Tax Analysts Blog

It Isn’t Time to Bury the Income Tax Just Yet

Posted on Oct 7, 2013
On October 3 the income tax marked its 100-year anniversary. If you’re confused by the commemorative articles that appeared earlier in the year, it’s because 2013 also marks 100 years of the 16th Amendment, which allowed Congress to impose an income tax as part of tariff reform in 1913. There is no doubt that the tax is showing its age, but that is no reason for the United States to scrap its tax system or even to consider supplementing it with a regressive value added tax.

The income tax’s anniversary has led to a lot of premature eulogizing. At a New York Law School symposium on October 3, USC law professor Edward Kleinbard argued that the United States is a low-tax country that is too focused on how revenue is collected rather than on how government funds are spent. The United States has the most progressive tax system in the world, but our Gini coefficient is among the worst, he pointed out. Kleinbard’s solution is to raise taxes and increase government spending. He argued that regressive tax systems (particularly those with VATs) are fine as long as the money is spent to subsidize the lowest quartile.

Kleinbard also believes the U.S. tax system overly subsidizes the middle class. In 1979, 80 percent of the wealth transfer from the top quartile of taxpayers went to the lowest quartile. That number is 60 percent today. “It's outcomes that we should care about,” Kleinbard said. “The purpose of taxation ultimately is to spend money, not to collect money artfully.”

While Kleinbard’s arguments make a lot of sense, his position that only outcomes matter would shock many economists. How you collect revenue is at least as important as how you spend it. Conservatives and others never fail to point out how corporate income taxes inhibit growth. Economists bash the income tax system because it deters saving. Other forms of taxation, particularly excise levies, are even more universally deplored. Taxes shouldn’t be structured in a way that lowers overall wealth, regardless of how the money collected is eventually spent. It is true that by most measures, Europe has less income inequality than the United States, while having far more regressive taxation schemes. But that doesn’t mean Europe should be held up as the model for global taxation.

Despite its regressiveness, the VAT is often worshipped as the ultimate form of taxation. It’s efficient, easily raises revenue, encourages savings, and taxes consumption. Many economists would love for the United States to supplement its income tax system by adding a VAT or even to scrap the income tax altogether (or at least the corporate component) in favor of a national consumption tax. In defense of this holy grail of taxation, many argue that rebates can be given to the poor or that direct spending can be increased to offset the regressivity.

But is that really how a U.S. VAT would play out? Congress loves to give rebates and tax credits -- the multitude in place now is largely what’s wrong with the income tax. However, each rebate, exemption, or credit that exists within a VAT lowers the efficiency gains the tax is supposed to produce. The further the levy drifts from a pure VAT (such as the one in New Zealand), the less desirable it becomes as an alternative to the income tax. And while Congress might love tax credits, it has become very averse to direct, discretionary spending. Even an increase in entitlement spending would run aground in the current environment, when a very left-of-center president has made it clear that he is willing to curb entitlements in exchange for tax increases.

Hidden within Kleinbard’s arguments and those of the pro-VAT crowd is the implicit idea that the middle class needs to pay more in taxes. The country’s income tax regime, particularly after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, has supposedly been very favorable to the middle two quartiles of taxpayers. A VAT would capture more of that wealth, which presumably would be used to preserve or expand the social safety net. But it’s not exactly clear how beneficial that would be.

The U.S. income tax system is progressive because we tax the wealthy at higher rates. A VAT is regressive because it generally benefits higher-income taxpayers (who consume proportionately less of their income and wealth). There is no good reason to reverse the tax-friendly policies for the middle class that the United States has adopted over the last 35 years.

So it’s on 100th birthday, let’s not blame the income tax system for increasing wealth inequality. Let’s instead focus on the holes in the system (tax expenditures and, most importantly, the preferential rate for capital gains) that should be plugged to keep it a viable regime. Europe’s regressive, bloated fiscal systems are not the standard that the United States should be aspiring to.

Read Comments (1)

Christopher BerginOct 7, 2013

Bravo, Jeremy; great post -- OK, I totally agree with you, but that does nothing to take away from your excellent points. The income tax is tired and old -- fair enough at 100. But it is still to me the best at progressive taxation. So, let's debate its reform -- which is a shameless self-promotion of my article this week.

Submit comment

Tax Analysts reserves the right to approve or reject any comments received here. Only comments of a substantive nature will be posted online.

By submitting this form, you accept our privacy policy.

* REQUIRED FIELD

All views expressed on these blogs are those of their individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Tax Analysts. Further, Tax Analysts makes no representation concerning the views expressed and does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any statement, fact, information, data, finding, interpretation, or opinion presented. Tax Analysts particularly makes no representation concerning anything found on external links connected to this site.