Jump to content

Progressive tax: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
point for reference does not seem to be in dispute
Restore to version that sticks to topic and does not go off on expansive tangent (again) about income inequality.
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Taxation}}
[[File:Distribution of U.S. Federal Taxes 2000.JPG|thumb|right|Distribution of U.S. Federal Taxes in 2000 as a percentage of income.]]

A '''progressive tax''' is a [[tax]] in which the [[tax rate]] increases as the taxable base amount increases.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Progressive Webster] (4b): increasing in rate as the base increases (a progressive tax)</ref><ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/61/69/P0586900.html American Heritage] (6). Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases.</ref><ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-375969.html Britannica Concise Encyclopedia]: Tax levied at a rate that increases as the quantity subject to taxation increases.</ref><ref>[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=Progressive+tax Princeton University WordNet]: (n) progressive tax (any tax in which the rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases)</ref><ref name="Sommerfeld">Sommerfeld, Ray M., Silvia A. Madeo, Kenneth E. Anderson, Betty R. Jackson (1992), ''Concepts of Taxation'', Dryden Press: Fort Worth, TX</ref> The term "progressive" describes a distribution effect on [[income]] or [[Consumption (economics)|expenditure]], referring to the way the rate progresses from low to high, where the average tax rate is less than the [[Tax rate#Marginal|marginal tax rate]].<ref name="Hyman">Hyman, David M. (1990) ''Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy'', 3rd, Dryden Press: Chicago, IL</ref><ref name="James">James, Simon (1998) ''A Dictionary of Taxation'', Edgar Elgar Publishing Limited: Northampton, MA</ref> The term can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Progressive taxes are imposed in an attempt to reduce the [[tax incidence]] of people with a lower [[wikt:ability-to-pay|ability-to-pay]], as such taxes shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay. The opposite of a progressive tax is a [[regressive tax]], where the relative tax rate or burden increases as an individual's ability to pay it decreases.<ref name="Sommerfeld" />
A '''progressive tax''' is a [[tax]] in which the [[tax rate]] increases as the taxable base amount increases.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Progressive Webster] (4b): increasing in rate as the base increases (a progressive tax)</ref><ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/61/69/P0586900.html American Heritage] (6). Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases.</ref><ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-375969.html Britannica Concise Encyclopedia]: Tax levied at a rate that increases as the quantity subject to taxation increases.</ref><ref>[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=Progressive+tax Princeton University WordNet]: (n) progressive tax (any tax in which the rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases)</ref><ref name="Sommerfeld">Sommerfeld, Ray M., Silvia A. Madeo, Kenneth E. Anderson, Betty R. Jackson (1992), ''Concepts of Taxation'', Dryden Press: Fort Worth, TX</ref> The term "progressive" describes a distribution effect on [[income]] or [[Consumption (economics)|expenditure]], referring to the way the rate progresses from low to high, where the average tax rate is less than the [[Tax rate#Marginal|marginal tax rate]].<ref name="Hyman">Hyman, David M. (1990) ''Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy'', 3rd, Dryden Press: Chicago, IL</ref><ref name="James">James, Simon (1998) ''A Dictionary of Taxation'', Edgar Elgar Publishing Limited: Northampton, MA</ref> The term can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Progressive taxes are imposed in an attempt to reduce the [[tax incidence]] of people with a lower [[wikt:ability-to-pay|ability-to-pay]], as such taxes shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay. The opposite of a progressive tax is a [[regressive tax]], where the relative tax rate or burden increases as an individual's ability to pay it decreases.<ref name="Sommerfeld" />


Line 6: Line 5:


==History==
==History==
{{Taxation}}

In the early days of the Roman Republic, public taxes consisted of modest assessments on owned wealth and property. The tax rate under normal circumstances was 1% and sometimes would climb as high as 3% in situations such as war. These modest taxes were levied against land, homes and other real estate, slaves, animals, personal items and monetary wealth. The more you had in property, the more tax you paid. Taxes were collected from individuals.
In the early days of the Roman Republic, public taxes consisted of modest assessments on owned wealth and property. The tax rate under normal circumstances was 1% and sometimes would climb as high as 3% in situations such as war. These modest taxes were levied against land, homes and other real estate, slaves, animals, personal items and monetary wealth. The more you had in property, the more tax you paid. Taxes were collected from individuals.
Line 16: Line 13:
In the United States,the first progressive income tax was established by the [[Revenue Act of 1862]], which was signed into law by President [[Abraham Lincoln]] and repealed the [[flat tax]], which was short-lived [[Revenue Act of 1861]].
In the United States,the first progressive income tax was established by the [[Revenue Act of 1862]], which was signed into law by President [[Abraham Lincoln]] and repealed the [[flat tax]], which was short-lived [[Revenue Act of 1861]].

