to be here at hamilton. as we all know, following the devastation we saw during the pandemic we saw major legislation. and now we are seeing the best labor market that we have seen as a country in 50 years. we are seeing gains in real purchasing power for the middle class. we have a major economic policy decision that lies ahead. whether to return to the trickle-down policies of the past or forged ahead with a

different approach. the president's approach to grow the economy from the middle out and the bottom up. the expiration of president trump 2017 taxa package next year would put the issue of tax fairness front and center. three want a tax system that favors the wealthy or the middle class? tax fairness is essential to the president's approach to building an economy that works for all americans. where growth is broadly shared and everyone has a fair shot. will reproduce physical risks and keep our commitments to seniors.th this week the congressional budget office confirm the full extension of trump's tax package with add nearly 5 trillion to our national debt over the next decade. disproportionally benefiting the ultra- wealthy. it is clear we need to end the 2017 taxa break for the ultra- wealthy and scaled-back costly,

permanent corporate tax breaks. with the debate that is looming, i thought it would be useful to lay out the clear differences between the republican plan and a tax code that works for the middle class. republican plans make the tax system more unfair and they can jeopardize our physical health. how did they do that? they do that by doubling down on the 2017 tax cuts. which did not deliver the benefits that were promised. the 2017 biggest tax cuts went to thewe wealthiest americans. those in the top 1% received tax cuts worth over 50 times those of middle income households. and the trickle-down never happened. the prior administration promised growth of four, five, maybe even 6% but actually the economy and fixed investments

grew at about the same rate in the two years after the passage of the tax package as the two years prior. the trump administration on the time claimed those tax cuts would cause household wages to increase it by at least $4000. the congressional researchar service found no evidence, that is a quote, of an increase in wages after the tcg a. top executives rise by nearly $50000 in workers below the 90th percentile. corporate tax cuts did see the benefit wealthy and foreign investors. the tax cuts for the wealthy top 0.1% of households average tax cuts of 135,000 each per year.

and, it would go further. it would cut capitol gains taxes and eliminate the estate tax that currently applies only to ltthe wealthiest 0.1%. he proposes nearly 1 trillion moreor in corporate tax cuts including eliminating inflation reduction act corporate minimum tax and the stock buyback taxa. the proposal to eliminate the investment in the irs the came in the inflation reduction act would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. and make it easier for the wealthiest to evade paying what they owe. implementing the minimum tax agreement as rewarding corporations that invest abroad rather than america. and let's remember those tax cuts did not pay for themselves and they won't pay foray themselves. tc ja has come nowhere near

paying for its $1.9 trillion cost. revenues were projected to be over 18% of o gdp in 2023 before the tax cuts passed. revenues have turned out to be only 16.5% of gdp that's a shortfall of $400 billion. cbo estimates unpaid for extensions of the tax package would increase primary deficits by over 1% of gdp over the next decade. that is a long-standing magical thinking of trickle-down. the bush tax cuts, there extensions and the trump tax cuts have added $10 trillion toa the national debt. that accounts for 90% of the nonemergency increases in the debt to gdp ratio since 2001. another round of lopsided tax cuts would turn out any

differently. so it is past time to reject the republican argument that tax cuts should not be offset. we'll let the respond to fiscal pressures created by those unpaid tax cuts but pushing for draconian cuts to social security and medicare. they already raise taxes for millions of americans by posing the extension at the end of 2021 of the presidents for the earned income tax credit and child income tax credit.e they propose to increase taxes on middle-class families by eliminating the president premium tax credit expansion that would raise the cost of health insurance for millions of american ends eliminate tax credits worth thousands of dollars for families and selling a heat pump or solar panels. even and now it appears senate republican leaders are holdingea out on helping working families this year so they can set up their agenda for next year to

