10 Life Lessons I Took Away from the Movie "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once"

Generally, when I go to the movie theater, my main goal is to be entertained. Rarely does a movie inspire me. Even more rare is when a movie gets me to think profoundly about life, but that is what happened when I watched Everything, Everywhere, All at Once last June. The multifaceted movie has been so impactful that I am still thinking about it now. 

Everything, Everywhere, All at Once is an absurdist sci-fi comedy-drama that was produced by the Russo Brothers. The protagonist, Evelyn Wong, is played by Michelle Yeoh of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon fame. Yeoh plays a Chinese-American who is running a failing laundromat and dealing with a marriage nearing divorce and a constantly disapproving father. An inter-dimensional rupture unravels reality, and Yeoh's character has to use her newly founded powers to save the multiverse. The blend between dark humor and light humor led into an overall absurdism that did quite the job clarifying life for me. To be sure, this piece will make more sense if you have seen the film. Even if you have not, I part onto you ten lessons that I learned or had reinforced from watching the film Everything, Everywhere, All at Once. 

Warning: the following takeaways contain spoilers.

1. Nihilism is not the answer; kindness is. Yes, the world is a dark and cruel place. There is no shortage of injustice, unfairness, or inequality. While some aspects of our world have order and structure, other parts simply do not make sense. Why do good people suffer while there are evil people who thrive? Why do some people die and others live to see another day? I have come to accept a level of absurdism in this world, an absurdism that this embraces in full. The movie presents nihilism as an option vis-à-vis the Everything Bagel. While despair and hopelessness are tempting options, the movie steers us away from that. Even when we do not understand the seeming randomness of the world, kindness can be an anchor of light in a dark world. It is Buddhist thought, amongst other philosophies and religions, that teaches us that kindness and compassion are what make us human. 

2. Go with the flow. This is not some hippy-dippy advice; it is a great lesson from the movie. Opening your mind and your heart does wonders. Change is one of the only constants in this world, yet humans have a tendency towards fearing change. Think of a flowing river. Does it make sense to paddle against the current or to go with the current? I cannot begin to tell you the number of times in my personal life where I fought what was going on in my life. It was stressful, it was emotionally exhausting, and it did nothing to improve my situation. You do not have to condone or agree with what is going on, but you can recognize it for what it is and to do so with as few judgments or self-criticisms as possible. That is the idea behind radical acceptance. It means we fight it or get angry less. I am not arguing for passivity, but working with what is. If we want to go in a certain direction in life, we need to know where we are at before we know where we are going. Going with the way the world is (i.e., go with the flow) makes it easier to instill change instead of wishing what was not the case (also see Point #9).

3. We are small and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. This is an extension of the first point.  The movie makes references to people as "specks of time." Even if seventy or eighty years seems like a long time to us, it is a blink of an eye in a universe that is millions of years old. We are all going to die one day. The universe is going to exist long after we are gone. This also does not factor into whether other planets have life on them or not. We very well might be one planet with sentient life amongst millions. We are small in the grand schemes of the size of the universe and of the existence of time. The only possibility for ultimate reality exists in an infinite being, as is depicted in such monotheistic religions as Judaism and Islam. 

I would argue that this was King Solomon's existential angst in the Book of Ecclesiastes. What is commonly translated as vanity in "All is vanity" (Ecclesiastes 1:2) is the Hebrew word הבל. The word הבל literally means "breath." Life is all too short, much like a breath. King Solomon's gripe was not that there was no meaning, but that life is too short and we do not get to experience ultimate meaning. 

4. Do not despair because we can still find personal meaning. King Solomon struggled throughout the Book, but ultimately found meaning in fear of G-d and His commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Even as we go through our own struggles, we need to find our own personal meaning in life. To quote French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre:

La vie n'a pas de sense, a priori. Avant que vous ne viviez, la vie, elle, n'est rien, mais c'est à vous de lui donner un sens, et la valeur n'est pas autre chose que ce sens que vous choisissez. (Translation: Life has no meaning a priori. It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose.)

Existentialism teaches the importance of the human experience. Sartre teaches that we are responsible for our own meaning. We can try to find meaning in religion, our jobs, our relationships, our travels and other experiences, but it is up to us to find what is meaningful to us in the time allotted to us. We should treasure what we do have for the time we have it since we do not know when the end is. 

5. Our decisions are not as small as they seem. Per the previous point, it might seem like our decisions are insignificant in light of the inevitability of death. However, as we see throughout the movie, what seems like a small decision can have a ripple effect over multiple universes. Our decisions do not have that magnitude of an effect, or at least as far as we are aware. What the movie illustrates is that our decisions have more of an impact that we can imagine. 

6. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. Oftentimes on a societal level, love is treated as something corny or schmaltzy to be a part of movies or fairy tales. But Burt Bacharach was right when he said that love is the thing that there is too little of in this world. This movie plays with the idea of conditional acceptance and what relationships would look like if love were less and less conditional. Towards the end, Evelyn says to Deidre that she is not unlovable because "there is always something to love." The movie does not argue that blindly loving everyone will solve everything. That might be because love is complicated and can be messy. It can mean giving the other person space, de-emphasizing yourself, or needing to let go. Nevertheless, there needs to be more love in this world, not less. 

7. The role of silliness and optimism.  Evelyn Wong's husband, Waymond, put googly eyes on everything he could find. Evelyn found them to be an annoyance, but this was Waymond's small way to encourage humor and happiness in life. Life is far from being sunshine and rainbows. There are plenty of difficult and arduous moments. Waymond's usage of googly eyes is his way of putting amor fati into practice (see Point #9). Waymond's variant in another universe describes his optimism as a way to fight in a world that does not present a bright side. While optimism amplifies joy in good times, it is a strength and coping mechanism in bad times. 

8. Do not forget how important relationships are. What is clear at the beginning is that Evelyn has a lot bogging her down. She is so preoccupied that she forgets two of her most important relationships: with her husband and her daughter. Nurturing strong bonds with loved ones is important. The people we share our lives with can enhance our experiences. Also, there is a famous study from Brigham Young University that shows that those who have strong relationships improve their odds of survival by 50 percent at any given time (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).

9. Do not dwell on the past. There is a scene where Evelyn is looking at her alternate selves in other universes...versions that seemed "more successful" than her. She sees rich celebrities in comparison to her life of "laundry and taxes." It is tempting to think the grass is greener on the other side. It is easy to play the game of "coulda, woulda, shoulda." I have been guilty of thinking of what could have been or what "should" have been. As alluring as it is, the past is prologue. We cannot go back and alter the choices we made. 