==Overview==
In the preface of the book, ''Tax Progressivity and Income Inequality'', Professor of Economics [[Joel Slemrod]] writes,<ref>Slemrod, Joel. ''Tax Progressivity and Income Inequality.'' "The question of tax progressivity – who should bear the tax burden – has fascinated tax philosophers for over a century, and remains highly controversial... The ultimate answer to this question depends on ethical judgments into which the field of economics offers no insight, but it also depends on some of the bread-and-butter preoccupations of economics, such as the extent and nature of income inequality and the behavioral response of taxpayers to alternative tax systems." 1996. p. vii. ISBN 978-0521587761.</ref>

<blockquote>The question of tax progressivity – who should bear the tax burden – has fascinated tax philosophers for over a century, and remains highly controversial... The ultimate answer to this question depends on ethical judgments into which the field of economics offers no insight, but it also depends on some of the bread-and-butter preoccupations of economics, such as the extent and nature of income inequality and the behavioral response of taxpayers to alternative tax systems.</blockquote>


==Measuring progressivity==
==Measuring progressivity==
Line 28: Line 30:


==Economic effects==
==Economic effects==

[[File:Berg Ostry 2011 Chart 4.gif|thumb|right|Ostry and Berg (2011) study the factors affecting the duration of [[economic growth]] in developed and developing countries, and find that income equality has a more beneficial impact than trade openness, sound political institutions, and foreign investment.<ref name=BergOstryEE>Study covers years between 1950 and 2006. {{Cite journal |last= Berg |first= Andrew G. |last2= Ostry |first2= Jonathan D. |year= 2011 |title= Equality and Efficiency |journal= Finance and Development |volume= 48 |issue= 3 |publisher= International Monetary Fund |url= http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/berg.htm |accessdate= September 10, 2012}}</ref> Decreased progressiveness in [[capital gains taxes]] and other income taxes were the largest contributor to the increase in overall income inequality in the US from 1996 to 2006.<ref>{{cite book|last=Hungerford|first=Thomas L.|title=Changes in the Distribution of Income Among Tax Filers Between 1996 and 2006: The Role of Labor Income, Capital Income, and Tax Policy|publisher=Congressional Research Service|location=Washington, D.C.|url=http://taxprof.typepad.com/files/crs-1.pdf|accessdate=1 January 2014|format=Report 7-5700/R42131|date=December 29, 2011}}</ref>]]
===Income equality===
===Income equality===
{{Main|Economic inequality}}
{{Main|Economic inequality}}
Line 34: Line 36:
Progressive taxation reduces absolute [[income inequality]] when the higher rates on higher-income individuals are paid and not [[Tax evasion|evaded]], and [[transfer payments]] and [[social safety net]]s result in [[Redistribution of income and wealth|redistributive]] [[Gross fixed capital formation#Economic analysis|government spending]].<ref>Moyes, P. [http://www.springerlink.com/content/p564j6805387nql6/ A note on minimally progressive taxation and absolute income inequality] Social Choice and Welfare, Volume 5, Numbers 2-3 (1988), 227–234, DOI: 10.1007/BF00735763. Accessed: 19 May 2012.</ref><ref>Pickett and Wilkinson, ''[[The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better]]'', 2011</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Duncan|first=Denvil, Klara Sabirianova Peter|title=Unequal Inequalities: Do Progressive Taxes Reduce Income Inequality?|url=http://ftp.iza.org/dp6910.pdf|publisher=Institute for the Study of Labor|date=October 2012}}</ref><ref>Moyes, P. [http://www.springerlink.com/content/p564j6805387nql6/ A note on minimally progressive taxation and absolute income inequality] Social Choice and Welfare, Volume 5, Numbers 2-3 (1988), 227–234, DOI: 10.1007/BF00735763. Accessed: 19 May 2012.</ref> When income inequality is low, [[aggregate demand]] will be relatively high, because more people who want ordinary [[consumer good]]s and services will be able to afford them, while the [[labor force]] will not be as relatively [[monopolization|monopolized]] by the wealthy.<ref name=pigou>''[http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Pigou/pgEW8.html The Economics of Welfare]''| [[Arthur Cecil Pigou]]</ref><ref name=OstryBerg>Andrew Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry, 2011, "[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin]?" IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/11/08, [[International Monetary Fund]]</ref>
