Could the Tea Party be Right About Taxes?

Today is Tax Day, so cue the inevitable griping. One story making the rounds is that nearly half of all America’s don’t pay taxes. This is silly stuff. The magazine I used to work for MONEY examined the suppossed free-tax rider issue nearly two years ago and found this: Yes, there are 50 million people who pay nearly no income taxes each year, but despite what you think you would not want to be part of the group. Most people who don’t pay taxes do so because they are very poor, or at the very least don’t make any money. Nonetheless, the tax myth of free riders along with the general feeling that we pay too much of our hard earned pay to the government has led to the second annual Tea Party Protests. And for that I am grateful. Because I do think there is something the Tea Party and other tax protesters do get right: Income taxes for many of us are too high. Here’s why:

Americans pay more in income taxes, as a percentage of overall taxes, than most other wealthy nations. (ht Washington Post, by way of the Tax Policy Center)

Americans do pay far more in individual income taxes than residents of other wealthy nations. Nearly 37 percent of U.S. tax revenue came from personal income taxes in 2006, about 10 percentage points more, on average, than in other industrialized countries. But we pay much less in sales taxes; 17 percent of 2006 U.S. tax receipts were from taxes on goods and services, or about half the 32 percent average for rich countries.

So the Tax Partiers are right that we pay too much income tax. But the emphasis is on income, not tax. When it comes to overall taxes (add in sales tax, and social security taxes and other government fees), we actually pay much less than other countries. (Again, ht WashPo)

In 2007, federal, state and local taxes claimed about $3.8 trillion, or 27 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. That’s nearly $13,000 for every American. Two-thirds of tax revenues went to the federal government.

It may sound like a lot, but other developed countries collect even more. In 2006, taxes in 30 of the world’s richest countries averaged 36 percent of GDP; only Mexico, Turkey, South Korea and Japan had tax rates lower than ours. And taxes in many European countries exceeded 40 percent of GDP because these nations offer more extensive government services than the United States does.

Here’s the problem. No one really likes to pay taxes, and yet we are better for it. Despite what many would like you to think, taxes in the long-haul are actually very economically stimulating. Taxes lower the deficit, bring fiscal stability and in theory lower long-term interest rates. And lower interest rates lead to higher growth. So if we want the economy to grow faster over the long-haul we should be raising taxes not lowering them, at least until we balance the budget. The problem is how do we get to a place where we can bring taxes up to the level to pay for our government spending. (Please no comments on how we can balance the budget deficit by cutting spending. Not Going To Happen. All studies show there is really not that much pork/waste in the fiscal budget.)

In theory, it really shouldn’t matter that much where we get our taxes be it from sales tax or from income taxes, as long as we get the taxes and spread the tax burden in a sensible way among the population. Making low wage earnings pay more than just a minimal share is obviously wasteful, because overtaxing them will just lead them back to social services, which cost the government money. But in practice it does matter how we are taxed because of the perception.

The problem is not taxes, it’s tax day. People don’t stop buying things because there is sales tax. So my feeling is that taxes are not the problem (other again then being too low), what is the problem is that we have this very big reminder each year of how much we pay the government. We see the number, which looks big, but is really spread out in very manageable payments throughout the year. If we relied more on a sales tax, or VAT tax system, or some other way the government charged us fees for services, there would be much less vitriol about taxes and the government would probably be able to collect more because few people would notice it.

Yes, we would have to work out some kind of system where lower-income families could get a pass on much of these fees, but I think that is doable. Also higher income people, who have seen their marginal tax rates plunge over the past 30 years would probably have to pay more. But that makes sense. As Warren Buffett is quick to point: He pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary. And that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Happy Tax Day.

Related Topics: Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Associated Press

    Small Dairies Go Under as Milk Prices Sink Again

    PLAINFIELD, Vt. — The MacLaren brothers are third-generation dairy farmers, but they will likely be the last in their family.

    After working all their lives on the hillside farm in Vermont that their grandfather bought in 1939, rising to milk cows at 3 a.m., even in blizzards and sub-zero temperatures, they decided to call it quits, auctioning off their roughly 200 cows and equipment ranging from stalls and hoof trimmers to tractors and steel pails.