deliver tax breaks for the ultra- wealthy. the president is fighting for a better approach. let me take a short few minutes to describe the five commonsense principles that guide set approach. first, our tax system should be fair. it should reward work not wealth. it should give taxax cuts to working and middle-class families to give them a fair shot while asking the wealthiest households to pay their fair share. the president is committed to ensuring the over 95% of americans that earn less than $40000 don't pay any more in taxes. and by that pledge she will stand by that pledge. he has gone further and propose tax cuts for millions of families to help them invest in their children. and secure health insurance. building on the targeted tax cuts and the american rescue plan and inflation reduction act that republicans have fought to eliminate. the expansion of the premium tax

credit has made health insurance more affordable for millions of americans purchasing coverage on the marketplace. thisis expansion helps lift heah insurance coverage to record levels of over 21 million people. the expansion will lapse if there is no action by the fall of 2025. the expansion of the child tax credit cut child poverty nearly in half and 2021. by allowing a low income families to access the full credit for the first time. despite the documented effectiveness republicans did not extend the expansion causing 3 million children to fall into poverty. restoring the expanded tax credit would lift those children out of poverty cut taxes by an average of $2600. restoring the expansion of vit c would cut taxes by an average of $800 for 19 million low-paid workers. especially younger workers.

achieving a fair tax system often and asked means we cannot extend expiring trump tax cuts for those with incomes above $400. as a president has said tax cuts for the wealthy will stay expired on his watch. second tax policy in 2025 should raise revenue consistent with the president's strong committed to fiscal responsibility. at minimum the fiscal created by republican tax cuts deeper. fully getting any tax cuts that ared extended. we should use the 2025 tax debate as an opportunity to raise revenue over all. the evidence isce clear tax cuts custompay for themselves. so, it is past time to reject this argument the tax cuts uniquely should not be offset. since it tc ja was enacted revenue with the shared gdp at

average 17% of gdp compared to over 90% in the five years leading up to the bush tax cuts. at the very time we need revenant to go up to meet commitment fund programs are the bedrock of financial security for america. our seniors earned their social security and medicarese benefits paycheck by paycheck as the president has made clear he rejects republican efforts to cut those benefits put healthcare and other benefits families count on at risk. third, corporations making record profits should contribute their fair share. doesn't make sense for corporations share of tax responsibilities to be at multi- decade lows when corporate profits are very high. that question should be in the center of next year's tax debate. targeted investment incentives are more effective in boosting

productivity enhancing business investment than the unconditional large tax cuts enacted17 in 2017. the tax system currently asks much less of corporations than it used to. in the 1950s, around 70% of our revenue came from labor income and 30% from corporate income. today around 90% comes from labor income in 10% comes from corporate income. that is not make any sense. we asked bart less of corporations andio other large economies. in 2022 our corporate tax receipts for about 1.6% of gdp half the average. the lackluster investment response to the trump tax cuts suggestion bring corporate taxation more in line with past u.s. and current international practice could raise substantial revenue without in any way

hindering growth. the president's budget would scale back the corporate tax rate cut at the corporate tax rate to 28% per only halfway back to the previous 35% rates it would build on the ira minimum tax on billion-dollar corporation increasing 15 -- 21% increase that by balk for one -- 4% to encourage investors and corporations to invest in their adworkers the broader economy rather than payouts. even with those changes corporate income taxco as a shae of the economy would be similar to the mid to thousands. force taxpayers should pay with the l in same play by the same rules that seems very straight for the irs should have the resources it needs to identify and address tax evasion but wealthy people, complex partnerships and large corporations and also to provide adequate customer service and a

smooth tax filing experience to y the vast majority of filers we are trying to pay what they owe. they have suffered a decade of severe underfunding the current investment and modernizing thes irs is already paying off. thete irs and demonstrate exemplary customer service this tax filing season successfully highlighted direct file launch new initiatives aimed at high end noncompliance. this investment will lapse without action serve the irs taxpayeray service 2026. it is really important to protect the ira funding and finally our tax system should avoid an international race to the bottom. the historic multilateral agreements on more than wonder nations will finally ataddress the race to the bottom on corporate taxes while enabling businesses to compete and allocate capitol based on market factors not tax planning factors. many of the world's largest