Progressive taxation reduces absolute [[income inequality]] when the higher rates on higher-income individuals are paid and not [[Tax evasion|evaded]], and [[transfer payments]] and [[social safety net]]s result in [[Redistribution of income and wealth|redistributive]] [[Gross fixed capital formation#Economic analysis|government spending]].<ref>Moyes, P. [http://www.springerlink.com/content/p564j6805387nql6/ A note on minimally progressive taxation and absolute income inequality] Social Choice and Welfare, Volume 5, Numbers 2-3 (1988), 227–234, DOI: 10.1007/BF00735763. Accessed: 19 May 2012.</ref><ref>Pickett and Wilkinson, ''[[The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better]]'', 2011</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Duncan|first=Denvil, Klara Sabirianova Peter|title=Unequal Inequalities: Do Progressive Taxes Reduce Income Inequality?|url=http://ftp.iza.org/dp6910.pdf|publisher=Institute for the Study of Labor|date=October 2012}}</ref><ref>Moyes, P. [http://www.springerlink.com/content/p564j6805387nql6/ A note on minimally progressive taxation and absolute income inequality] Social Choice and Welfare, Volume 5, Numbers 2-3 (1988), 227–234, DOI: 10.1007/BF00735763. Accessed: 19 May 2012.</ref> When income inequality is low, [[aggregate demand]] will be relatively high, because more people who want ordinary [[consumer good]]s and services will be able to afford them, while the [[labor force]] will not be as relatively [[monopolization|monopolized]] by the wealthy.<ref name=pigou>''[http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Pigou/pgEW8.html The Economics of Welfare]''| [[Arthur Cecil Pigou]]</ref><ref name=OstryBerg>Andrew Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry, 2011, "[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin]?" IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/11/08, [[International Monetary Fund]]</ref>
High levels of income inequality can have negative effects on long term economic growth, employment, and [[class conflict]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Alesina|first=Alberto|coauthors=Dani Rodrick|title=Distributive Politics and Economic Growth|journal=Quarterly Journal of Economics|year=1994|month=May|volume=109|issue=2|pages=465-90|doi=10.2307/2118470|url=http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/109/2/465.full.pdf|accessdate=17 October 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Castells-Quintana|first=David|coauthors=Vicente Royuela|title=Unemployment and long-run economic growth: The role of income inequality and urbanisation|journal=Investigaciones Regionales|year=2012|volume=12|issue=24|pages=153-173|url=http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/33140/1/617293.pdf|accessdate=17 October 2013}}</ref> The difference between the [[Gini index]] for an income distribution before taxation and the Gini index after taxation is an indicator for the effects of such taxation.<ref>{{cite journal|title=More than a Dozen Alternative Ways of Spelling Gini|author=Shlomo Yitzhaki|journal=Economic Inequality|volume=8|year=1998|pages=13–30|url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDECINEQ/Resources/morethan2002.pdf}}</ref>
High levels of income inequality can have negative effects on long term economic growth, employment, and [[class conflict]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Alesina|first=Alberto|coauthors=Dani Rodrick|title=Distributive Politics and Economic Growth|journal=Quarterly Journal of Economics|year=1994|month=May|volume=109|issue=2|pages=465-90|doi=10.2307/2118470|url=http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/109/2/465.full.pdf|accessdate=17 October 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Castells-Quintana|first=David|coauthors=Vicente Royuela|title=Unemployment and long-run economic growth: The role of income inequality and urbanisation|journal=Investigaciones Regionales|year=2012|volume=12|issue=24|pages=153-173|url=http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/33140/1/617293.pdf|accessdate=17 October 2013}}</ref> The difference between the [[Gini index]] for an income distribution before taxation and the Gini index after taxation is an indicator for the effects of such taxation.<ref>{{cite journal|title=More than a Dozen Alternative Ways of Spelling Gini|author=Shlomo Yitzhaki|journal=Economic Inequality|volume=8|year=1998|pages=13–30|url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDECINEQ/Resources/morethan2002.pdf}}</ref>