This is where the idea of amor fati comes into play. This Latin phrase meaning "love of fate" conceptually came about the Stoics, but the term itself is associated with philosopher Frederich Nietzsche. The idea of amor fati is not simply to "grin and bear" bad moments, but to love them. It is not about wanting anything to be different, either now or in our past. It is simply loving life for what it is, and that is the movie's advice in response to Evelyn's verse-jumping. We have to make do with what we have and ideally love it for what it is. We do need to reckon with our past and overcome whatever emotional baggage arises, but we are not meant to wallow and ruminate in our past. 

10. Who you are or what you did does not automatically determine your future. Evelyn starts off the movie as a woman disgruntled with her work life and her marriage. She ends up developing superpowers and fighting with the goal of saving the multiverse. Our decisions or circumstances can put us on an unhappy path. Nevertheless, we are not determined to stay on that course. 

I will end with a classic from Deuteronomy (30:19): "I [G-d] have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life so that you...may live." We do not get to choose all of our circumstances. There are things that happen that are not our fault, but they are our responsibility if we want to be happy. We are not puppets of fate. We do not have to dwell in the past (see previous point). We have the ability and agency to change our course to create a better, happier future for ourselves.

Why Do Studies Show People on the Left Are Typically Less Happy Than the Average Person?

"Misery loves company." 

I found this to particularly be the case living as a libertarian in a liberal bubble during the pandemic. 

"Stay at home."

"Follow the science." 

"Where's your mask?" 

"Why are you traveling during a pandemic? You can't do that." 

I had people haranguing me about mask-wearing when the science is not in favor of mask mandates or mask-wearing generally. I still see people wiping down surfaces thinking they can prevent catching COVID, although it was proven by mid-2020 that COVID really does not get transmitted through surfaces. We have widely available COVID vaccines and I still see some masking up (even outdoors!) like it is 2020. 

Not only were Democrats more likely to be fearful of COVID (Morning Consult), but they were also more likely to experience mental distress as a result (Bock and Schnabel, 2022). What I noticed in my personal life was that on average, the pandemic made those on the Left more irritable, less optimistic, and general buzzkills because they were more likely to buy into the COVID fear-mongering. Thankfully, not all of my liberal friends were downers, but it was something I noticed more and more as the pandemic progressed. I would have thought that COVID vaccines or having Biden in the White House would have brought some solace or equanimity to my Left-leaning friends by now, but it did no such thing. If anything, they seem to have gotten more agitated during Biden's time in office, even though the Democrats have control of the White House and Congress.

Last month, I was reading a book from conservative political commentator Eddie Scarry called Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks the Joy Out of Everything and Everyone. I was even able to meet the author after reading the first couple of chapters. I initially took the book with a grain of salt because his thesis was that liberals are more miserable than conservatives. I do not exist on the "conservative/liberal" spectrum. Some of my views lean Right and others Left, which means I do not have ideological skin in the outcome. I do not have a political affiliation and remain independent, which means I do not have partisan skin in the game either. 

I wanted to independently conduct research to see if what Scarry was saying was true. It turns out that he was correct: on average, those on the Left are less happy than those on the Right. I will be citing other studies throughout this piece, but one of the main studies that Scarry cited (and I will also be citing) was from scholars from the University of Florida and Toronto (Schlenker et al., 2012). 

There is research to suggest that those on the Left are more prone to neuroticism than those on the Right (McCann, 2018; Burton et al., 2015). This might seem like an insult to some, but the psychological definition of neuroticism is the extent to which a person experiences the world as distressing, threatening, or unsafe. This plays out in forms of depression, anxiety, self-doubt, and other negative feelings. More recently, data from Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel in March 2020 showed that those on the Left (particularly white people on the Far Left) are significantly more likely to have mental health issues. On a similar note, another study from the University of Southern California found that conservatives report greater purpose in meaning in life than liberals (Newman et al., 2018). 

I would have thought that this happiness gap was strictly an American thing, but this happiness gap also plays out in Canada (MacInnis et al., 2013) and Europe (Okulicz-Kozaryn et al., 2014). What is even more interesting is that this trend in the happiness gap is not anything new. I would argue that Trump's election and the pandemic were inflection points for the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives. I would also argue that increased pervasiveness of wokeness in the mainstream Left, Occupy Wall Street, and increased usage of social media amplified this gap over the past decade. 

Freakonomics author Stephen Dubner pointed out the happiness gap back in 2008. When you look through the data from the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey, which has been funded by the National Science Foundation, what you find is that this happiness gap between liberals and conservatives dates back at least to the 1970s. A 2006 report from the nonpartisan Pew Research similarly identifies this happiness gap between liberals and conservatives. 

None of this is to say that happy liberals or miserable conservatives do not exist because they do. However, when you look back at least five decades of survey data, they show that conservatives are on average happier than liberals. Even liberals over at the New York Times and The Atlantic have acknowledged the happiness gap.

Today, I do not want to debate whether the gap exists. Rather, I would like to dig into the reasons why such a gap would exist in the first place. Without causal mechanisms, all you have is correlation that may or may not have bearing on the matter. About 50 percent of the variation within the population on happiness is due to genetics (e.g., DeNeve et al., 2012). The other 40 percent is based on choice and one's lifestyle, whereas the other 10 percent is circumstance (Lyubomirsky, 2007). This does not apply to a given individual because an individual is not an entire population, but it does show us that on average, a significant portion of happiness is based on what we choose in life.  

But first, it makes sense to define happiness. I will quote The Happiness Advantage by Sean Achor for this portion. Happiness is what scientists refer to as subjective well-being (Achor, p. 39). It is an experience of positive emotions: pleasure combined with deeper feelings of meaning and purpose, which implies a positive mood in the present and a positive outlook for the future. Martin Seligman, who was a pioneer in positive psychology broke down happiness into three portions: pleasure, engagement, and meaning (ibid.). 

So what exactly is at play here? Does liberalism or progressivism make someone more miserable? Do less happier people gravitate towards being liberal? Or are conservatives more likely to partake in activities and lifestyle choices that result in greater happiness? I would like to take a look at happiness research and political philosophy in attempts to answer what accounts for this happiness gap. 

Reactions to inequality and unfairness. Life is unfair and can be difficult. What Stoicism, amongst other philosophies and religions, teaches is that what determines life quality is how you respond to life's difficulties. Epictetus taught that it was not so much external events that get us down, but how we respond to those events. That lesson seems to play out in the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives. 

