Tax Distribution and Economic Trends

Effective tax rates (ETRs) measure how much people pay in taxes as a percentage of their pretax incomes. That seems simple, but there’s an important complication: there are different ways to measure how much someone pays in taxes and how much he collects in pretax income. Those choices matter a great deal. As a result, it is essential to use the same ETR measure when comparing tax burdens across individual taxpayers or groups.

Tax expenditures on average raise after-tax incomes more for upper-income than for lower-income taxpayers. As a share of income, special rates for capital gains and dividends and itemized deductions provide the largest benefits for taxpayers in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, exemptions and exclusions benefit taxpayers in upper middle-income groups the most, and refundable credits provide the largest benefits to those in the bottom two quintiles of the distribution. Interactions among provisions make the revenue cost of all tax expenditures about 10 percent larger than the sum of the costs of the separate provisions.

This paper takes a broad look at tax expenditures in the context of revenue raising tax reform. It first reviews how tax expenditures have changed over the past 25 years and provides estimates of the distribution of tax savings resulting from tax expenditures today. The paper then examines three approaches for applying across-the-board limits to a selected group of the largest and most widely utilized tax preferences. The three options—a fixed percentage credit, a cap based on income, and a constant percentage reduction—can all be designed to raise significant revenue for deficit reduction in a progressive manner.

To help pay for expanded health insurance coverage, the health reform legislation enacted in 2010 included a new 3.8 percent tax on the net investment income of high-income taxpayers. When it goes into effect in 2013, it will increase the top tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and other investment income, regardless of whether the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are allowed to expire. Almost all the burden will be borne by taxpayers with extremely high incomes. More than half the burden, for example, falls on taxpayers in the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution.

Republicans typically emphasize lower taxes, while casting Democrats as eager to further burden hard-working families. But Republicans delude themselves when they think that Democrats can't play the tax-cutting game as well.

Tax rates on capital gains have fluctuated over the past century, sometimes matching the rates for ordinary income but more often substantially below them. The current top gains tax rate is 15 percent, less than half the 35 percent top rate on ordinary income and lower than at any time since the depression. But if Congress does not change the law, the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and imposition of taxes associated with the 2010 healthcare legislation will boost the maximum tax rate on gains to 25 percent in 2013.

The report discusses the important budget events of 2011. It begins with the House Republican budget and the president's response. The very different approaches to health and discretionary spending and tax policy are analyzed in detail. The policy debate continued into the confused debt limit negotiations of July. The Budget Control Act finally emerged. It capped discretionary spending and created a "super committee" that was to propose additional deficit reductions. The committee failed miserably. An automatic across-the-board spending cut is supposed to result from that failure. The report describes its effects on defense and nondefense spending.

Political leaders and commentators frequently claim that the policies they favor will make the United States more competitive, without defining what competiveness between countries means. This paper defines competitiveness as a contest between nations for scarce and mobile resources and explores how different tax policies may help or hinder efforts to attract high-skilled labor, capital investment, and headquarters of multinational corporations. While these inputs contribute to living standards, elevating competition for them into a final goal of policy instead of a consideration that must be weighed against costs of tax policies that attract them could lead to seriously flawed policies.