[[File:Berg Ostry 2011 Chart 4.gif|thumb|right|Ostry and Berg (2011) study the factors affecting the duration of [[economic growth]] in developed and developing countries, and find that income equality has a more beneficial impact than trade openness, sound political institutions, and foreign investment.<ref name=BergOstryEE>Study covers years between 1950 and 2006. {{Cite journal |last= Berg |first= Andrew G. |last2= Ostry |first2= Jonathan D. |year= 2011 |title= Equality and Efficiency |journal= Finance and Development |volume= 48 |issue= 3 |publisher= International Monetary Fund |url= http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/berg.htm |accessdate= September 10, 2012}}</ref> Decreased progressiveness in [[capital gains taxes]] and other income taxes were the largest contributor to the increase in overall income inequality in the US from 1996 to 2006.<ref>{{cite book|last=Hungerford|first=Thomas L.|title=Changes in the Distribution of Income Among Tax Filers Between 1996 and 2006: The Role of Labor Income, Capital Income, and Tax Policy|publisher=Congressional Research Service|location=Washington, D.C.|url=http://taxprof.typepad.com/files/crs-1.pdf|accessdate=1 January 2014|format=Report 7-5700/R42131|date=December 29, 2011}}</ref>]]


There is debate between politicians and economists over the role of tax policy in mitigating or exacerbating wealth inequality and the effects on economic growth. For example, economists [[Thomas Piketty]] and [[Emmanuel Saez]] wrote that [[Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States|U.S. tax policy]] in the post World War II era has increased income inequality by enabling the wealthy greater access to capital.<ref name=Piketty>Piketty, Thomas, and Emmanuel Saez. INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES, 1913–1998. Tech. 1st ed. Vol. CXVIII. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2003. Print.</ref> Conversely, a report published by the OECD in 2008 presented empirical research showing a negative relationship between the progressivity of taxes and economic growth.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=eco/wkp(2008)51| title=Do Tax Structures Affect Aggregate Economic Growth? Empirical Evidence From A Panel of OECD Countries | last=Arnold | first=Jens | publisher=OECD | date=14 Oct 2008 | accessdate=02 Jan 2014}}</ref> [[Tax Foundation]] economist William McBride states that progressivity can undermine investment, risk-taking, entrepreneurship, and productivity because high-income earners tend to do much of the saving, investing, risk-taking, and high-productivity labor.<ref name="TaxGrowth">{{cite web|url=http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth| title=What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth? | last=McBride | first=William | publisher=Tax Foundation | date=December 18, 2012 | accessdate=January 2, 2014}}</ref><ref name="TFMcBride">{{cite web| url=http://taxfoundation.org/article/comments-who-pays-distributional-analysis-tax-systems-all-50-states| title=Comments on Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States | publisher=Tax Foundation | last=McBride | first=William | date=February 20, 2013 | accessdate=January 2, 2014 }}</ref>
There is debate between politicians and economists over the role of tax policy in mitigating or exacerbating wealth inequality and the effects on economic growth. For example, economists [[Thomas Piketty]] and [[Emmanuel Saez]] wrote that [[Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States|U.S. tax policy]] in the post World War II era has increased income inequality by enabling the wealthy greater access to capital.<ref name=Piketty>Piketty, Thomas, and Emmanuel Saez. INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES, 1913–1998. Tech. 1st ed. Vol. CXVIII. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2003. Print.</ref> Conversely, a report published by the OECD in 2008 presented empirical research showing a negative relationship between the progressivity of taxes and economic growth.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=eco/wkp(2008)51| title=Do Tax Structures Affect Aggregate Economic Growth? Empirical Evidence From A Panel of OECD Countries | last=Arnold | first=Jens | publisher=OECD | date=14 Oct 2008 | accessdate=02 Jan 2014}}</ref> [[Tax Foundation]] economist William McBride states that progressivity can undermine investment, risk-taking, entrepreneurship, and productivity because high-income earners tend to do much of the saving, investing, risk-taking, and high-productivity labor.<ref name="TaxGrowth">{{cite web|url=http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth| title=What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth? | last=McBride | first=William | publisher=Tax Foundation | date=December 18, 2012 | accessdate=January 2, 2014}}</ref><ref name="TFMcBride">{{cite web| url=http://taxfoundation.org/article/comments-who-pays-distributional-analysis-tax-systems-all-50-states| title=Comments on Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States | publisher=Tax Foundation | last=McBride | first=William | date=February 20, 2013 | accessdate=January 2, 2014 }}</ref>


===Effects on educational choices===
===Effects on educational choices===
[[File:US household income by education.png|thumb|Mean income of U.S. families by education of head, 1989-2010. Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue.]]