economies already implementing this transformational agreement. we need to join them next year. the president's proposal would implement the agreement and impose a 21% tax on the profits of the multi nationals. so just to sum up, as we approach the tax debate next year the stakes could not be higher for the pureness of our tax system and our nation's fiscal future. we are fighting for fair tax system that gives the middle-class a tax break and it raises revenue up my in the ultra- wealthy and largeul corporations to simply pay their sfair share. the contrast with the previous could notwn approach be clearer. thank you. [applause] clicks thank you for those remarks.

since thehe expiration of the provisions in the tax act's provided this opportunity let's start there have a couple questions for you on that. the hamilton project had an event last fall where there seem to be some bipartisan agreement about good aspects of the 2017 tax act. for example the higher standard deduction that made the tax code more sensible and a little more efficient part of the things about the tax back to you like? >> look, i think when we get into thathe discussion is the principal emergence from people who earn under $40000. should not change. that is the most important piece. there are loads of different ways you get too that outcome.

there are elementshe of the 2017 tax reform that we have proposed building on. so for instance, we would like to see a global minimum tax to put in place that is consistent with their international obligations. we have suggested doing that at the rate of 21%. and so we can build on that tax package. there are a variety of other aspects. but what it is important is none of the provisions from that wealthy americans those making, over 400,000 be extended. and that we need toed pay for extending or holding harmless the tax status of people under $400,000. >> on the international provisions were brought up of people were surprised but they don't hate about the 272,017 tax

act. good to talk about the republican plan. you obviously talk about the administration's priorities. there are lots of possible outcomes as a compromise between those two if legislation gets passed. but there's another possible outcome is that no legislation getsat passed. indeed all the expiring provisions expire. we move along with current law. where do you rank that and the list of outcomes of -- does it better or worse than other outcomes? and what i'm really curious about do you think it's better or worse than what the republicans have proposed? >> what i would say is again, we have taken an approach which is to lay out very clearly what oue principles for that tax debate would be. to allow some flexibility

exactly how those provisions are put together to respect his principles. i have to say any outcome that is not preserved the current tax breaks for the middle-class is once at the president would not be able to accept and it seems implausible to me you would have republicans denying tax breaks for the middle class in order to it simply, clearly, only extend tax breaks for the ultra- wealthy. while there's loads of possible outcomes here, we are going to continue to really push hard for the outcomes i discussed. we need to extend tax breaks for the middle-class people over for earning under $400,000. and we need to raise revenues. that means we have to allow those provisions that favor the

ultra- wealthy to expire. in order to pay their fair share and raise revenue. >> only press on that a little bit. but we are time of these policy outcomes were talking about ay world in let's posit that. we do not know the makeup of the house and the senate will be. and so given that scenario and give the possible outcomes and the y house and the senate you o not see a world where policymakers are not able to come to a compromise? >> is a lot of double negatives in that sentence. aii do not know, obviously there are lots of ways the world could evolve between now and next year.wh what we can do them at the president committed to do is to be very transparent about his

position going into this major decision about our fiscal future and fairness of our tax system. he has been very clear. he talks about this a lot. he talks about the state of the union. for him, what is important is honoring his commitment to people who earn below 40000 and raising revenue to put us as a nation on a solid fiscal trajectory and to make sure we can see it make the investments in honoring our commitments too seniors and other people we have commitments too. so exactly how that shakes out is something is little hard to speculate at this juncture. those are the critical things that need to happen next year. quick salute move on from in 2017 tax accident. what other priorities do you

want to put on the table that have nothing to do with what is in the tax act or expire? >> as i noted corporate tax revenue as a share of gdp are simply too low. they are too low for the nation's fiscal health. they aren't lower than they were in previous decades went corporate profits as a share of gdp were lower, it makes no sense. there half the share ofe gdp yu see on average. obviously it is important. thee president has secured some gains on that front. but critically important. we now know the massive reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35% -- 21% did not yield the promised growth of benefits and there is no justification for keeping it at that level. hehe has proposed moving it from