A study from the Association for Psychological Science posits that the main reason for the happiness gap is because of rationalization of inequality. The authors concluded that "conservatives [more than liberals] possess an ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of income inequality" (Napier and Jost, 2008). As one of the authors of this paper, Jaime Napier, said on PBS, "one of the biggest [factors that] correlates in our surveys was the belief of meritocracy." 

To translate these findings, liberals are more likely to be disheartened because such inequalities exist. Conservatives, as well as libertarians such as myself, are not nearly as affected by it on an emotional level. This could be interpreted as conservatives not caring enough, although that can be harder to argue since conservatives give more to charity than liberals (Yang and Liu, 2021).

It is not because conservatives or libertarians do not recognize life's unfairness. It certainly exists. Part of where the typical conservative or libertarian differs is belief in hard work and perseverance, as we will see shortly. It is also the idea that as long as people have different levels of skillset, professional networks, and put in different levels of effort, there is bound to be inequality. Also, if you look at history (especially ancient history) or nature, you will see that inequality and hardship are defaults. It is not to say we should do nothing to make the world better, but there is only so much we can do. As an interesting Jewish tangent, the Talmud (Shabbat 151b) acknowledges that poverty will exist even when the Messiah shows up. Utopia does not exist. 

Resilience. Liberals can interpret the enhanced emotional reaction to inequality as a sign of "look how much I care." Their empathy can be seen as a virtue and that some happiness is the sacrifice to be that attune with the less fortunate. I do not see this level of empathy held by the typical liberal as a strength but as a weakness. It is not simply because it gets in the way of happiness. It is due to a utopian, unreachable goal that does not see the world for what it is. The world can be a dark and cold place. Technological development has not changed the fact that cruelty or injustice is still amongst us. If you try to care about every injustice or slight, you end up being emotionally exhausted and frustrated. 

Conservatives and libertarians are less likely to have this problem because they are more likely to keep their emotions in check. According to a study from Current Psychology (Briki and Dagot, 2020), conservatives are found to be happier than liberals because they "can bolster self-adaptive regulatory functions when exposed to threatening contexts." The study shows that self-regulatory factors such as perception of goal progress, dispositional self-control, and dispositional flow lead to greater subjective well-being in conservatives. This study shows that conservatives have better "mental adjustment," which is "indicated by the coping responses involved in adopting strategies to deal with or adapt to a situation." In other words, the level of empathy that the average liberal holds is all-encompassing and so overpowering that it gets in the way of them being emotionally resilient, adaptive, and ultimately happy with life. 

Personal Agency. The Florida State and Toronto University study previously cited at the beginning of this piece (Schlenker et al., 2012) has an interesting insight on the matter of personal agency (i.e., strong endorsements of personal control, responsibility, and reliability). Conservatives score higher on internal control, as well as the Protestant Work Ethic. "Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to see outcomes as due to factors beyond one's personal control, including luck and properties of the social system (ibid.)." 

According to the authors, the differences in personal agency "could, in and of themselves, explain much of the happiness gap." The authors also find that "perceptions of inner control, self-efficacy, and the engagement in meaningful work are strongly correlated to life satisfaction." It makes sense. I know we cannot control everything, whether that is the weather, economy, or a pandemic. At the same time, what feels more empowering: having a sense of control (or at least strong influence) over your life trajectory or having to succumb to the whim of whatever external events come your way? Even author Brené Brown, who I have heard quoted my friends on the Left, said that "owning our story and loving ourselves through that process is the bravest thing that we will ever do." That ownership requires personal agency, which is a key component to happiness. 

Fear versus optimism. Everyone has fears at a certain point of time. Conservatives are not exempt from fear. Intuitively, you would think that libertarians and conservatives have higher levels of pessimism because they have a more negative view on human nature. There have been attempts to try to explain this view of human nature along with conservatives self-reporting greater levels of happiness.

One article at Science points out one of its own studies to try to explain the gap away by suggesting that conservatives are not actually happier. It is that conservatives merely put a positive spin on their lives, that they self-enhance. The study suggests that conservatives self-report greater happiness, but that liberals use more positive emotional language and more genuine smiles (Wojcik et al., 2015). This study uses language-processing software and an expert in facial recognition analysis to analyze survey results, U.S. politicians, Twitter users, and LinkedIn users. 

Let's think about the intuition behind this study for a second. Twitter and LinkedIn are part of social media. Social media is all about putting up a façade and a tendency to de-emphasize the bad in life. Social media is not the real world. If conservatives were the ones who were putting on a show and partaking in self-enhancement, it would show up it in social media, right? Yet it is the liberals who have a slightly more positive output on social media. 

Plus, even if conservatives put a more positive spin on their lives, so what? As previously illustrated, happiness is subjective well-being. Resilience and personal agency are those tools that help us cope with life's travails and create greater happiness. It is not how one views human nature per se that attributes to happiness. It is how one reacts to human nature and how the world is, as previously illustrated in the "Resilience" subsection. 

This is where a more optimistic viewpoint matters. A study from Kings College shows that positive thinking reduces anxiety (Eagelson et al., 2016). The Mayo Clinic illustrates how positive thinking reduces stress and lowers rates of depression. It is not the liberals who are as likely to possess this trait, but "conservatives exhibit a more positive outlook and stronger feelings of self-worth (Schlenker et al., 2012)." 

Yes, pundits and politicians on the political Right have their own fear-mongering, whether it has been over immigrants or terrorists. However, I think it is different than the modern-day Left's fear-mongering. There is something that I have observed from the mainstream Left's fear-mongering, whether it is Democrats being more likely to take on preventative measures against COVID (Kiviniemi et al., 2022) or Democrats being much more worried about climate change than Republicans (Pew Research). It is hard to listen to political pundits on the mainstream Left without the takeaway being that the world is going to end and there is no hope in sight. Even if climate change does not end up killing us all, income inequality and systemic racism are too prevalent from the mainstream Left's point of view to really enjoy anything in life without addressing life's unfairness first. 

This is not merely my take. An article from Cambridge University highlights why the political Left, particularly those who are well-educated, are more pessimistic (Hochschild, 2017). The Economist released some polling data back in January showing how Biden voters are more likely to view various issues more pessimistically than Trump voters (see below) about one year after Biden being in office. To bring it back to the main point of this subsection, positive thinking leads to happiness. The Left has put greater emphasis on gloom and doom than a positive mindset, which is a contributing factor to the happiness gap. Speaking of a positive mindset....

