Consider the Evidence

Nice graph in today’s NYT.

In an earlier post I showed a chart that attempted to convey the limited progressivity of the American tax system when not only federal taxes but also state and local ones are taken into account. Here are two additional charts. They’re based on my calculations from data for 2004 in a Tax Foundation report (tables 3 and 4 and figure 1) by Andrew Chamberlain and Gerald Prante.

These charts show effective tax rates for each of the five quintiles of households. The effective tax rate is calculated as taxes paid divided by income. For instance, to get the effective rate for the bottom quintile, I divide the average amount paid in taxes by households in that quintile by the average income of those households.

It turns out that whether taxes are progressive depends on how income is defined.

As the first chart shows, if income is measured as market income — income from employment, investments, and a few other sources, but not including government transfers — the tax system is essentially flat. The effective tax rate is approximately 30% for households throughout the income distribution. This may hide some progressivity, since the effective rate may be higher in the top portion of the top quintile, but we can’t be sure because the Tax Foundation data don’t separate out the top 1% or 0.1% of households.

Adding government transfers (as the Congressional Budget Office does in its calculations of federal tax progressivity) increases the average income in each quintile, but much more for the bottom than for the middle or top. This reduces the effective tax rate more in the lower part of the distribution than the upper, resulting in a progressive structure.

What should we conclude? I think the first chart here better reflects the impact of the U.S. tax system. It does very little to alter the market distribution of income. Redistribution is achieved mainly by government transfers rather than by taxes. We aren’t unusual in this respect, though; it’s the case in most if not all rich countries.

President-elect Obama reportedly has decided to wait on raising the federal income tax rate for the highest-income Americans. The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire two years from now, at the end of 2010, at which time the top marginal rate will shift from its current level of 35% back to its pre-Bush level of 39.6%. Rather than raise the top rate immediately, the Obama administration plans to allow the tax change to occur as currently scheduled.

I’m puzzled by this choice.

Public sentiment surely is not an obstacle to increasing the top rate right away. And economic considerations favor doing so. It’s unlikely to delay economic recovery by reducing consumer spending, since most of those affected will still have sufficient income to be able to spend as much as they desire. The tax-rate increase is small enough that it should have little or no adverse impact on investment; when the rate was 39.6% in the late 1990s, investment didn’t suffer. And the added tax revenues could be used either to boost the size of the stimulus package or to reduce its impact on the federal deficit.

My guess is that political considerations have won out. The calculation must be that this compromise will improve the odds of Obama’s stimulus package getting through Congress quickly. If this calculation is correct, I would go along. The stimulus is surely needed to help get the economy moving again, and the health of the economy is likely to have a bigger impact on the living standards of ordinary Americans over the next few years than anything else. The stimulus package also includes some tax changes that will directly benefit low- and middle-income households.

Yet it seems to me it would have been more useful to hold onto the timing of the top-end tax rate increase as something to compromise on if necessary, rather than give it up at the outset.

Stephen Dubner has a post on the “Freakonomics” blog titled “The next time someone tells you that taxes are not progressive…” He relays information from a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, via Greg Mankiw, which lists effective federal tax rates for households at various points in the income distribution. The rates are higher for those with larger incomes. The implication is that our tax system is quite progressive.

But it doesn’t make much sense to look only at federal taxes. State and local taxes account for about a third of total tax revenues, and they tend to be less progressive than federal taxes.

If we take into account all taxes — federal, state, and local — the effective tax rate for the well-to-do is only a bit higher than for the poor. Here is one way to see this, based on data from the CBO and the Tax Foundation.

Bernard Wasow at the Century Foundation has a nice post on Obama’s and McCain’s tax proposals. He uses estimates by the Tax Policy Center to try to answer two key questions:

1. What will happen to total tax collections under the two candidates’ proposals?
2. How will taxes and after-tax income change for households at various points in the income distribution under the proposals?

A parable about the virtue of low tax rates for the rich has circulated on the web for a number of years. It apparently originated as a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune in 2001. Here is a recent version:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men — the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share”? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

The parable is misleading in several ways. (For more commentary see this, this, and this.)

First, though it doesn’t matter much, the numbers aren’t right. See here (table 1b) for the actual shares of federal taxes paid by various groups.

Second, and more important, if the government (the bar owner in the story) reduces tax rates (the price of beer) it usually must do one of two things to compensate for the lost revenues. One option is to reduce its expenditures. In the context of the parable, this means the bar owner lays off a bartender or a bouncer; or perhaps she has the bar cleaned less often or forgoes needed repairs. Some customers won’t care, but others will find the bar a less attractive place to spend time in. They might be happy to pay a little more for beer if it means faster service, nicer surroundings, and fewer bar fights. The same applies to government services such as police, military, schools, roads, bridges, subways, and parks.

The other option is that the government borrows money to finance the tax rate (beer price) reduction. If the bar owner does this and it results in a substantial debt, as was the case for our federal government in the 1980s and in the 2000s, a larger share of her revenues will go to her lenders as interest payments. Eventually she may decide it makes sense to raise prices (taxes) again, as did the first president George Bush in the early 1990s — even though it meant reneging on his “read my lips: no new taxes” pledge.

But set these issues aside. The most important point is this:

The claim made by proponents of equal-percentage tax cuts is that the rich man (the tenth) will stop coming to the bar and paying for a large share of the tab if he doesn’t get the same percentage price (tax) reduction as the others. (Forget about the others beating him up; that’s a distraction from the real point the parable aims to make.) This could conceivably be true. Or it might not be. Many advocates of tax cuts for the affluent believe it’s true. But that doesn’t mean they’re correct.

In my view it’s equally plausible to hypothesize that the tenth man would keep showing up even if he were asked to continue paying $59 — in other words, even if the others get a beer price (tax) cut while he doesn’t. After all, he wouldn’t be paying any more than before. And he could probably afford it; according to Congressional Budget Office data — see table 1c here — average pretax income among households in the top tenth was $340,000 as of 2005.

How the tenth man will react is an empirical question. There’s some discussion of relevant evidence in previous posts of mine here, here, and here.

Stories resonate with us far more than do impersonal statistics. But in some instances, such as this one, the reason a story resonates is simply that it affirms prior beliefs, rather than because it offers genuine insight.