21% to 28%. only halfway back. that raises a remarkably large amount of revenue while over $1 trillion. we need to do that the president has secured a corporate minimum tax we need to increase that further.as you put that in the president's budget for 2025. we also have proposed expanding, quadrupling the stock buybacks tax which she secured in the inflation reductionio act becaue we have seen a massive amount of activity in a very strong economy in that regard. and then of course in addition to implementing the global minimum tax, where we believe the rationale is incredibly compelling we would also like to make sure that people who earn over $100 million per year currently pay an average of 8% on their income. of what a

schoolteacher for firefighter would pay, pay 25% on their income. that is another really important one. important revenue-razor. very important to tax fairness. every resident with a lot of people i talked to. ms. edelberg: indeed. one of the things you talked about was, in the list of prior -- republican priorities is the republicans' desire to repeal some of the subsidies in the inflation reduction act. subsidies that are particularly important for the administration's efforts to fight climate change. so, even in absence of their passing legislation, which is a pretty high hurdle these days,

one can imagine if we have a republican administration, some significant changes in the way the ira, and maybe other recent pieces of legislation are implement to. is that on your mind? -- implemented. is that on your mind? are there protections you can put in place to prevent significant changes in implementation that under the president's priorities? ms. brainard: the inflation reduction act clean energy tax credits are the law of the land. under any scenario i would expect a lot to be implemented faithfully. we have seen as of the end of this month 21 of the 24 tax credits, all of the ones that are operative -- there are a few that will not be operative until next year. but all of the ones that are operative have been promulgated

by the treasury and irs. those are now in place and people are already implementing. we have nearly $200 billion worth of investments associated with the clean energy provisions of the inflation reduction act. there are already people hard at work building plants and being employed at plants, whether it be at batteries, solar, wind, evs. we have had americans take advantage of the ev tax credit. we have 60,000 tax filers who have filed to put dissipate -- sorry, taxpayers who have filed to participate in either transferability or direct pay for 60,000 clean energy projects that are registered. it was a lot of forward momen i would anticipate under any circumstances the law will be

faithfully implemented a good excesses on the list of concerns?on you think the way the ira has been implemented insulates it. our future administration less committed to the priorities in the ira. >> again this iss the tax code these rules are complex they take a very long time to write. they take a very long time to amend. the require public comments. the require hard work on the part of its staff at the irs. to undertake those kinds of activities. and i will say the investor community, the business community, the labor community, they are going to strongly advocate for these projects. these transformative projects

that are in communities all around the country. do not forget the analysis that has been done. disproportionately in republican districts. they are now loudly cheering on the investments that are in their district. there is a lot of momentum and a lot of excitement behind the factories and the transformation of the grid that is going on all over the country. >> let me remind everybody you can get cards when you came in if you have questions that you want to ask raise your card and a staff member will pick them up. those of you. online feel free o tweet or e-mail if you have questions. it sounds like the biden tax plan has two priorities that are

in some ways in competition with each other. one is raising revenue to improve the fiscal trajectory. another is to raise revenue in order to finance the president's priorities. iter is through lowering taxes r presumably funding spending priorities. am i right in thinking there is a trade-off between these two things? and if i am how do you think about thena trade-off? >> let me start by resting on at one point you just made which is a really importantnt one. the president's house before proposal to pay for that middle-class tax cuts that he is committed to. we believe you need to raise revenue in order to offset tax cuts the interesting things that's not moving forward righth