Gratitude versus Envy. I want to resume discussing inequality by discussing the theme of gratitude and how it relates to happiness. I also want to touch upon a few habits that are conducive to happiness, starting with gratitude. As Harvard University points out, there is a strong correlation between gratitude and wellbeing. There have been multiple studies released on the topic. Practicing gratitude develops an abundance mindset, which leads to happiness. 

Contrast that with envy. As I discussed last year, one of the quickest ways we can make ourselves miserable is through envy. The Association for Psychological Science study cited earlier (Napier and Jost, 2008) was released before the Occupy Wall Street movement. As previously discussed, the Left has been more and more focused on what others have in comparison to what they have, on the "haves" versus the "have nots."

In Hebrew, the term for gratitude (הכרת הטוב) means "to recognize the good." It does not mean that we ignore or deny the existence of inequality, oppression, or unfairness. It means that we acknowledge and put emphasis on the good that exists in our lives. If the narrative of the political Left is focused on being wronged, cheated, marginalized, or oppressed, is it a surprise that it becomes more difficult for someone on the Left to see the good in life? It seems quite difficult to be positive, optimistic, or ultimately happy with the scarcity mindset that has become more prevalent on the Left. 

Role of Religion and Spirituality. Liberals are less likely to hold religious beliefs than moderates or conservatives (Pew Research). I mention this because there has been a correlation between religion and subjective well-being. Religion or spirituality can play a role in happiness because "spiritual beliefs contribute to life satisfaction because they instill meaning and direction, offer senses of beauty, uplift, and optimism, provide explanations for events, give a sense of closeness to God, and offer comfort in difficult times, and these characteristics are above and beyond the larger, supportive social networks of those who are religious (Schlenker et al., 2012)." Another benefit of religious communities is that it minimizes the feeling of loneliness (Cox et al., 2019). One could argue that the lack of religious institutions, or at least social institutions that function similar to religious institutions, makes a liberal less likely to be happy. 

Meditation. I would have thought that meditation would have been something done overwhelmingly by liberals since the word can connote something more "hippy-dippy spiritual." Yet Pew Research found that 45 percent of conservatives meditate at least once a week, as opposed to 38 percent of liberals or 42 percent of independents. I know these data points are snapshots from 2014, but it nevertheless is an interesting find, even if it plays a modest role in the happiness gap. Meditation is found to reduce propensity towards negativity (Fredrickson et al., 2008), as well as release such chemicals as endorphins and serotonin. 

Being physically active and better health. There are multiple studies to show that exercise increases happiness, including this one from the University of Michigan (Zhang and Chen, 2018). It makes sense since exercise increases endorphins, dopamine, and adrenaline. Dopamine is especially important since it produces feelings of optimism. 

One study found that conservatives were more likely to be healthier than their liberal counterparts because conservatives place greater emphasis on personal responsibility (Chan, 2019). This could also be due to higher levels of conscientiousness among conservatives. In this case, conscientiousness refers to norms regarding impulse control, self-discipline, and being task-focused. As Psychology Today points out, conscientiousness leads to better health outcomes. Plus, those who believe in ideologies that endorse the importance of free will (e.g., conservatism, libertarianism) have greater self-control than those who do not (Clarkson et al., 2015).

Postscript. There are certainly some tendencies that both the Left and Right share that can impede happiness. Politicians and pundits on both sides use fear to advance their political views. Both sides have implemented their own version of moral policing at one point or another. It takes time and energy to obsess over how other people should behave the way you think they ought to behave. Also, either the Left and the Right can give in and many in the U.S. are giving into authoritarianism more and more. I bring up the authoritarianism because freedom and happiness are correlated (also see Brulé and Veenhoven, 2014).

In spite of there being some similarities between the mainstream Left and mainstream Right (aside from those in the previous paragraph), there are also a number of differences between the two, especially pertaining to individual well-being. A lot of the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives has to do with mindset. Author Roy T. Bennett said that "If you want to be happy, do not dwell in the past, do not worry about the future, focus living fully in the present." This is an adaptation of a Lao Tsu quote, but it nevertheless bears wisdom. Happiness has a major perspective component to it. Gratitude is about being able to see the good in life, even when times are difficult. Resilience is being able to have the perspective to cope and endure the bad times. The notion of personal agency gives one a greater sense of control of one's life, which attributes to happiness. 

In short, the happiness gap can be attributed to how the average liberal approaches life in comparison to everyone else. The average person on the Left possesses less emotional resilience, greater propensity towards envy, less optimism, and is less likely to exercise personal agency and take a sense of ownership in life. What the mainstream Left has decided to emphasize in recent years does play a role in their happiness relative to everyone else. What should provide my friends on the Left some solace is that the happiness gap is not inherently a part of the ideology. While it is not my case to make, I think the mainstream Left could find a way to be more optimistic and live in a way that is more conducive to happiness. Whether the Left ends up rediscovering a sense of optimism remains to be seen. What I will say is such a rediscovery would not only be in their political interest, but especially in the interest of their well-being and happiness. 

The "Inflation Reduction Act" Will Not Help Save the Environment

Earlier this summer, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). In spite of the name, the legislation is not going to reduce inflation. It will have negative implications for the economy. Its drug pricing provisions will make us less healthy as a nation. In addition to the economic and health aspects of the bill, the IRA attempts to reform another aspect of life: the environment. The environmental portion of the IRA mostly entails tax credits for clean energy (see below, as well as a summary from the Bipartisan Policy Center here). The Democrats claim that the IRA will lower energy costs and increase energy security, amongst other environment-related goals. Today, I would like to examine some of the environmental provisions of the IRA and see if the what, it anything, the IRA will do of significance to save the environment. 

Will the IRA Mitigate Climate Change? Not Really. 

According to the Rhodium Group (see below), most of the projected reduction in greenhouse gases was going to happen regardless of whether the IRA passed or not. Second, these projections below show that the IRA would not bring us to the levels under the Paris Climate Agreement. I did not think the Paris Climate Agreement was a good idea. Even if it were, this reduction in up to 1.7 billion metric tons by 2030 does not show how much global temperatures would drop. Bjørn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus made a calculation using Rhodium's estimates. In the best-case scenario that the IRA's funding would extend to 2100, Lomborg found that the IRA would only reduce global temperatures by a measly 0.028 Fahrenheit. Lomborg similarly calculated that the IRA's impact on sea level would be 0.006-0.008" lower in 2100. To bring this point home, the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation calculated that even if we removed all fuel-based carbon emissions, it would reduce the global temperatures by 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100 (Dayaratna et al., 2022). These statistically insignificant outcomes is what the taxpayers get after $369 billion.  