    Why Greece Isn't Leaving the Eurozone YetSlate

    Getty Images

    The Term “Pink Collar” Is Silly And Outdated — Let’s Retire It

    You can’t throw a stone around the internet today (if that’s even possible?) without running into the New York Times’ new study on so-called “pink-collar jobs.” The report found that over the last decade more and more men have flocked to traditionally female-dominated career fields like nursing and teaching. Fascinatingly, the study disproves the commonly held belief that this transition is the result of the recession, proving that men’s migration into the pink isn’t out of some alleged desperation. Men want those jobs.

  • deconstructiva

    Stephen, hopefully you, Barbara, and other teammates are loading up on free SBUX java today. In case you get many comments here (it can happen!) about best tax solution, I’ll mention the Flat Tax™. If we gotta have income taxes it’s my “favorite” / aka least evil system… if there’s one reasonable rate and no exemptions / deductions. Everyone making any income pays fair share, no exceptions.
    .
    What’s interesting is that the urban myth that this is strictly a conservative idea (Forbes) is false. Firebrand Scary Liberal™ Jerry Brown has toyed with this idea for years. This isn’t an ideal solution (“what’s income?” AFAIAC, if any money comes in it’s income), but it beats the current loophole-ridden mess.

  • justmy02cents

    “If we relied more on a sales tax, or VAT tax system, or some other way the government charged us fees for services, there would be much less vitriol about taxes and the government would probably be able to collect more because few people would notice it.”

    So this is the crux of it, bury the body in a shallow grave and cover it with leaves and there really is no murder.

    You are flying a trial balloon for the radical left, by representing a VAT as innocous and justifiable.

    I am also curious exactly WHY spending cannot be cut back?

    Waste, corruption, and fraud start at the municipal level and ismore egredious as we go up the governmental “food chain”.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Flat tax on income would be great. Also a federal sales tax–not on food or clothing but on items such as electronics, cars, furniture and especially luxury items. And a so-called “fat tax”? Tax soda, chips, candy its not like people will stop buying the stuff just because a bottle of soda goes from $2.19 to $2.24 or a candy bar goes from $1.09 to $1.13. Unlike the ever-increasing taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products which are paid primarily by the poor, a “fat tax” would be paid by almost everybody. And after the first year or two, nobody would even notice the tax they are paying.

  • deconstructiva

    Stephen (and Barbara and John and…), welcome to swampland.

  • destor23

    Unless you really do some major things to expand subsidies for middle class consumers and below (middle class needs to be generously defined) a VAT or sales tax will probably amount to a huge tax hike for working people and a tax cut for rich people who can hoard money rather than use it for consumption.

    Not that consumption taxes are necessarily horrible ideas (they can be used to drive people away from costly and harmful behaviors) but these taxes are not progressive and can harm the most vulnerable members of society.

  • ogliberal

    I just did my taxes. I’m in the top 5% of income earners but for from upper income…I don’t even consider myself upper middle class. Stil, I’m dong better than 95% of Americans. But because of all of the exemptions and credits, my effective federal income tax rate – ie, the income taxes I had to pay the fed – was just under 9.2%. (yes, I know I’m actually paying more because of payroll taxes…but that’s to fund a programs that I hope to benefit from when I retire…and yes, I know I’m paying for current retirees and not myself) Even though Stephen points out that our income tax receipts are high relative to other developed nation, I think that paying under 10% for somebody in my income bracket is ridiculously low, especially considering that a big chunk of our fed budge goes to pay for the hugest military on the planet, by far. Plus, even though we can do much better in terms of infrastructure and public services, the US is a pretty darned good place to live. I’d be willing to pay double that if it meant we could get more – ie, better infrastructure, real universal health coverage, better schools, etc. Seriously, how can somebody really complain about these tax rates? (which, as was noted in a recent CBSNews story, are lower than they’ve been in 60 years, in no small part due to the recovery act) Yeah, I know the very rich pay more, but they’re rich. And even most of those folks have an effective tax rate of less than 20%.

    However, to deconstructiva’s point, I think some of our credits and exemptions, which disproportionately go to people with kids and houses (like me), are over the top. We adopted a child from China in 2008 and the credit we got for that brought our effective tax rate down to .5%. (from about 12% the prior year) A sweet credit and I’m not going to complain, but should my family really be getting a deal like that just because we did something we were going to do anyway, even if there was no credit/exemption?