now they can benefit working families. would provide tax credits for housing that is currently not moving forward in the senate because it actually pays for itself. so that is a really important a priority, a really important distinction. proposed. and in terms of the importance of doing both it is absolutely essential we show how we are going to pay for the investments in the nation's future. in particular since the child taxx credit. it is very important that we are able to show how we're going to pay for honoring commitments that have been made over generations. we don't see those in conflict with eachwi other we think it ia good budgeting to both be clear about which tax cuts needs to be

preserved or extended and then the revenue. and i just laid out for you a long list of a where we think there's room to raise revenues in a way that is efficient and consistent ongoing growth and economy. >> there is likely to be in a second biden administration there is likely to be two robust debates. one is the tax debate we cannot get away from that one. but presumably looking at the president's budget there will also be debate about future spending priorities. should we think about -- like than the presidents of budget those are laid out quite reasonablyy so as a collectionf policies. that work together fiscally. but my guess is these debates, as they happen over the next years will happen sequentially. >> first bill have a tax debate

in the lavish spending debate. maybe you disagree. is right would you think about then the spending priorities being constrained by what ever it is the effective compromise hasn't generated in terms of a revenue that give the president some leeway to spendle his funding priorities? >> we try to think holistically who's tried to be transparent at what that might cost we try to be transparent about where we w see the potential areas of revenue that advance the principle of asking those who have an abundance to pay their fair share. corporations making a record shrecord profits to make their fair share we try to think about those things we think it is essential to think about holistically you are certainly right the way these decisions could be made there's a whole host of different sequences.

we are going to try to bring a holistic set of principles in fact we talk about those in the budget. to those debates. again what is very important is to not have a debates on the one hand about tax cuts about where we have a republican assertion that they pay for themselves. we do not need to pay for them by raising revenue elsewhere. and that investment and spending debate where it is suggested a different principle should apply. we think you need a consistent principal across those debates. >> i have a question for you about the role of tax experts. we have a bunch of people here in the room. i know we have hundreds of people listening online. and i know from the rsvp list many have a lot of expertise.

what guidance how they can be helpful. which is to say where would expertise be a useful input into the debates to make sure we don't lose the opportunity? >> yes. the biden administration relies heavily of independent expertise. he tax experts in the jcp or institutionalize a number of think tanks and policy research centers university research centers. i don't know what. [laughter] we think are extremely important to our debate.

i think you are a prime example of what you bring to the debate. it's really trying to take something incredibly complicated intentionally sometimes complicated. and try to clarify what is at stake? distribution is critically important and all discussions. statistics of that, who actually got the benefits from the 2017 tax cuts that i cited earlier. this are really important for the public tors understand and o have independent experts doing that analysis and explaining if you think these benefits are going to help you who earn $300,000 a year, let me tell, u who is actually going get the tax cut to benefit here. that is really important. butt similarly the work that you all do on growth effects,

employment effects, distribution effects, all of those things should go into our views about how to assess the tax policies. those are also important to the debate about saying these attacks cuts for instance the massive revenue that was given up for corporations or rigorous assessments to show whether or not they had an effect on growth, employment wages, those are what i look to just say no they did and that is why if we work to raise corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 as the president has proposed the growth effects republicans asserted at the time they put inhe place. >> certainly any positive effects of lowering tax rates which is surely there are positive effects if you lower tax rates have to be weighed

against the negativee effects of financing the spending by borrowing. >> you contribute to for instance the child taxcr credit. i think outside independent analysis is pretty impressive about the effectsbo there in tes of that money being used to invest in children. and also to enable lower income parents to participate in the weight force were double positive. i asked thehe tosha has been a huge proponents of effectively fighting the irs. and how that money not only creates a more useful user-friendly and efficient irs but also helps the irs have the abilities they need in order to revenue.ly collect

i want to give you an opportunity. i essentially asked for the same question which i'd like to ask you. give the irs moregi money. >> you half to ask that question as a backdrop of the decade of underfunding. the irs has been dramatically underfunded and has been as a result unable to do the kind of work that is necessary to fulfill its responsibility under the law. but the funding provided to the irs and the inflation reduction act we find this hard to say the irs/ira funding, we have already seen really positive effects. so we also know the tax service funding has led to large drops in wait times this year. just for your typical tax filer who does not try to evade paying

