Who pays taxes? Who should?
At a fascinating TPC panel this afternoon, TPC’s Bob Williams, former CBO director (and McCain economic adviser) Doug Holtz-Eakin, former top Ronald Reagan tax adviser John (Buck) Chapoton, and Center on Budget & Policy Priorities executive director Bob Greenstein all wrestled with the nature—and future–of our progressive tax system.
It is more than an academic question. President Obama wants to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all but the highest earners. He wants to cut taxes for those making $200,000 or less, and raise them for those making $250,000 or more. Is this demarcation class warfare as Republicans would have it? Or a matter of simple fairness as Democrats suggest. And whoever is right, is this strategy a fiscal dead-end?
Start thinking about this by ignoring the fevered rhetoric of the Left and the Right. The distribution of federal taxes is torn by crosscurrents that are much more complex than politicians claim.
On one hand, it is true that after-tax income of the highest earners has been rising at a remarkable pace. And it is also true that one reason for this good fortune is that their effective federal tax rates have been plunging.
New CBO estimates show that between 1979 and 2006, average pre-tax income of the top one percent of earners more than tripled, even after accounting for inflation. Their average income went from half a million dollars to $1.7 million even as incomes were basically flat for all households. At the same time, effective federal tax rates for the rich plunged from 37 percent to 31 percent while they barely budged for taxpayers as a whole. Bottom line: after-tax income at the very top increased from $330,000 to $1.2 million
But it's also true that the top one percent have been paying an ever-larger share of the nation’s total tax bill. In 2006, these lucky duckies—to borrow a phrase from The Wall Street Journal—paid 28 percent of all federal taxes. The top 10 percent paid more than half, while the bottom 20 percent effectively contributed nothing. While many of those low-earners did pay payroll taxes, they paid negative income tax rates thanks to refundable income tax credits.
So do the rich pay their fair share or not? Buck Chapoton may have it about right. His conclusions: Given both massive deficits and the huge increase in incomes for the very rich, there is a strong equity argument for raising taxes at the top. There is little credibility to the claim that boosting their tax liability will further damage an already-weak economy. However, by proposing to raise rates rather than broadening the tax base, Obama is practically begging the wealthy to seek out new sheltering opportunities.
Finally, Buck raises another important issue that has little to do with economics (at least directly) and a lot to do with the nature of our democracy. Is it healthy to have a nation where a few pay most of the costs while millions pay no taxes at all, even as they enjoy the benefits of those programs largely financed by the wealthy. It brings to mind Obama’s plan to cover the uninsured by raising taxes only on those making more than $250,000. That’s a kind of class warfare that really does trouble me.
Thanks for another magnificent article. Where else could anybody get that type of info in such a perfect way of writing?
I’ve a presentation subsequent week, and I’m at the search
for such information.
Your moral position does not wash. To a large extent, taxes are a charge for services received – either directly or in common. Everyone should pay something for defense – especially if the Defense industry is what employs you (I find conservative defense workers protesting high taxes to be both sad and ironic). Public safey is also universally shared.
Other items can and are segregated – like retirement savings and disability insurance. The benefit you get is dependent on what you pay. The higher your FICA taxes, the better your Social Security check.
If you eat in a restaurant, you benefit – at least theoretically – from health and safety inspection – which is why it is licit to charge a higher sales tax on food and beverage.
Property taxes fund education (which is not a good linkage) and public safety (which protects improvements).
Whether it is moral or moral hazard to have public sector retirement programs is another debate. However, if you have them, there should be a direct wage levy – such income distribution would not be a moral use of Land Value Taxes.
There is only one class of people who morally should pay taxes. These are the land-monopolists, whose ownership and speculation in this birthright and natural resource has over many years borne heavily our productive opportunities. It has limited the progress of what should have been the most advanced civilization on earth. The value of the land is both due to nature and population, the latter being the result of local taxation helping to create the complex infrastructure from which we are able to enjoy the part that is left after these monopolists have dis-allowed us fair access to what they hold and confine, parts of the most productive areas of the land. By their use of this privilidge they have failed to return to the tax-payer any interest due to his past investment in the municipal developments called township.
The value of the land is expressed in its ground-rent, which is always there to be collected and used. However when the land is kept barren this rent is forgotten about. It should be returned to the people as a tax on land values.
TAX TAKINGS NOT MAKINGS.
I favor a three part tax system: a Value Added Tax, so that everyone pays; a Business Income Tax – essentially a hidden VAT – to fund social insurance, medical insurance and income support to both families and the poor; and a high income personal income tax to fund overseas military operations (because in times of crisis we borrow the money anyway), foreign aid, net interest and debt repayment. In times of real national mobilization (on the order of WWII) the income tax threshold would be reduced to capture moderate income. If the debt were paid off and overseas commitments eliminated the income tax would sunset. The income tax should not be cut until then, however.
In order to make sure that there is no bleedover with the income tax supporting domestic spending, establish regional caucuses to fund regional domestic spending (both military and civil) and set regional VAT and BIT rates and benefit levels (which allows tailoring of tax credit levels to fit local economies).
http://www.itepnet.org/whopays.htm