Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EllenCT (talk | contribs) at 07:28, 3 February 2014 (→Income equality: remove as confusing per talk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Taxation
An aspect of fiscal policy
Policies Government revenue Property tax equalization Tax revenue Non-tax revenue Tax law Tax bracket Flat tax Tax threshold Exemption Credit Deduction Tax shift Tax cut Tax holiday Tax amnesty Tax advantage Tax incentive Tax reform Tax harmonization Tax competition Tax withholding Double taxation Representation Unions Medical savings account
Economics General Theory Price effect Excess burden Tax incidence Laffer curve Optimal tax Theories Optimal capital income taxation Distribution of Tax Tax rate Flat Progressive Regressive Proportional
Collection Revenue service Revenue stamp Tax assessment Taxable income Tax lien Tax refund Tax shield Tax residence Tax preparation Tax investigation Tax shelter Tax collector Private tax collection Tax farming
Noncompliance General Tax avoidance Repatriation tax avoidance Tax evasion Tax resistance Tax shelter Debtors' prison Smuggling Black market Unreported employment Corporate Tax inversion Transfer mispricing Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) Double Irish Dutch Sandwich Single Malt CAIA Locations Tax havens Corporate havens Offshore financial centres (OFCs) Offshore magic circle Conduit and sink OFCs Financial centres Financial Secrecy Index Major examples Ireland as a tax haven Ireland v. Commission Leprechaun economics Liechtenstein tax affair Luxembourg Leaks Offshore Leaks Paradise Papers Panama Papers Swiss Leaks United States as a tax haven Panama as a tax haven
Types Direct Indirect Per unit Ad valorem Aviation Airport improvement Landing Solidarity Capital gains Expatriation Consumption Departure Hotel Sales Stamp Television Tourist Value-added Dividend Environmental tax Carbon Eco-tariff Landfill Natural resources consumption Severance Steering Stumpage Excise Alcohol Cigarette Fat Meat Sin Sugary drink Tobacco General Georgist Gift Gross receipts Hypothecated Income Inheritance (estate) Land value Luxury Payroll Pigouvian Property Resource rent Single Surtax Turnover Use User charge/fee Congestion Fuel Road/GNSS Toll Vehicle miles traveled Corporate profit Excess profits Windfall Negative (income) Wealth
International Financial transaction tax ATTAC Currency transaction tax European Union Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) Global minimum corporate tax rate Robin Hood tax Tobin tax Spahn tax Tax equalization Tax treaty Exchange of Information Permanent establishment Transfer pricing European Union FTT Foreign revenue rule
Trade Custom Duty Tariff Import Export Tariff war Free trade Free-trade zone Trade agreement ATA Carnet
Research Academic Mihir A. Desai Dhammika Dharmapala James R. Hines Jr. Ronen Palan Joel Slemrod Gabriel Zucman Advocacy groups Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) Oxfam (UK) Tax Foundation (US) Tax Justice Network (TJN) Tax Policy Center (US)
Religious Church tax Eight per thousand Teind Tithe Fiscus Judaicus Leibzoll Temple tax Tolerance tax Jizya Kharaj Khums Nisab Zakat
By country All Countries List of countries by tax rates Tax revenue to GDP ratio Tax rates in Europe Individual Countries Albania Algeria Argentina Armenia Australia Azerbaijan Bangladesh Bhutan Brazil Bulgaria BVI Canada China Colombia Croatia Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Iceland India Indonesia Iran Ireland Israel Italy Japan Kazakhstan Lithuania Malta Morocco Namibia Netherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Palestine Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Russia South Africa Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Tanzania United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay
Business portal Money portal
v t e

A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases. The term "progressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the tax rate progresses from low to high, with the result that the average tax rate is less than the highest marginal tax rate. The term can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Progressive taxes are imposed in an attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability-to-pay, as such taxes shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay. The opposite of a progressive tax is a regressive tax, where the relative tax rate or burden increases as an individual's ability to pay it decreases.

The term is frequently applied in reference to personal income taxes, where people with more income pay a higher percentage of that income in tax than do those with less income. It can also apply to adjustment of the tax base by using tax exemptions, tax credits, or selective taxation that creates progressive distribution effects. For example, a wealth or property tax, a sales tax on luxury goods, or the exemption of taxes on basic necessities, may be described as having progressive effects as it increases the tax burden of higher income families and reduces it on lower income families.

History

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (January 2014)

In the early days of the Roman Republic, public taxes consisted of modest assessments on owned wealth and property. The tax rate under normal circumstances was 1% and sometimes would climb as high as 3% in situations such as war. These modest taxes were levied against land, homes and other real estate, slaves, animals, personal items and monetary wealth. The more you had in property, the more tax you paid. Taxes were collected from individuals.

By 167 BC, Rome no longer needed to levy a tax against its citizens in Rome or anywhere in Italy, due to riches found in the provinces they had conquered

In 14th-century England, a progressive tax was applied.

In the United States,the first progressive income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862, which was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln and repealed the flat tax, which was short-lived Revenue Act of 1861.