Public subsidy of college [[tuition]] will increase the net present value of [[income tax]] receipts because college educated taxpayers earn much more than those without college education.<ref>{{Cite report |first= Barry |last= Bosworth |first2= Gary |last2= Burtless |first3= C. Eugene |last3= Steuerle |date= December 1999 |title= Lifetime Earnings Patterns, the Distribution of Future Social Security Benefits, and the Impact of Pension Reform |type= report no. CRR WP 1999-06 |publisher= Center for Retirement Research at Boston College |location= Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts |url= http://urban.org/uploadedpdf/412137-lifetime-earnings.pdf |page= 43 |accessdate= October 1, 2012}}</ref>

Nobel laureate and John Bates Clarke Award Winner [[Gary Becker]], professor economics and sociology at the University of Chicago and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institute, argues that the root cause of income inequality is differing levels of educational attainment. Consequently, the "rise in returns on investments in human capital is ben­eficial and desirable" to society, according to Becker because it increases productivity and standards of living. Becker points to the widening gap in earnings between the college and graduate school educated and those who did not go to college. In 1980, the average income of a college graduate was 30% larger than the average income of a high school graduate. The average income of a worker with a graduate degree was 50% larger than the average income of a high school-educated worker. By 2007, the average college graduate earned 70% more than a non-college graduate and the income premium of a graduate degree was over 100%. Becker argues that while education is widening the income gap, it is simultaneously creating more opportunities for the poor and for marginalized ethnic and gender groups. According to him, the income growth with respect to education for women parallels the growth for men and the same is true between blacks and whites. Globalization, which has been spurred on by growing educational attainment, has also helped increase income and overall wealth inequality. Rapidly growing globalization during the 1980s due to the rise of emerging markets and increased demand for complex products increased the demand for high-skilled, highly educated workers because their marginal product of labor increased while the marginal product of labor for unskilled workers remained the same. This occurred because high-skilled workers were needed to operate new technology and to perform services that could not be done by low-skilled, low-educated laborers. Accordingly, the real wage of college graduates increased and declined for low-skill laborers which widened the wealth gap.<ref>Reich, Robert B., Emmanuel Saez, and Thomas Piketty. The State of Working America. Publication. Economic Policy Institute, 2011. Print.</ref> Additionally, globalization combined with increased educational opportunities shifted the economy away from a manufacturing base to a finance and services-dominated market. Becker argues that this rise in income inequality is only a temporary and necessary transitory stage as the ever rising rates of return on investment in education will simply serve to raise living standards, productivity, and human capital across the board as more and more people become college and post-undergraduate level educated. He even argues that income inequality could reverse itself as more and more Americans get college degrees.<ref>Becker, Gary S., and Kevin M. Murphy. "The Upside of Income Inequality." The America May 2007. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://www.american.com/archive/2007/may-june-magazine-contents/the-upside-of-income-inequality>.</ref>


A potentially adverse effect of progressive tax schedules is their distorting effect on educational choices. By reducing the after-tax income of highly educated workers, progressive taxes reduce the incentives for citizens to attain education and can thereby lower the overall level of human capital in an economy.<ref>Heckman, J., L. Lochner and C. Tabner, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=226207 Tax Policy and Human Capital Formation], American Economic Review, 88, 293–297. Accessed: 31 July 2012.</ref> A related notion is [[the Davis-Moore hypothesis]], which argues that inequality serves social stability.<ref>Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore. (1970 [1945]) "Some Principles of Stratification." ''American Sociological Review,'' 10 (2), 242–9.</ref>
A potentially adverse effect of progressive tax schedules is their distorting effect on educational choices. By reducing the after-tax income of highly educated workers, progressive taxes reduce the incentives for citizens to attain education and can thereby lower the overall level of human capital in an economy.<ref>Heckman, J., L. Lochner and C. Tabner, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=226207 Tax Policy and Human Capital Formation], American Economic Review, 88, 293–297. Accessed: 31 July 2012.</ref> A related notion is [[the Davis-Moore hypothesis]], which argues that inequality serves social stability.<ref>Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore. (1970 [1945]) "Some Principles of Stratification." ''American Sociological Review,'' 10 (2), 242–9.</ref>
Line 51: Line 50:
==Examples==
==Examples==
{{See also|Tax rates around the world}}
{{See also|Tax rates around the world}}
[[File:Distribution of U.S. Federal Taxes 2000.JPG|thumb|right|Distribution of U.S. Federal Taxes in 2000 as a percentage of income.]]