The Futility of the Electric Vehicle Provisions

Electric vehicles (EV) have become a cause célèbre for the Left because many on the Left view EVs as a panacea to deal with climate change. This ignores a number of facts regarding electric vehicles. One is that 61 percent of electricity comes from fossil fuels. Another is even with preexisting tax credits, electric vehicles only account for 1.8 million out of the 270.9 million vehicles in the United States, or less than 1 percent of all vehicles (IEA; Statista). This implies that subsidies or tax credits have not gotten electric vehicles off the ground. Additionally, a 2022 study from J.D. Power found that electric vehicles have greater quality issues than regular vehicles. 

If were to ignore everything in the previous paragraph, Pete Buttigieg's tone-deafness of suggesting people buy electric vehicles to fight inflation is still the modern-day equivalent of qu'ils mangent de la brioche (let them eat cake). Here is why. The average price of an electric vehicle is $64,000, which is $16,000 more than the cost of an average vehicle. The maximum federal tax credit allowed under the IRA is $7,500 (Congressional Research Service [CRS]). As the CRS points out, 78 percent of past electric vehicle tax breaks have benefited filers with greater than $100,000 in adjusted gross income. If the prohibitive costs were not enough, the conditions to acquire the tax credit are overwhelming. These requirements for the tax credit are bad enough (see below) where the Alliance for Automotive Innovation estimates that none of the electric vehicles would be eligible for the full credit once sourcing requirements are considered. 

• Credits will only be allowed for SUVs, vans or pickups less than $80,000; and for other vehicles less than $55,000 (CRS, 2022, p. 14). 
• The credit also is limited to those making less than $150,000 in AGI (ibid.), which makes even less sense since you need a high income to afford a $70,000 post-tax credit.
• The IRA disqualifies electric vehicles with battery components manufactured or assembled by "a foreign entity of concern" (ibid.). China is a "foreign entity of concern" that happens to produce 60 percent of battery cathodes and 80 percent of all anodes (Ward's Auto).
• Another qualification for the credit is to have critical minerals sourced from free trade agreement partners (CRS, 2022, p. 14), which is basically impossible in today's market.  
• The electric battery vehicle has to be manufactured in North America or a free trade agreement partner (ibid.). The catch is no electric vehicle currently meets that qualification.  

Furthermore, these restrictions will have a similar effect to Trump's ridiculous "Buy American" laws: limiting the supply of various inputs will drive up costs for electric vehicles further. In short, the IRA will not make electric vehicles more accessible. They will likely make them more expensive as a result of all of these provisions. 

Clean Energy and Efficiency Incentives for Individuals

The IRA extends and expands the previous tax credit for qualified energy-efficiency improvements for residential property. This expansion will be 30 percent up to an annual taxpayer limit of $1,200 and a $600 per-item limit (CRS, 2022, p. 12). These tax credits would go towards such expenses as solar panels and updating appliances. These tax credits are not subject to income limits. 

Resources of the Future estimates that the IRA will lower electricity costs by $170-$220 a year. The Left-leaning Brookings Institution is more confident in the IRA because it brings up that the IRA could help save a household $1,800 a year if a household installs a modern electric pump, a heat pump for water heating, converts to an electric car, and installs solar panels. We already covered the electric car provisions, but the rest of this estimate is covered under the individual tax credit in question. Even assuming that Brookings' estimate is correct, what makes Brookings think this will greatly benefit disadvantaged communities? 

The upfront costs of installing a heat pump is nearly $6,000, whereas the average installation cost of rooftop solar panels is $20,000. Since lower-income households have more pressing matters than being energy-efficient, it makes sense that previous energy-efficiency home improvement tax credits disproportionately benefitted those making over $100,000 (CRS, 2018, p. 10; see below). A study from Berkeley University similarly found that 60 percent of clean energy tax credits go towards the top quintile (Borenstein and Davis, 2015). This is not helping the environment. This is green welfare for the affluent, not too dissimilar to Biden's student loan "forgiveness."

Renewable Energy Investments

The production tax credits (PTC) are the largest budget item amongst the environmental provisions. They are also the most predictable since the PTCs are an extension of a previously existing program. There are problems with the PTC aside from the ones I brought up eight years ago, such as higher cost of renewables (especially wind), distorting energy demand, and wind is an intermittent and unpredictable power source. Here are some other ones:

• The Congressional Research Service brings up that the evidence for its effects on reducing greenhouse gases is mixed (CRS, 2020, p. 9). 
• The CRS expresses concerns that these subsidies do not "necessarily provide a comparable incentive for all emissions reduction alternatives, and may favor more costly reductions over less costly ones (CRS, 2020, p. 10)."
• The Texas Public Policy Foundation describes in detail how the PTC cause distortions to the electricity market (Erickson, 2018, pp. 7-8). As the Institute for Energy Research illustrates, states with major increases in wind and solar saw electricity prices increase 18 to 36 percent between 2009 and 2017. This is in contrast with the national average of 7 percent in the same time period. 
• The U.S. solar industry is currently undergoing supply chain disruptions and tariff uncertainty (Reuters). 

Conclusion

A bill that does nothing significant to lower global temperatures, an electric vehicle tax credit that is all but unusable, energy efficiency credits that benefit the rich, and questionable production tax credits. That is the environmental impact of the IRA. Even if there were some benefit to be derived, none of what I have previously covered here gets into whether or not climate change is the emergency Biden purports it to be. 

According to a New York Times poll in July 2022, only one percent of Americans think climate change is the most important issue facing us. As the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation pointed out, the most recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found the likelihood of such an emergency scenario to be of "low likelihood." I have pointed out on multiple occasions (most recently in November 2021) that we need to stop using improbable worst-case scenario modeling to dictate environmental policy. Congress has allocated over $300 billion to an issue that is unlikely to be a problem by the end of the century, never mind now. Ultimately, the environmental provisions in the IRA are moral posturing that provide little actual reform to the energy market. 

13 Reasons Why Biden's Student Loan "Cancellation" Does a Grave Disservice

After having issues passing bills in Congress, the Democrats had a legislative win: the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). It was certainly a political win for the Democrats. Given that the IRA is going to make the economy worse off and contains drug pricing regulations that will make us less healthy, I was less than enthused about the legislation. I was hoping that the Biden administration would be done toying around with shoddy policy at least for the summer, but then came August 24. This was when President Biden announced that he would be forgiving $10,000 in student loan debt for borrowers making less than $125,000 (or a married couple jointly filing that makes less than $250,000). There are 43 million Americans holding a total of $1.6 trillion in student loan debt. The goal of Biden's student debt relief is to "provide more breathing room to America's families as they continue to recover from the strains associated with the COVID-19 pandemic." While Biden is passing this off as bold education policy reform, the truth is that his plan is a far cry from actual reform and it comes with multiple drawbacks.