your taxes, better customer service. a direct file for the 140,000 people have taken advantage of it. customer service is extremely high. that is important. it's also important some people, wealthy people in certain types of entities are able to take advantage of the enormous complexity of the taxdv code to essentially evade pain with ao. in order to have resources to make sure people are paying what they owe. and thereto, the irs is already put out a report showing hundreds of millions of dollars in additional tax filings this year. so, we think this is just an investment. it is a smart investment and makes up for past. >> interesting question from the audience. our read it as it is written.

then offer my own thoughts of how to frame the question. in order to ensure they pay their fair share in taxes. they have some interesting questions there we offered subsidies to corporations to naji them. to do things we think have a payoff in a social sense or an economic sense. but also there is a question to -- should we just speak -- is a silly question i'm putting up i think to just let you knock it down. which is, should fair minded people who actually believed in a better, more productive tax system should be ask them to pay more in taxes?

>> we think we should be asking corporations overall to pay more in taxes. that is what we proposed increasing corporate rate from 21 -- 28%. we put in place of corporate minimum buyback and increase both of those. those are basic principles of fairness the amount of a revenue that needs to be raised. i think of the inflation reduction act tax credits as providing the necessary market signal for necessary investments in our clean energy future. and i say it because the current market signals in the absence of that do not take into account. it's classic market failure do not take into account the broader benefit toad society of making this transition and a gog down on the cost curve on new technologies as well as some of the established technologies that are available who

to transitionto the clean energ. so i think of those as enabling the kinds of investments in capital markets that otherwise might not meet that investment hurdle in the absence of those. but the return to our society overall is greater than the private return and that is where the tax code is helping to offset that discrepancy. so i put them in a somewhat different category. >> sometimes when someone it is absurd i pay less in taxes than my secretary. sometimes i think poorly thought out response to that is that mrd pay more in taxes. thatil will solve our problem. like i don't know. >> the question is should we rely on publicly minded people to simply pay more than they owe? enforcement has not worked for.

>> that is why we think when people earn $100 million on avaverage pay 8% of their income in taxes where people were squarely in the middle class are teachers and firefighters paying a great deal a more than that nd to ask the billionaires come the multimillionaires to pay a higher rate in the tax code. that is the only way i think we are going to get a broad necessary amount of revenue for the society. >> so before we get to -- i'm coming back to the 2007 tax act. before we get to the date when the provisions expire we are very likely going to have a debt ceiling debate.

what role does that play in this debate? i guess, i guess, i'm trying not to just ask the question is the debt ceiling the dumbest thing? or just a dumb thing. i'm trying to ask a more substantive question. some people have said the debt ceiling however bad they think it is is a useful opportunity to talk about compromise and the attacksystem do you think the dt ceiling debate offers an opportunity to start the more substantive debate or is it bad? what's i've been in this administration the obama administration on the debt limit coming into focus. i have found those moments to be

unproductive. part of theirs in their own productive is because the debt limit is entirely redundant to the budgeting process that we arty have inin place. part of the reason it's worse than redundant is because we do not have on the republican side of the l they will not talk about including revenue and that broader discussion so how can you talk about solving the nation's future fiscal trajectory on the should look at those investments andys expenditures. and revenues and an equivalent manner. i do not find it to be productive. the president hasou been very clear about that. but we will c continue to bring our principal to the tax debate which is going to be very important next year because the expiration of the trump tax cut

as well as all the fiscal discussions which will be also be very important we try to be transparent in our 2025 budget proposal that the president put forward as to how we think those are different aspects of our physical health should bebe addressed. >> we have another question from athe audience. i think this was sent in by somebody online. about tax preparation services. the exorbitant fees paid by tax preparation services. it has been a priority of lots of tax experts for a lot of time and a lot of administration to improve tax preparation services provided to low income talk about where that is the list of priorities? >> i would say we had a

