Categories

Archives

Tax Day Hyperbole

The fact that “47% of Americans paid no federal income tax in 2009″ made the rounds recently as Americans geared up to pay their taxes again and rich white people picketed on the deadline to file, April 15th. My first reaction was, “Well, yeah, but seems like that burden is being shifted downward to the state and local level.” Dig a little deeper, and it turns out that more people are paying the feds than at first glance. Between payroll, medicare and social security, excise, and gas taxes, three-quarters of the population stand to pay something to the federal government this year, according to the Tax Policy Center.

And the average federal take – median of 18%,  millionaires at 27% – trends toward reasonable, at least to the reasonably-inclined. The problem of course is the gap between what the government collects and what it spends. American sales tax is low compared to other nations, where a value-added tax, or VAT, is the norm. This method adds fractional tax percentages at each stage of production of a product, taxing the additional value. This taxes consumption more directly and would stand to raise a fair amount of additional revenue. Alone, a VAT can be seen as regressive, but a refundable tax credit – for lower income taxpayers who spend proportionately more of their income on necessary goods –solves that dilemma.

The overall American tax structure might not need drastic reform then, but incremental. Everyone acknowledges that cutting into the deficit will require both increased revenue and decreased spending. On the spending side, it’s popular to say that there are no easy answers, but I can think of a few right off the bat. The military budget continues to bloat, with total defense spending budgeted between $880 billion to $1 trillion in fiscal year 2010. It’s a sickening waste of money, the bulk of which stands to do nothing against the reigning terrorism bogeyman, but there’s little to no political will to start cutting the fat. Going hand in hand, the war on drugs continues to blow untold billions in federal, state, and local enforcement, lost wages and cost of imprisonment of offenders, and costs associated with failure to provide due treatment to those abusing. True reform of the tax code stands to bring in substantial additional revenue by cutting granddaddy entitlements and credits to business and special interests with no redeeming value.

But the obvious obstacle to all of this is hyperpartisanship and no one having any incentive until the plug is pulled by America’s creditors.

In summary: “wah wah wah!”

Fox News: “How Obama Raises Your Taxes”

Obama’s Tax Proposals Make a Complex System Worse, John R. Lott, Jr.

I read this article with interest, because while I do not have as extensive a background in economics as Lott, I’m still capable of critical thinking.

One approach [to lower taxes] is to lower the marginal tax rate, the percentage taken for each additional dollar they earn. The other is to increase tax deductions and credits, and to phase them out as people’s income increases.

Take something such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program designed to help guarantee the poor a certain level of income. The desire to help the poor is understandable, but it also creates its own problems. Giving more money to people, the poorer they are, also means that the more income these poor individuals make, the more government assistance is taken away from them. Just as higher taxes discourage work, the loss of a significant portion of one’s deductions and credits will also discourage work.

The quoted bit is the classic conservative claim that (insert tax policy) will discourage people from working. But if given tax deductions increase a person’s income, thereby decreasing assistance, we’re essentially talking a zero-sum game here (given no further information)… Besides the illusion that people are earning more. (Which, if anything, would encouraged work by said logic. Right?) Without actually knowing how disposable income would be affected, this claim seems empty.

John McCain’s proposals have top marginal income tax rates of 35 percent for individuals and 25 percent for corporations, while Barack Obama’s plan has rates of 39.6 and 35 percent respectively. But the official marginal tax rate isn’t the rate that people actually pay, because they also lose tax breaks as their income rises.

Here’s the basic premise for the rest of the article. The difference between McCain’s and Obama’s proposed tax rates for individuals doesn’t seem Earth-shattering, but Lott attempts to illustrate just how much Obama will destroy America. (He doesn’t go into the corporate rate here.)

The important thing is that Lott et al aren’t looking at actual tax rates, but effective (estimated) tax burdens. My question is how do tax breaks for lower income individuals affect the effective tax rate for higher income individuals? It shifts the burden statistics-wise, but it doesn’t change the “39.6%” figure of Obama’s plan. It seems as if a person making $250k a year pays X, regardless of whether or not another person who makes less gets a tax break that the first is ineligible for. The article is focused on manipulating already dubious (albiet popular) claims. But then I don’t have a degree in economics, right? Does theory trump reality?

I’m obviously inviting anyone more informed on the subject to take potshots at me.