1. Biden's plan disproportionately helps more affluent households. In January 2022, the Left-leaning Brookings Institution released a report finding that Biden's proposal is regressive, regardless of whether it is measured by income, education, or wealth. Regressive is a technical term meaning that it is going to disproportionately benefit those who need welfare the least. This is because middle- and upper-class households are the ones that can best afford a college education for their children. 

While there is some mitigation, Biden's income cap at $125,000 does not negate the regressive nature of the plan. According to the budget model from the highest-ranked business school, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, 62.2 percent of the student loan "cancellation" is going to benefit households in the top 60 percent. A previous Wharton model had the number at 68.7 percent, but the point is that there is something awry with the government that giving handouts disproportionately to more affluent households is charity. As we will see shortly, it does not make sense to give a handout to those who have greater financial stability to pay off student loans. 

2. College graduates are in better financial shape than the average American to pay back loans. Data from Georgetown University show the difference in lifetime earnings (see below). As we see below, the difference between a college degree and a high school degree can be up to $3 million in lifetime earnings. According to the Right-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI), "those with only some college gained a lifetime earning increase relative to someone who only completed high school that is 10 times the average debt incurred." That is forty-fold for someone with a Bachelor's degree (ibid.). In other words, the debt incurred is significantly smaller than the rate of return for acquiring a college degree. 

Not only that, job security for college degree holders is greater. Bureau for Labor Statistics data from 2002 to 2022 show that college degree holders are less likely to be unemployed (see below). In layman's terms, a college education provides the borrower with greater means to pay back the loan. A college degree is an investment. Like any investment, not all investments pay off. A degree in gender studies is not going to have the same rate of return as a degree in computer science or business. However, on average, a college degree holder fares a lot better than someone with a high school degree. Since college degree holders earn more on average and are more likely to remain employed, the argument for student loan "cancellation" is all the weaker. 

3. It is downright unfair. The unfairness is amplified by the regressive nature and the fact that college degree holders on average have better financial footing. There are 97 million Americans over the age of 25 who paid off their college loans (American Enterprise Institute), many of them who made considerable financial sacrifices to pay off the debt. Some deferred going to the hospital, making a home repair, going on vacation, saving for retirement, or making new purchases in order to pay off student loans. Others decided to live in a different city or not-so-nice neighborhood of a large city, attend a less prestigious or less costly university, forego an internship, or work a second job to make sure they could pay their loans. 

There are another 82 million that never went to college (ibid.). Why should these Americans pay for someone else to have an experience they never had? What about parents who made sacrifices to pay for their children's education? Was that for naught? And what about those have staggering debts that have nothing to do with college, such as auto loan debt or mortgages? Student loan "cancellation" gives the proverbial middle finger to those who were financially responsible enough to pay off their student loans while incentivizing financial irresponsibility and recklessness (See Point #10).   

4. Advocates of student loan "cancellation" overstate the problem. This point merits some clarification since I can see someone misconstruing it for "I don't care about the plight of others." As of May 2021, the median education debt was somewhere between $20,000 and $24,500 (Federal Reserve). I use median debt instead of average here because the average was $37,693 (Education Data). What is causing the difference between the average and median is that graduate school programs cause more debt. Using median indicates that 50 percent of student loans are $20,000-$24,500 or less. As we already pointed out in Point #2, college degree holders are in a better position to pay off debt than other Americans. 

As we see below, 63 to 74 percent of undergraduate students do not even take out loans (College Board, 2021, p. 40). The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau shows that over 80 percent pay their loans within 14 years (Gibbs, 2017, p. 11). This is not to say that no one is struggling with student debt or denying the effects that student debt can have on an individual. This is saying that a) most college students do not need to take out debt, and b) student loan debt is manageable for most people (also see Akers, 2019). Drowning in student debt is an exception, not a norm. As such, a targeted debt relief approach to help those in need would be preferable to a broader-based student loan forgiveness. 

5. It will cost taxpayers a pretty penny. It is not as if Biden signing an executive order gives magical powers that makes student loans disappear. The student loan has been lent and spent. The services have been rendered, so it is not exactly as if the debt can be cancelled. The government does not have money of its own. There's a reason why dollar bills have the phrase "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private" printed on them. This scheme will either be paid with taxpayer dollars now or through interest payments in the future. How much will it cost? According to the Wharton School's budget model, it will cost taxpayers $519.1 billion over the next decade. With 148.3 million taxpayers, student loan "cancellation" will cost the average taxpayer over $3,500 dollars. 

6. It undermines the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). What was the argument the Democrats used to push the IRA through Congress? It "will make a historic down payment on deficit reduction to fight inflation." Forget for a moment that the IRA will not reduce inflation. Democratic Congressmen said that this will reduce the deficit by $300 billion and that the bill is fully funded. As we saw in the previous point, the student loan reduction will cost $519.1 billion. In other words, Biden is willing to erase the first decade of deficit reduction from his signature legislation. This shows that the Democrats are not sincere in wanting to reduce the deficit. 

7. It is not economically efficient nor does it help stimulate economic growth. There are some that think that student loan "forgiveness" will generate increased consumption and savings, thereby boosting the economy (Fullwiler et al., 2018). However, it seems that the boost to the economy would be small in comparison to its cost. In 2021, the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimated that "cancelling" student loans would create 3-27¢ of economic activity for every dollar spent. If you want more detail on the multiplier effects and economic stimulus aspects of the debate, you can read this well-written report from the Texas Public Policy Foundation here.

8. It does nothing to make higher education more affordable. Forgiving loans is not educational reform. Paying down student loans now does not change the system that drove up college tuition costs, it does not improve the quality of education, nor does it improve educational attainment rates. As I brought up in November 2020, student loan "cancellation" does not target the main culprit of skyrocketing college costs: federal student loan subsidies. As Left-leaning policy analyst Kevin Carey said, "debt forgiveness alone would be like treating a contaminated river without stopping the source of the pollution." Student loan forgiveness is like putting a Band-Aid on a bad case of COVID. 

9. It only provides a temporary decrease in the student debt bubble before it rises again. Because it does not address rising college costs, we are going to run into the same issue in the near future. According to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the student loan debt will return to 2022 level by 2027. The Right-leaning American Action Forum puts it at 2026. What will the government do then? After all, 2026 will be another midterm election that year. Is the government going to do another round of loan forgiveness to placate a certain group of voters? 

