Candidates, Marginal Tax Rates, and Economic Welfare

By :: October 2nd, 2008

Typically, TPC measures the impact of tax laws and proposals in terms of average tax rates. This gives a good measure of how taxes affect our pocketbooks, but economists also like to examine how taxes affect economic incentives. For that purpose, the effective marginal tax rate is most apt. That is, how much tax do we pay on an additional dollar of income. This is important because marginal rates affect the incentive to work that extra hour or to engage in tax avoidance.

My colleagues, Katie Lim and Jeff Rohaly, just released a fascinating analysis of how the presidential candidates' tax plans would affect marginal effective income tax rates on earnings. Katie and Jeff found that, on average, Obama's plan would leave marginal tax rates pretty much where they are now while McCain would cut them modestly. Although Obama would cut effective marginal rates for many more tax units than McCain (61 percent in 2009 vs. 20 percent), he'd also raise them on more taxpayers (15 percent vs. just 1 percent). Not surprisingly, the most dramatic difference is among those in the top brackets. On average, in 2009, Obama would raise effective tax rates on millionaires by almost 6 percentage points while McCain would leave them unchanged.

[Warning: The following gets a little technical. For non-economists, the upshot is that if we calculate marginal rates a different way, as suggested by Greg Mankiw, a Harvard prof who used to be President Bush's top economist, the comparison is more favorable to McCain. Caveats follow.]

When Greg Mankiw saw our study, he observed on his blog that average effective tax rates might not be the best way to measure the impact of taxes on economic welfare:

The deadweight loss of taxation rises roughly with the square of the tax rate. As a result, if one person sees the marginal tax rate fall from 20 to 15, while another sees it rise from 30 to 35, the average marginal tax rate is unchanged, but the deadweight loss increases. Perhaps the relevant average for thinking about deadweight loss is not the mean as conventionally computed but is, instead, the square root of the average squared tax rate.
Katie calculated this interesting “Mankiw effective tax rate” in the following table.

The Mankiw measure shows about a 1-percentage point increase in rates in 2009 under the Obama proposal and a 1-percentage point decline under McCain. As Greg conjectured, the difference between the two plans is somewhat larger under this metric than the traditional measure (2.4 percent vs.1.5 percent).

There's a question about how to treat negative effective tax rates—as apply to low-income households eligible for refundable tax credits that phase in with earnings (such as the EITC, the child tax credit, or Senator Obama's proposed working families tax credit). The negative rates are subsidies, not taxes, but a squared -10 percent rate would look just like a squared +10 percent rate. This is the right answer if the concern is the distortion in the choice between labor and leisure. However, if there are good policy reasons to favor work over leisure, it might be misleading. For that reason, we also show the average rates setting negative marginal tax rates to zero. This modification doesn't change the qualitative conclusions, but both McCain's and Obama's effective rates are slightly smaller by this measure.

Here's the caveat. McCain's and Obama's plans raise different amounts of revenue. The long-term economic effect of the two plans depends on their impacts on the deficits (and, implicitly, future tax rates). For example, if you believe that Senator McCain will do a better job at controlling spending than Senator Obama, then the lower tax rates under his plan are likely to be more durable. If, as the Obama campaign claims, McCain would spend more because of his policies in Iraq and elsewhere, then Obama's plan might be better for the economy over the long run.

Thus, a calculation of the long-term economic effects depends critically on what happens to spending. The Tax Policy Center will be examining this very question in a forum on Friday at the Urban Institute. Click this link to register.


  1. Anonymous  ::  8:47 pm on October 3rd, 2008:

    The described methodology states that marginal rates are computed by increasing wages by $1,000. However, marginal tax rates vary signficantly by type of income (see
    NBER computes marginal rates by increase all types of income by 1%, not just wages.

  2. Anonymous  ::  8:57 pm on October 3rd, 2008:

    Sorry, here's the correct link:

  3. Anonymous  ::  3:12 am on October 17th, 2008:

    WaPo last Sunday ran an Outlook column by a Keynes biographer regarding the current crisis.
    Keynesianism broke down because it could not explain why, even with lingering deficits, the economy would go into recession. However, if one factors in the effects of paying interest on the national debt and lags the economic effects by one fiscal year, the effect is discernable. When Republicans are in power, their fiscal policies require running a deficit in excess of net interest in order to get growth. Democrats, because of their fiscal policies can balance the budget and get growth of about 3% on average per year.
    The reason the GOP needs to run deficits is that their tax policies reward savers. The only way to move this money back into the productive sector is to borrow it from them, lest it be use for speculation. The Democrats tax the excess savings of the wealthy, so they can afford to reduce the debt without decreasing consumption in the economy.
    Here is the equation. Note that you must run it by regime (JFK, Johnson-Nixon-Ford, Reagan-Bush I, Clinton, Bush II):
    Growth % in FY+1 = (Deficit/Surplus + Net Interest in FY)/GDPTry running the numbers before you say it doesn't work.

  4. Anonymous  ::  3:01 am on November 2nd, 2008:

    The problem here is that the biggest factor being missed is not how the tax rate will change, but how the tax code will change. Items like allowable deductions has a far greater affect to your tax bill then just a couple % up or down. For instance McCain proposed increasing the capital loss deduction from $3000 to $15000, where as Obama wants to increase the Capital gains taxes.
    Obama knows he cannot pay for his promises just by taxing the rich, logically he could only generate that kind of revenue by making tax code changes that can and will take more from everybody.

  5. Anonymous  ::  4:16 pm on April 28th, 2010:

    Tax always support the economic welfare. As we all know tax is the source of a nation's budget. No matter what policy a leader may institute to raise more funds, it still boils down on how they will make these funds work.
    hunting rangefinders

  6. Anonymous  ::  12:40 pm on August 31st, 2010:


  7. Anonymous  ::  2:10 pm on September 1st, 2010:


  8. Anonymous  ::  12:12 pm on October 20th, 2010:

    that i it a good news. we still pay taxes, but keep an balance it should grow vices taxes. i can see now some taxes cuts. I am a follower of health reform. maybe now sick people will afford a cure. Drug rehab Salt Lake City

  9. Anonymous  ::  9:51 pm on November 1st, 2010:

    These policies must be seen in context of their overall impact on the economy. If you tell someone that they will not get a tax increase, they will be happy. If however, you tell that person that they will in fact lose their job, that “no tax increase” pledge becomes worthless.
    airsoft minigun

  10. type approval indonesia  ::  3:31 am on January 10th, 2011:

    I would like to thank you for the efforts you get in creating this article.

  11. Haven Holidays  ::  4:50 pm on January 18th, 2011:

    great page have you seen this years Haven Holidays offers?

  12. electronic projects circuit  ::  2:35 pm on October 8th, 2011:

    what a fantastic info…..i love it thanks for share

  13. deathly hallows necklace  ::  9:56 pm on September 8th, 2014:

    deathly hallows necklace