  • justmy02cents

    Erie,

    Social Engineering through taxation policy … fat tax????

    also…

    So this is the crux of it, bury the body in a shallow grave and cover it with leaves and there really is no murder.

    Is this what you mean by not noticing…..

    The federal government MUST shrink…period.

    Look how much our esteemed President will save by eliminating nukes…I feel safer already.

  • Ivy_B

    Since I’m heading to a land of the VAT next week (London) and spend three weeks in one every year (South Africa), let me tell you instead of only grousing for one day, I winge over every purchase. Go through a day and add 17% to everything you buy – your coffee and muffin, your newspaper, the drycleaning, the food at the market, meals at restaurants, clothes, it is also built into things like public transit fees. You get used to it, but I’m always glad to get home and away from it.

    As to the waste in the budget – the greatest amount is in the Defense budget, but no one wants to cut that.

  • rize987

    I don’t agree with the point that raising taxes will necessarily cut the deficit (at least not by the same amount). Deficit reduction isn’t seen being as effective at buying votes for the next election as new or expanded govt programs, so at least some of the new tax revenue would be used to increase spending.

    If we are to be serious about the long-term economic viability of our govt, taxes AND spending cuts are going to have to happen. Retirement ages are going to have to be raised, defense cut, slowed growth of federal wages & benefits, and other unpopular ideas. VAT or a national sales tax should be considered, but I think it should be a no-exception, across-the-board tax. Otherwise it just turns into yet another lobbying bonanza to see who can get their industy exempted.

  • Ivy_B

    a no-exception, across-the-board tax. Otherwise it just turns into yet another lobbying bonanza to see who can get their industy exempted.

    I can’t imagine that happening.

    In PA we can’t get a tax on smokeless tobacco, leaving us one of the very few states with no tax on that. In the meantime, when they refused to pass that in the last budget, they cut aid to libraries for public access to databases by 75%.

    I really don’t want to see these games played on a Federal level.

    Also in countries with a VAT large enough to cut income taxes to a very low level, there is no state tax. Do you think states will give up their sales tax revenues? If not, think of paying 17% VAT and then another 7 or 8% state sales tax. Now we’re talking real money.

  • megatronrises

    Justmy02cents:
    .
    What?

  • deconstructiva

    Ivy, best wishes on your London trip. Per Jay’s tweets is she still there? Any chance you two can meet for lunch and snap a touristy photo of you two to post here (or just her if you wish to stay anonymous)?

  • justmy02cents

    mega @ 1.3

    a “fat tax” IS social engineering….taxing items to discourage their purchase and use…..I do not believe that this is the government’s job.
    /
    //
    Erie States:
    “And a so-called “fat tax”? Tax soda, chips, candy its not like people will stop buying the stuff just because a bottle of soda goes from $2.19 to $2.24 or a candy bar goes from $1.09 to $1.13. Unlike the ever-increasing taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products which are paid primarily by the poor, a “fat tax” would be paid by almost everybody. And after the first year or two, nobody would even notice the tax they are paying.”
    /
    So can I conclude if a tax is implented and over time forgotten or tacitely accepted, that it is really not a tax…and is OK?….Taxes are for the necessary operation of the government…that is it….not behaviour modification

  • http://crisismaven.wordpress.com crisismaven

    “No one really likes to pay taxes, and yet we are better for it” … that is an amusing contention! In what way can a people be better of if you take taxes from the more efficient sectors of an economy, percolate the money through a bureaucracy that squanders a certain amount on its own upkeep and then reinjects the greatly diminished sum back into the economy in places where it is the least competitive? we hve yet to see the scientific proof of who can be better of for it except a few civil servants that might not make it as well in a competitive enviironment. However, not defrauding the population and bankrupting the state would still even be better for their own offspring who will be left emptyhanded.

  • deconstructiva

    Taxes are for the necessary operation of the government…that is it….not behaviour modification
    .
    Well, at least one behavior is still untaxed for now –
    .

    .
    (the Monty Python skit is after the animation – careful about it if at work. I couldn’t resist posting this clip.) The IRS will get many job applications for enforcement agents if that goes thru. Stephen / Barbara / team, forgive our outrageous swamp humor; no doubt Kate has many horror stories there for you.