10. It creates moral hazard and will most likely cause inflation in the postsecondary education market. In economics, moral hazard is when an economic actor is encouraged to increase their risk (e.g., go to a more expensive school, select more expensive room and board for college, less likely to constrain other living expenses) because someone else is bearing some or all of the negative consequences of their riskier behavior. In the context of student loans, moral hazard means incentivizing future students to take out more loans and do so more recklessly because the government has set the expectation that there will be other rounds of "cancellation" in the future. This is plausible given that student loan "cancellation" does nothing to prevent another loan debt bubble from emerging (See Point #9). 

Such encouragement would boost demand for a college education, which in turn increases the price of college tuition. This goes beyond the inflation for college that has existed for years (College Board). It provides perverse incentives to colleges. Student loan forgiveness will not encourage colleges to lower costs. If the government will bear the costs of student loans no matter what, it will incentivize universities to jack up the sticker price of the college experience so they can get more money for such endeavors as new faculty, recruit new and better students, upgrade facilities. Rather than bring tuition to a more affordable amount, it will provide every incentive to keep college costs sky-high.  

11. The moral hazard will erode lending institutions. The moral hazard goes beyond the borrowers or postsecondary institutions. To quote the Acton Institute, "You took out a loan, therefore you have a fiduciary responsibility to repay it. An institution vetted you for this loan, assessed that you were worthy of the risk, and in taking the loan, you made a commitment. People cannot thrive and societies cannot grow in environments where you can renege on contracts without penalty." Whether you look at the Fraser Institute Economic Freedom Index or the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, one thing that is clear is the soundness of institutions has a strong impact on the quality of life. If our economic transactions and our institutions are based on distrust, corruption, economic stagnation, and social decline become rampant. Think about it for a moment. Access to credit allows to do such things as go to college, buy a car, get a mortgage on a house, and buy a myriad of goods and services. I'm not saying that lending institutions are run by angels, but if we break down this institution, it also affects our quality of life. 

12. There is the distinct possibility that Biden's executive order will increase inflation in the greater economy. There is a reason why 59 percent of Americans believe that student loan forgiveness will increase inflation: because it is plausible. If people are not spending on paying down debt, that frees up dollars to be spent elsewhere. If a significant percentage of those individuals decide to spend that extra cash on goods, that would drive up prices even further, thereby creating more inflation. 

There are Left-of-center economists who believe it will contribute to inflation, including former Obama economic advisors Jason Furman and Lawrence Summers, the latter of whom warned us in early 2021 of the upcoming inflation. This, of course, depends on how individuals react to receiving debt relief. This is why there have not been estimates as of yet to determine the effect on inflation. While we do not know the degree to which it will take place, it is nevertheless conceivable that a significant enough amount will go to consumer spending that will contribute to inflation. 

9-1-2022 Addendum: The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projects that Biden's student loan "forgiveness" will increase inflation by 15 to 27 basis points next year.  

13. This is an abuse of executive power. Using executive orders is nothing new. Multiple presidents have used them. Abraham Lincoln used one for the Emancipation Proclamation. It's not as if Biden is setting a record. That would go to Franklin D. Roosevelt at over 3,000 executive orders. However, he is blatantly using the executive order to bypass Congress. 

Biden trying to misinterpret the Higher Education Act of 1965, specifically 20 USC §1082(a)(6), to get his way. However, the preamble in the Act limits this power to what Congress authorizes. According to the Constitution (Article 1, Section 7, Clause 7) and other legal statutes (31 USC §1301; Antideficiency Act of 1982), Biden cannot spend money on anything that Congress has not authorized. Legislation would need to be passed by the legislative branch. What a concept! Biden already tried this stunt with the vaccine mandates, the environment (West Virginia v. EPA), and the CDC's eviction moratorium, so I cannot say that I am surprised. Even so, such a power play is problematic because it sets precedent for future presidents to bypass Congress, thereby eroding the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. 

Conclusion

As we can see, there are multiple issues with student debt "cancellation," ranging from the economic and legal to the educational and moral issues. College is too expensive, that much is true. It is also true that the federal government is the major culprit with its student loan subsidies. Student loan "cancellation" does nothing to fix the problem of rising costs. If anything, it makes the costs higher while incentivizing future generations of borrowers to take on more debt. Not that I am for handing out money like it was hotcakes, but if you are, why do it for college graduates who can better retain a job, earn a higher salary, and have better access to liquidity? I hope that the legally questionable nature of such a move will result in the Supreme Court overturning this loan "cancellation." But if it does not, at least the Biden administration's legacy for higher education is to make college less affordable and accessible for future students.

The "Inflation Reduction Act" Will Not Reduce Inflation, But It Will Have Negative Economic Impact

There is something to be said for the adage "try, try again." In the case of current politics, if you cannot pass the Build Back Better Act, go for a smaller version that is appealing enough to get a slim majority of votes. That is what happened with the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The IRA has multiple features, including an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies, a 15 percent corporate minimum tax, tax credits for zero-carbon energy, more funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and drug price reforms that will cause more harm. Today, I would like to take a look at the macroeconomic effects of such broad legislation. 

Will the Inflation Reduction Act Reduce Inflation?

You would think with a title like the "Inflation Reduction Act," there would be significant reduction in inflation. At the same time, this would not be the first time that the actual impact of the legislation would be the opposite of what the title suggests. No Child Left Behind ended up leaving behind millions of children. The Affordable Care Act made healthcare less affordable. The Defense of Marriage Act did not defend marriage for everyone that wanted to enter into a consenting relationship with another adult. The Inflation Reduction Act is no exception. The name "Inflation Reduction Act" is a reflection of salesmanship and has nothing to do with reducing inflation. 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is considered the gold standard for legislative analysis, does not find that the IRA would have significant impact on inflation. For the CBO, it will have negligible impact in 2022. As for 2023, the estimated range is reducing inflation by 0.1 percent to increasing it by 0.1 percent. Penn State's Wharton Business School, which is quite revered in these sorts of analyses, is not any more flattering. The Wharton Business School found that there was no notable reduction in inflation:

The Act would have no meaningful effect on inflation in the near term but would reduce inflation by around 0.1 percentage points by the middle of the first decade. These point estimates, however, are not statistically significant from zero, indicating a low level of confidence that the legislation would have any measurable impact on inflation. 