Most systems around the world contain progressive aspects. When taxable income falls within a particular tax bracket, the individual pays the listed percentage of tax ''on each dollar that falls within that monetary range''. For example, a person in the U.S. who earned $10,000 US of [[taxable income]] (income after adjustments, deductions, and exemptions) would be liable for 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 7,550th dollar, and then for 15% of each dollar earned from the 7,551st dollar to the 10,000th dollar, for a total of $1,122.50. In the [[United States]], there are five tax brackets ranging from 10% to 35%.
Most systems around the world contain progressive aspects. When taxable income falls within a particular tax bracket, the individual pays the listed percentage of tax ''on each dollar that falls within that monetary range''. For example, a person in the U.S. who earned $10,000 US of [[taxable income]] (income after adjustments, deductions, and exemptions) would be liable for 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 7,550th dollar, and then for 15% of each dollar earned from the 7,551st dollar to the 10,000th dollar, for a total of $1,122.50. In the [[United States]], there are five tax brackets ranging from 10% to 35%.

Revision as of 12:37, 18 January 2014

A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases.[1][2][3][4][5] The term "progressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from low to high, where the average tax rate is less than the marginal tax rate.[6][7] The term can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Progressive taxes are imposed in an attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability-to-pay, as such taxes shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay. The opposite of a progressive tax is a regressive tax, where the relative tax rate or burden increases as an individual's ability to pay it decreases.[5]

The term is frequently applied in reference to personal income taxes, where people with more income pay a higher percentage of that income in tax than do those with less income. It can also apply to adjustment of the tax base by using tax exemptions, tax credits, or selective taxation that creates progressive distribution effects. For example, a sales tax on luxury goods or the exemption of basic necessities may be described as having progressive effects as it increases a tax burden on high end consumption or decreases a tax burden on low end consumption respectively.[8][9][10]

History

In the early days of the Roman Republic, public taxes consisted of modest assessments on owned wealth and property. The tax rate under normal circumstances was 1% and sometimes would climb as high as 3% in situations such as war. These modest taxes were levied against land, homes and other real estate, slaves, animals, personal items and monetary wealth. The more you had in property, the more tax you paid. Taxes were collected from individuals.

By 167 BC, Rome no longer needed to levy a tax against its citizens in Rome or anywhere in Italy, due to riches found the provinces they had conquered [11]

In 14th-century England, a progressive tax was applied. [12]

In the United States,the first progressive income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862, which was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln and repealed the flat tax, which was short-lived Revenue Act of 1861.

Overview

In the preface of the book, Tax Progressivity and Income Inequality, Professor of Economics Joel Slemrod writes,[13]

The question of tax progressivity – who should bear the tax burden – has fascinated tax philosophers for over a century, and remains highly controversial... The ultimate answer to this question depends on ethical judgments into which the field of economics offers no insight, but it also depends on some of the bread-and-butter preoccupations of economics, such as the extent and nature of income inequality and the behavioral response of taxpayers to alternative tax systems.

Measuring progressivity

Indices such as the Suits index, Gini coefficient, Theil index, Atkinson index, and Robin Hood index are sometimes used to factor progressivity through measures of inequality of income distribution or inequality of wealth distribution.[14]

Marginal and effective tax rates

The rate of tax can be expressed in two different ways; the marginal rate expressed as the rate on each additional unit of income or expenditure (or last dollar spent) and the effective (average) rate expressed as the total tax paid divided by total income or expenditure. In most progressive tax systems, both rates will rise as amount subject to taxation rises, though there may be ranges where the marginal rate will be constant. With a system of negative income tax, refundable tax credits, or income-tested welfare benefits, it is possible for marginal rates to fall as the amount subject to taxation rises.

Inflation and tax brackets

Many tax laws are not accurately indexed to inflation. Either they ignore inflation completely, or they are indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which tends to understate real inflation. In a progressive tax system, failure to index the brackets to inflation will eventually result in effective tax increases (if inflation is sustained), as inflation in wages will increase individual income and move individuals into higher tax brackets with higher percentage rate. This phenomenon is known as bracket creep and can cause fiscal drag.