  • bacotawordpress

    I live in New York, which has very high income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. The tax I resent the least is the property tax which I pay in exactly two bills — one in September one in January.

    Why do I resent these so little when they are such powerful and obvious blows to my bank account? Because my September check is written to my school district, so I just think “damn kids, well somebody has to grow up and pay for my social security.” And the other check goes to my town and county. When I write that check I remember how much it snowed last year and think of what it costs to keep the roads passable.

    But the federal income tax just goes into a big pot and the media loves to report on “roads to nowhere” , $750 hammers in the military, etc. So it *feels* like it’s going up in smoke.

    The tax I resent the most, btw, is the NYS income tax because everywhere I go I see stupid state funded projects, like empty library buildings and unused marinas, and I know I paid for them.

    Having specific taxes to pay for specific services (like Social Security and Medicare) is not good economics, but it is good psychology.

  • http://jaguar6cy.wordpress.com jaguar6cy

    This article misses the biggest tax problem we have. American business and investment taxes are the SECOND HIGHEST IN THE WORLD. “Tax the rich” makes this sound like a good idea, but it’s very bad economics. Only Japan has a higher business tax rate and you probably know that Japan’s economy has been shrinking for nearly 20 years. In effect we are taxing business and investment OUT of the country, and when they go elsewhere they take jobs with them. Does this problem sound familiar? Effectively government has made a very bad choice. The question is do you want to pay taxes on a job you have, or not have jobs here at all? The government has opted for the latter. Tax the rich only makes sense to liberals and democrats. Are you still a liberal? Why?

  • russpoter

    ATTEMPT REALITY

    Why, if billionaire Mr. Buffett (a nice man) is so upset about paying less (on a percentage basis) than his admin — why doesn’t he make a billion-dollar donation (TAX-DEDUCTIBLE) to the U.S. Treasury?

    Because he would get less ink. Because it would be authentic, rather than PR.

    Think. Really.

  • Stephen Gandel

    Thanks for your comment. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I think you are talking about tax rates on the books, not effective tax rates, which is what corporations actually pay. I believe our effective corporate tax rate, because of all the exemptions is one of the lowest in the world, or at least not above average. So to your point, I have always had a problem with the argument that you can’t raise corporate taxes because they are already the highest in the world and if we raise them those companies will go elsewhere. That argument wants it both ways. If we have the highest tax rate, and companies will flee higher taxes, then why haven’t they left already. Yes, companies have moved jobs out of the US, but that has to do with the cost of labor, and very little with tax rates. I believe there are a number of conservatives who like the idea of sales taxes over income taxes, so it’s not clear to me at least that the argument I am making is clearly liberal or conservative. Thanks again for reading.

  • chrislarsson

    The federal deficit in 2009 was around $1,750 billions. The total spending on education is around $70 billion.
    The total spending on defense (including operations overseas) is around $680 billions.

    Spending can be cut back, but it won’t make much of a dent to close the gap on the deficit.

  • bacotawordpress

    I’ve never understood why have ANY taxes on businesses or corporations. If they spend they reinvest their income into their operations, isn’t that direct investment in economic growth? And if they pay it out to their owners/shareholders/employees in dividends, profits or wages — then it gets taxed as income.

    And my friends think I’m a liberal democrat :)

  • justmy02cents

    @ 10.2
    hooray a rational progressive at last….thank you bacotawordpress, you are a breath of fresh air in a polluted swamp of bad ideas

  • http://whatchannelareyouwatching.com Stephen Fofanoff

    We seriously need to overhaul our entire system of taxation. Taxes shouldn’t be, well, taxing. Fair tax, sales tax, VAT, etc. are all good taxes that are fair and easy to implement. Taxes that require a complex system of advisors to pay are not.

    But, the Tea Party doesn’t quite understand all of that. They’re just out to spread fear and “Fox’s Fairy Dust” all over the land.
    http://wp.me/pwg7T-9g

  • seandougherty

    You missed a couple of points tax protesters are making. First, they aren’t saying they wish they were poor so they could avoid paying income taxes. They object to people with no stake in the outcome being able to vote on how high income tax rates should be. Once 51% of people pay no effective income tax, why not raise it to 95%? And it will be nice and legal with a majority vote and everything.