Corporate Minimum Tax

One of the biggest forms of tax reform in the IRA is on corporate taxes. The IRA imposes a 15 percent book corporate tax on companies that make over $1 billion in profits annually. There are different accounting standards used for reporting income to the government (tax income) versus what is reported to investors (book income). There are instances in which book income is larger than tax income, which means that a corporation very well might pay less in corporate taxes as a result. To quote the Left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), "if the total taxes (US and foreign taxes) paid comes to less than 15 percent of those profits, this provision would require them to pay additional tax to raise their effective worldwide tax rate to 15 percent." ITEP calculates that such a provision would generate $223 billion over a decade.

Those on the Left, such as those as ITEP, see this as a step in the right direction because it means addressing corporate tax avoidance. This line of thinking assumes that such a reform would be better for the economy or society. Out of the 0.2 percent decline in the GDP that the Right-leaning Tax Foundation projected, half of that decline is attributable to the corporate tax. As I have brought up before in my analysis of corporate taxes (see here, here, and here), corporate taxes are the least effective form of taxation. The Tax Foundation illustrates how the corporate tax is the most economically damaging way to raise tax revenue. 

Using the unconventional way of raising corporate taxes through book income does not make this tax reform any less damaging. In addition to the issues with corporate taxes generally, this alternative minimum tax (AMT) will affect some industries more than others. According to Tax Foundation analysis on this AMT, industries that will feel disproportionate effects are real estate, utilities, mining, and automobiles. The Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that 49.7 percent of this tax incidence would fall on U.S. manufacturers. 

Furthermore, as the American Action Forum details, the United States had a brief, but failed experiment with taxing bookable income in the late 1980s called Business Untaxed Reporting Profit (BURP). What ended up happening with the BURP adjustment was a detrimental effect on financial reporting. This would not only incentivize using alternative accounting practices to under-report book income, but the loss of information for investors had negative effects. All Biden's 15 percent corporate tax is going to do is stymie the economy while complicating compliance with tax collection efforts. 

Excise Tax on Stock Buybacks

The other major tax reform in the IRA is the 1 percent stock buyback excise tax on U.S. publicly traded corporations. You can read this primer from Congressional Research Service for more information. Essentially, the reason for stock buybacks over paying dividends is the tax preferential treatment. Dividends have a top tax rate of 20 percent, but that is still higher than the zero percent tax for stock buybacks prior to the IRA. Stock buybacks also give stockholders a choice about whether or how to receive distributions. Even so, there is a debate as to whether dividends or buybacks are better for both investors and the company in the long-term. 

In any case, one of the main reasons for this excise tax is to increase U.S. tax receipts from foreign investors. A one percent excise tax is still lower in comparison to a 20 percent tax on dividends. Another reason for this tax is to encourage corporations to invest in their business instead of returning excess cash to investors. However, buybacks do not starve firms of cash for investment, according to a 2019 report from the U.K. government. Another study shows that 95 percent of funds from these repurchases are reinvested in other public companies (Booth, 2022).

While projected to accrue $55 billion in tax revenues over the next decade, the Tax Foundation also expressed concern that it might be less if the dividend payouts are largely remitted to tax-preferred retirement accounts. Plus, the call for a tax ignores multiple benefits of buyback (e.g., reduced transaction costs, orderly market trading, lower market volatility). In short, a buyback excise tax could result in an inefficient allocation of capital over the medium-term by trapping capital in stagnant companies.

Will the IRA Raise Your Taxes?

One of Biden's campaign promises was that he would not raise taxes on those making less than $400,000. According to an analysis from the Tax Policy Center, the net effect of the IRA on after-tax income for middle-class households is effectively zero. This makes sense since the two main tax reforms of the IRA are the corporate income tax and excise tax on corporate stock buybacks previously covered. There are no income tax increases whatsoever in the IRA.  

This is where the story gets more complicated. When you only look at adjusted gross income as the chart above does, then yes, taxes do not increase. However, the effects of the corporate tax or the buyback excise tax have more indirect, but nevertheless measurable, outcomes. This is why the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has a more inclusive measure of income in its analysis, which includes such factors as employers' contributions to healthcare, the employer's portion of Social Security taxes, and the implicit value of the insurance that Medicare provides. I will use calendar year 2023 as an example (see JTC CY 2023 figures below). With this more inclusive category, people who make under $10,000 and more than $30,000 will indeed experience an increase in taxation. This makes sense considering that corporate tax increases have multiple secondary effects, including that a significant portion of the corporate tax incidence falls on workers. Even if taxes on adjusted gross income will not increase, the working class will indirectly pay taxes elsewhere. 

On the other hand, if you use the JCT's numbers to look further out to the third year and beyond, the net result on tax rates are about as impactful as the projected inflation reduction in the IRA. 

Will the IRA help with the deficit? Technically it will, but not by much.

The other thing that irks me is that the Democrats are passing this bill off as fiscally responsible because the IRA is going to reduce the deficit. They are not wrong on that front. According to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), the IRA is projected to reduce deficits by $300 billion within the first decade. It is the second decade where those savings will increase to the $1.1-1.9 trillion range, largely depending on whether those ACA subsidies remain permanent or not. 

The accuracy of budgetary projections two decades out is more tenuous than they are one decade out. Even so, if the IRA ends up saving over a trillion over the next two decades as the CRFB projects, let's first keep in mind that it would be an average of $95 billion per annum. Who knows what spending binge the federal government will go on between now and then? Second, this does not account for the fact that the Biden administration drove up the CBO's projection of the 10-year deficit by $2.4 trillion with the American Rescue Plan and the bipartisan infrastructure bill that was passed. And then we would have to cover the remainder of the $6 trillion in borrowing that Congress did with its pandemic spending. This all ignores the bigger picture about the state of U.S. public debt, including that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all going to be driving federal debt further. I understand that the Democrats were looking for a legislative win shortly before midterm elections, but it doesn't change the fact that whatever deficit reduction that the IRA is projected to generate is a drop in the bucket in comparison to $30.7 trillion in debt the U.S. government has accrued and what additional debt it is likely to accrue.

Conclusion

What will be the macroeconomic effects of the IRA? In spite of its name, the Inflation Reduction Act will do nothing of significance to reduce inflation. The unintended consequences of the corporate minimum tax and the excise tax are going to cause more problems than they attempt to solve. As for reducing deficit spending, its impact is minuscule when looking at the grand scheme. If you needed more economic effects than those listed above, the Tax Foundation uses its model to project a few other effects. In the next decade, the GDP is going to decrease by 0.2 percent, there will be 29,000 fewer jobs, and there will be a 0.1 percent decrease in wages, and there will be a 0.3 percent decrease in capital stock. It would be nice to see legislation with the net effect of helping out the American people, but it seems that Congress is incapable of completing such a task.