remarkably positive experience with direct file irs but a great platform tool out into the public arena people with relatively simple tax returns were able to use it. and were able to complete their tax return and eight record short amount of time. thee customer service experience was very positive. mostly we are getting questions from manyy parts of the country, when will that be available to me? and can you expand the service? our general sense it should not be costly. it should not cost you $400 to file your taxes. the direct file tool enables you to do that without paying those kinds of fees. and over time i expect it to be more broadly available to more taxpayers.

that's very positive development particularly for low income people. >> such low hanging feud. so now after thinking about issues that will come up on the calendar, after 2025 -- some years after we will get to the point where it is projected the trust funds for social security, and other trust funds will run dry. which is to say it right now social securitye system is for everyone, you know this, is paying benefits partly by dipping into his trust fund. the revenues coming in are not enough to pay the benefits righ now. and at a a certain point in the 2030s there will not be any more money in that account. and under current law the social security system will only pay benefits based on the revenues coming in on any given day.

there's definitely some thinking about this. one is that people who are scheduled think the going to be able to receive social security should be really worried about this. on the flipside i've heard people express optimism this would beth a really good opportunity to fix the social security system. so, where do you see this debate? >> the contrast here is very important. the republican study committee has cleared out a plan that would essentially cut social security benefits by about 13% by extending retirement age. that is their solution. we should cut american social security. does not believe that. the president believes americans, if you're coming to retirement age have paid into their social security every month for their working lifetimes. and we should honor those

commitments. eso we put some principles out n the budget which essentially say we should protect social security benefits and we should do that by raising revenue. we should do that by asking people over 400,000 to pay a greater share into social security. and as you know there's a current maximum. and as a result people who earn below that maximum willg pay a greater share of their income than people who earn more than $40000. there's lots of different ways of thinking about exactly how you do that.pe i think the experts who have looked at this will confirm you can greatly extend the solvency of the trust fund by simply asking people to pay their fair share. >> do you see that being -- this issues coming up and that 2025 tax debates or those issues

being put off until we are closer to insolvency? >> i do not know exactly what the sequence of discussions will be. this is a central issue. we believe it for a nation's fiscal future health.h. but also to make sure we have that revenue we need to honor our commitments to ourur senior. so we would like to have this debate is one of the very important debates about fairness. about protecting the social security which is the president's approach for cutting it which has been the republican study committee approach. and of course we believe there is a way to extend and honor those commitments by asking ultra- wealthy to pay their fair share. >> i've been in conversations where people have said this is

silly we are clearly going to pay the benefits out of general revenues. the way we are clearly going to solve this problem is to get rid of the trust fund altogether. it is a gimmick. congress will pass legislation to pay the benefits out of general revenue. of that six months before the deadline. how does that strike you? thoughts? >> any way you cut that we need to raise revenue. it's the right thing to do. the fair thing to do to ask large corporations in the ultra- wealthy who are doing very well to pay their fair share. in order to honor those commitments in order to put our nation on a solid fiscal

trajectory. so exactly what the mechanism is will be debated. but what is clear is that we need to ask ultra- wealthy people and corporations to pay their fair share. i like to end on a one question about how optimistic youue are. everyone talks about, we talked in so many conversations on the stage about how polarized the current environment is. how difficult it is to get things, done in washington thee days. are you optimistic about congress being able to use this opportunity to improve tax policy? >> these are solvable problems i think the president is taking a commonsense affair approach. focuses on giving middle-class people a fair shot.

asking the most fortunate to pay their fair share. there's a commonsense approach to solving these important problems and there's simply no excuse for not doing so. lael brainard. please join us in thanking thanking her. [applause] 's he spent shop.org as he store rest of the latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home to core something for every c-span event every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation shop now or anytime at cspanshop.org.