Research by Author & Topic

Publications by Elaine Maag on Tax Policy

The Internal Revenue Code has replaced traditional means-tested programs as the principal means for transferring income to low earners. The largest vehicle is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), now supplemented by both the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Making Work Pay tax credit (MWP). This paper looks at the system's evolution, the important role played by the tax system in assisting low earners, and the complexities presented by the current approach. It offers principles to guide the design of a worker credit and child benefit that would replace the EITC, CTC, and MWP, along with a specific proposal.

This brief, part of the Urban Institute's "Recession and Recover" series, assesses the extent to which the Earned Income Tax Credit can help families hit by job losses and falling incomes during a recession.

Every state except Vermont operates under some sort of balanced budget requirement. That means that to serve the increased need of distressed populations during recessions, states must either increase revenue or reallocate resources dedicated to other programs. Similarly, when revenue declines, states must raise taxes or reallocate resources. This report examines the extent to which rainy day and general fund savings were a significant factor in helping states cope with fiscal stress during and after the 2001 recession, a possible explanation for the lower than expected legislated tax increases and social welfare cuts.

There are two primary tax benefits parents use to offset childcare costs. The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) provides a tax credit of up to 35 percent on up to $3,000 of expenses per child ($6,000 total), for a maximum credit of $1,050 per child ($2100 total). Or, employees can arrange with their employers to exclude up to $5,000 from their salary to pay for child care. While benefits from the CDCTC swamped those available from the exclusion in 2006; benefits from the child care credit are projected to decline dramatically, largely due to the increase in the number of taxpayers subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) beginning in 2008.

In 1997 Congress enacted a number of tax benefits directed toward helping middle- and upper-middle income groups meet rising college costs. This shift in goals and strategies raises concerns about the fairness and effectiveness of the evolving federal approach to higher education. This policy brief analyzes who benefits from the major direct spending program, Pell grants, and the three tax subsidies that most closely resemble grants, the Hope and Lifetime Learning credits and the deduction for tuition and fees. In addition, the brief assesses the potential impacts of these direct spending and tax programs on the affordability of college and the college-going rates of potential students.

Two primary wage-support policies help low-income families: the minimum wage and targeted tax credits. Since 1997, when Congress last raised the minimum wage, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen about 20 percent because of inflation, while the earned income tax credit (EITC) and child credit have been expanded. This brief illustrates how current tax rules interact with the minimum wage and considers whether increased tax credits could substitute for minimum-wage increases for those earning the federal minimum wage. Increasing tax credits enough to substitute for raising minimum wage is probably infeasible because of the cost and the high marginal tax rates required. A more direct route to helping low-wage workers is to raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation.

Owing to balanced budget requirements, states often raise taxes during recessions. Unless carefully crafted, these tax hikes can fall on low-income working families--the same families likely to be subject to concurrent budget cuts. During the recession that started in 2001, states utilized several tools to balance budgets including tapping rainy day funds, borrowing, increasing taxes, and cutting spending. In many cases, low-income families were shielded from tax increases by increasing or creating state Earned Income Tax Credits (EITCs). This policy brief details state tax changes affecting low-income families between 2002 and 2006.

States use rainy day funds (RDFs), or budget stabilization funds, as a cushion against financial shocks. Every state except Vermont has some sort of balanced budget requirement so that, unlike the federal government, they must balance expenditures and revenues in any given budget cycle (typically one year). States can have RDFs that allow money to be carried over from good years to lean years. Five states--Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, and Montana--do not have RDFs.

Several mechanisms, including traditional tax limits and legislative supermajority requirements, can limit the authority of states to increase or pass new taxes. As of February 2006, six states have a traditional tax limit in place and sixteen states require supermajorities. Eleven states are considering the adoption of new limitations or the expansion of existing restrictions.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) and later the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (JGTRRA) decreased marginal tax rates for four person families with earnings at half the median income and twice the median income. Neither piece of legislation changed the marginal tax rate for a family of four with earnings at the median level who faced the lowest marginal tax rate already. If EGTRRA and JGTRRA are allowed to expire, the marginal tax rate of the half-median family will once again be the highest.