Economic effects

Income equality

Progressive taxation reduces absolute income inequality when the higher rates on higher-income individuals are paid and not evaded, and transfer payments and social safety nets result in redistributive government spending.[15][16][17][18] When income inequality is low, aggregate demand will be relatively high, because more people who want ordinary consumer goods and services will be able to afford them, while the labor force will not be as relatively monopolized by the wealthy.[19][20] High levels of income inequality can have negative effects on long term economic growth, employment, and class conflict.[21][22] The difference between the Gini index for an income distribution before taxation and the Gini index after taxation is an indicator for the effects of such taxation.[23]

Ostry and Berg (2011) study the factors affecting the duration of economic growth in developed and developing countries, and find that income equality has a more beneficial impact than trade openness, sound political institutions, and foreign investment.[24] Decreased progressiveness in capital gains taxes and other income taxes were the largest contributor to the increase in overall income inequality in the US from 1996 to 2006.[25]

There is debate between politicians and economists over the role of tax policy in mitigating or exacerbating wealth inequality and the effects on economic growth. For example, economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez wrote that U.S. tax policy in the post World War II era has increased income inequality by enabling the wealthy greater access to capital.[26] Conversely, a report published by the OECD in 2008 presented empirical research showing a negative relationship between the progressivity of taxes and economic growth.[27] Tax Foundation economist William McBride states that progressivity can undermine investment, risk-taking, entrepreneurship, and productivity because high-income earners tend to do much of the saving, investing, risk-taking, and high-productivity labor.[28][29]

Effects on educational choices

A potentially adverse effect of progressive tax schedules is their distorting effect on educational choices. By reducing the after-tax income of highly educated workers, progressive taxes reduce the incentives for citizens to attain education and can thereby lower the overall level of human capital in an economy.[30] A related notion is the Davis-Moore hypothesis, which argues that inequality serves social stability.[31]

Psychological effects

In a study published in 2011, which included the use of data from 54 countries, the authors stated, "our results showed that progressive taxation was positively associated with the subjective well-being of nations," later adding, "we found that the association between more-progressive taxation and higher levels of subjective well-being was mediated by citizens’ satisfaction with public goods, such as education and public transportation."[32]

Examples

Distribution of U.S. Federal Taxes in 2000 as a percentage of income.

Most systems around the world contain progressive aspects. When taxable income falls within a particular tax bracket, the individual pays the listed percentage of tax on each dollar that falls within that monetary range. For example, a person in the U.S. who earned $10,000 US of taxable income (income after adjustments, deductions, and exemptions) would be liable for 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 7,550th dollar, and then for 15% of each dollar earned from the 7,551st dollar to the 10,000th dollar, for a total of $1,122.50. In the United States, there are five tax brackets ranging from 10% to 35%.

New Zealand has the following income tax brackets (for the 2012–2013 financial year): 10.5% up to NZ$14,000; 17.5% from $14,001 to $48,000; 30% from $48,001 to $70,000; 33% over $70,001; and 45% when the employee does not complete a declaration form.[33] All values are in New Zealand dollars and exclude the earner levy.

Australia has the following progressive income tax rates (for the 2012–2013 financial year): 0% effective up to A$18,200; 19% from $18,201 to $37,000; 32.5% from $37,001 to $80,000; 37% from $80,001 to $180,000; and 45% for any amount over $180,000.[34]

Progressive taxation often must be considered as part of an overall system since tax codes have many interdependent variables. For example, when refundable tax credits and other tax incentives are included across the entire income spectrum, the United States has the most progressive income tax code among its peer nations; although its overall income tax rates are below the OECD average.[35]