    Second, comparing published tax rates against effective tax rates isn’t a feature, it’s a bug. To get to those effective rates you need to pay lawyers and accountants and change your behavior to get them. Having a system that requires tribute to the tax-industrial complex rather than just a low rate that doesn’t encourage accounting gymnastics is still harmful to the economy, even if at the end the rates come out low.

  • justmy02cents

    exactamondo Sean and well said…..

    not to mention the thousands of tax related federal jobs and IRS agents that would become unnecessary….put their salaries and benefits towards the deficit….

  • http://crisismaven.wordpress.com crisismaven

    Indeed well said – the underlying problem is that taxing, how ever little, any part of an economy to spend elsewhere by necessity reduces the efficacy of said economy. Not only is it as a rule a transfer from a part of the economy that generates wealth to another part which consumes, thus reducing overall wealth creation, no, even if the money was spent EXACTLY as efficiently as from where it was pilfered, still it would be diminished by the civil servants’ pay who first raise then spend it. So any taxation needs to be justified by absolute dire needs and i should say 90% do not fall in that category.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    I agree that taxes are to not be used to discourage behavior. But isn’t that the rationale behind every single tobacco tax that comes along? Tax it and people will quit smoking?
    .
    News flash. Tobacco is an addictive substance. Only a small percentage of former smokers have quit without help. And I’m against the taxation of tobacco products until, and probably even then, tobacco addiction is treated like any other addiction. Alcoholics and drug addicts can receive treatment for their addictions free of charge while smokers and other tobacco users unable to fight the addiction on their own must pay exorbitant prices for pills, patches and gums that have a very low success rate.
    .
    Also the majority of smokers today tend to be poor or working poor. So the continuing rise in taxes on tobacco products are nothing more than a hidden tax to the poor.
    .
    In contrast, most everybody eats junk food–at least once in a while. And they are not going to stop. I’m not advocating for a tax to discourage them. And I happen to dislike the term “fat tax”. That name came out of NY when they were considering such a tax. It is the same tax the soft drink industry has been running commercials against for a year.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Rendel’s budget for next fiscal year calls for a reduction of the sales tax to 4%, adding some items that are not currently taxes, probably smokeless tobacco will be one of them. The budget continues to leave food and clothing untaxed, which gives PA shoppers from neighboring states that do have taxes on those items. We get a lot of Buffalo, Cleveland and even Onterio shoppers at the local mall. My sister lives in TN and she does most of her clothing shopping when she comes home to visit.

  • fedupwithfedgovernment

    Obama and Dems continually say the Republicans have only decreased taxes for the wealthly, This is not so.
    The Bush Tax Cuts created a 10% tax bracket on the low end and did away with the highest bracket. Everyone’s tax was cut, And, ” the nonpayers pool was supercharged by the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003—especially by the doubling of the child credit to $1,000. By 2004, when the credit expansion was fully phased in, the number of nonpayers increased by 10.5 million, a 32-percent jump in the space of four years.”

    “IRS data for the 2008 tax year show that a record 51.6 million filers had no income tax obligation/ 36 percent of all Americans who filed a tax return for 2008 were nonpayers”.

    “Tax year 2009 is likely to be a repeat of 2008. President Obama’s newly created making-work-pay credit, first-time homebuyer credit, and American Opportunity tax credits have expanded the number of opportunities for people to erase their income tax obligation. As a result of these measures, the percentage of nonpayers is likely to again exceed 35 percent in tax year 2009.”

    Maximum Income a Married Couple with Two Children Can Earn and Yet Pay No Federal Income Tax, Assuming No Unusual Tax Situations

    2009 $51,439
    Includes Making-work-pay credit introduced;
    maximum $800 for married couples

    2010 $ 50,250
    (assuming no retroactive changes
    made during 2010)

    Source: Tax Foundation calculations based on IRS data.

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/25962.html

  • waltwriston

    I say discontinue the way the marginal tax rate jumps around. I mean why not just let it go up percent to percent; a lot of people use income and tax deferment strategies because people don’t want that extra dollar to bump them from say 25% bracket to 28% one. The way to trim the deficit is to have our government to stop spending so much money it doesn’t have; I’m simply amazed when the Gov. tells the people to live within their means and then the government turns right around and spends beyond its means: do as I say not as I do….I guess!?

blog comments powered by Disqus