See also

References

  1. ^ Webster (4b): increasing in rate as the base increases (a progressive tax)
  2. ^ American Heritage (6). Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases.
  3. ^ Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Tax levied at a rate that increases as the quantity subject to taxation increases.
  4. ^ Princeton University WordNet: (n) progressive tax (any tax in which the rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases)
  5. ^ a b Sommerfeld, Ray M., Silvia A. Madeo, Kenneth E. Anderson, Betty R. Jackson (1992), Concepts of Taxation, Dryden Press: Fort Worth, TX
  6. ^ Hyman, David M. (1990) Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, 3rd, Dryden Press: Chicago, IL
  7. ^ James, Simon (1998) A Dictionary of Taxation, Edgar Elgar Publishing Limited: Northampton, MA
  8. ^ Internal Revenue Service: The luxury tax is a progressive tax – it takes more from the wealthy than from the poor.
  9. ^ Luxury tax – Britannica Online Encyclopedia: Excise levy on goods or services considered to be luxuries rather than necessities. Modern examples are taxes on jewelry and perfume. Luxury taxes may be levied with the intent of taxing the rich...
  10. ^ Clothing Exemptions and Sales Tax Regressivity, By Jeffrey M. Schaefer, The American Economic Review, Vol. 59, No. 4, Part 1 (Sep., 1969), pp. 596–599
  11. ^ http://www.unrv.com/economy/roman-taxes.php
  12. ^ http://www.taxworld.org/History/TaxHistory.htm
  13. ^ Slemrod, Joel. Tax Progressivity and Income Inequality. "The question of tax progressivity – who should bear the tax burden – has fascinated tax philosophers for over a century, and remains highly controversial... The ultimate answer to this question depends on ethical judgments into which the field of economics offers no insight, but it also depends on some of the bread-and-butter preoccupations of economics, such as the extent and nature of income inequality and the behavioral response of taxpayers to alternative tax systems." 1996. p. vii. ISBN 978-0521587761.
  14. ^ Philip B. Coulter: Measuring Inequality, 1989, ISBN 0-8133-7726-9 (This book describes about 50 different inequality measures.)
  15. ^ Moyes, P. A note on minimally progressive taxation and absolute income inequality Social Choice and Welfare, Volume 5, Numbers 2-3 (1988), 227–234, DOI: 10.1007/BF00735763. Accessed: 19 May 2012.
  16. ^ Pickett and Wilkinson, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, 2011
  17. ^ Duncan, Denvil, Klara Sabirianova Peter (October 2012). "Unequal Inequalities: Do Progressive Taxes Reduce Income Inequality?" (PDF). Institute for the Study of Labor.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ^ Moyes, P. A note on minimally progressive taxation and absolute income inequality Social Choice and Welfare, Volume 5, Numbers 2-3 (1988), 227–234, DOI: 10.1007/BF00735763. Accessed: 19 May 2012.
  19. ^ The Economics of Welfare| Arthur Cecil Pigou
  20. ^ Andrew Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry, 2011, "Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin?" IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/11/08, International Monetary Fund
  21. ^ Alesina, Alberto (1994). "Distributive Politics and Economic Growth" (PDF). Quarterly Journal of Economics. 109 (2): 465–90. doi:10.2307/2118470. Retrieved 17 October 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  22. ^ Castells-Quintana, David (2012). "Unemployment and long-run economic growth: The role of income inequality and urbanisation" (PDF). Investigaciones Regionales. 12 (24): 153–173. Retrieved 17 October 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  23. ^ Shlomo Yitzhaki (1998). "More than a Dozen Alternative Ways of Spelling Gini" (PDF). Economic Inequality. 8: 13–30.
  24. ^ Study covers years between 1950 and 2006. Berg, Andrew G.; Ostry, Jonathan D. (2011). "Equality and Efficiency". Finance and Development. 48 (3). International Monetary Fund. Retrieved September 10, 2012.
  25. ^ Hungerford, Thomas L. (December 29, 2011). Changes in the Distribution of Income Among Tax Filers Between 1996 and 2006: The Role of Labor Income, Capital Income, and Tax Policy (Report 7-5700/R42131). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 1 January 2014.
  26. ^ Piketty, Thomas, and Emmanuel Saez. INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES, 1913–1998. Tech. 1st ed. Vol. CXVIII. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2003. Print.
  27. ^ Arnold, Jens (14 Oct 2008). "Do Tax Structures Affect Aggregate Economic Growth? Empirical Evidence From A Panel of OECD Countries". OECD. Retrieved 02 Jan 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  28. ^ McBride, William (December 18, 2012). "What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth?". Tax Foundation. Retrieved January 2, 2014.
  29. ^ McBride, William (February 20, 2013). "Comments on Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States". Tax Foundation. Retrieved January 2, 2014.
  30. ^ Heckman, J., L. Lochner and C. Tabner, Tax Policy and Human Capital Formation, American Economic Review, 88, 293–297. Accessed: 31 July 2012.
  31. ^ Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore. (1970 [1945]) "Some Principles of Stratification." American Sociological Review, 10 (2), 242–9.
  32. ^ Shigehiro Oishi, Ulrich Schimmack, and Ed Diener,. Progressive Taxation and the Subjective Well-Being of Nations. Psychological Science 23(1) 86–92. (Published online before print December 8, 2011).
  33. ^ "Income tax rates for individuals". ird.govt.nz. Inland Revenue Department (New Zealand). Retrieved 15 May 2013.
  34. ^ "Individual income tax rates". ato.gov.au. Australian Taxation Office. Retrieved 15 May 2013.
  35. ^ Growing Unequal?: Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, ISBN 978-92-64-04418-0, 2008, pp. 103, 104.