Measuring progressivity

Indices such as the Suits index, Gini coefficient, Theil index, Atkinson index, and Robin Hood index have been created for the progressivity of taxation, using measures derived from income distribution and wealth distribution.

Marginal and effective tax rates

The rate of tax can be expressed in two different ways; the marginal rate expressed as the rate on each additional unit of income or expenditure (or last dollar spent) and the effective (average) rate expressed as the total tax paid divided by total income or expenditure. In most progressive tax systems, both rates will rise as amount subject to taxation rises, though there may be ranges where the marginal rate will be constant. With a system of negative income tax, refundable tax credits, or income-tested welfare benefits, it is possible for marginal rates to fall as the amount subject to taxation rises.

Inflation and tax brackets

Many tax laws are not accurately indexed to inflation. Either they ignore inflation completely, or they are indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which tends to understate real inflation. In a progressive tax system, failure to index the brackets to inflation will eventually result in effective tax increases (if inflation is sustained), as inflation in wages will increase individual income and move individuals into higher tax brackets with higher percentage rate. This phenomenon is known as bracket creep and can cause fiscal drag.

Economic effects

Income equality

Progressive taxation reduces income inequality. This is especially true if taxation is used to fund progressive government spending such as transfer payments and social safety nets. However, the effect may be muted if the higher rates cause increased tax evasion. When income inequality is low, aggregate demand will be relatively high, because more people who want ordinary consumer goods and services will be able to afford them, while the labor force will not be as relatively monopolized by the wealthy. High levels of income inequality can have negative effects on long term economic growth, employment, and class conflict. The difference between the Gini index for an income distribution before taxation and the Gini index after taxation is an indicator for the effects of such taxation.

There is debate between politicians and economists over the role of tax policy in mitigating or exacerbating wealth inequality and the effects on economic growth. For example, economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez wrote that decreased progressiveness in U.S. tax policy in the post World War II era has increased income inequality by enabling the wealthy greater access to capital, Conversely, a report published by the OECD in 2008 presented empirical research showing a negative relationship between the progressivity of taxes and economic growth. Describing the research, economist William McBride stated that progressivity can undermine investment, risk-taking, entrepreneurship, and productivity because high-income earners tend to do much of the saving, investing, risk-taking, and high-productivity labor.

Educational attainment

Economist Gary Becker has described educational attainment as the root of economic mobility. Progressive tax rates, while raising taxes on high income, have the goal and corresponding effect of reducing the burden on low income, improving income equality. Educational attainment is often conditional on cost and family income, which for the poor, reduces their opportunity for educational attainment. Increases in income for the poor and economic equality reduces the inequality of educational attainment. Tax policy can also include progressive features that provide tax incentives for education, such as tax credits and tax exemptions for scholarships and grants.

A potentially adverse effect of progressive tax schedules is that they may reduce the incentives for educational attainment. By reducing the after-tax income of highly educated workers, progressive taxes can reduce the incentives for citizens to attain education, thereby lowering the overall level of human capital in an economy. However, this effect can be mitigated by an education subsidy funded by the progressive tax. Theoretically, public support for government spending on higher education increases when taxation is progressive, especially when income distribution is unequal.

Psychological effects

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (January 2014)

In a study published in 2011, which included the use of data from 54 countries, the authors stated, "our results showed that progressive taxation was positively associated with the subjective well-being of nations," later adding, "we found that the association between more-progressive taxation and higher levels of subjective well-being was mediated by citizens’ satisfaction with public goods, such as education and public transportation."

Examples

Most systems around the world contain progressive aspects. When taxable income falls within a particular tax bracket, the individual pays the listed percentage of tax on each dollar that falls within that monetary range. For example, a person in the U.S. who earned $10,000 US of taxable income (income after adjustments, deductions, and exemptions) would be liable for 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 7,550th dollar, and then for 15% of each dollar earned from the 7,551st dollar to the 10,000th dollar, for a total of $1,122.50.

In the United States, there are seven income tax brackets ranging from 10% to 39.6%. The US federal tax system also includes deductions for state and local taxes for lower income households which mitigates what are sometimes regressive taxes, particularly property taxes. Higher income households are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax that limits deductions and sets a flat tax rate of 26% to 28% with the higher rate commencing at $175,000 in income. There are also deduction phaseouts starting at $112,500 for single filers. The net effect is increased progressivity that completely limits deductions for state and local taxes and certain other credits for individuals earning more than $306,300.

New Zealand has the following income tax brackets (for the 2012–2013 financial year): 10.5% up to NZ$14,000; 17.5% from $14,001 to $48,000; 30% from $48,001 to $70,000; 33% over $70,001; and 45% when the employee does not complete a declaration form. All values are in New Zealand dollars and exclude the earner levy.

Australia has the following progressive income tax rates (for the 2012–2013 financial year): 0% effective up to A$18,200; 19% from $18,201 to $37,000; 32.5% from $37,001 to $80,000; 37% from $80,001 to $180,000; and 45% for any amount over $180,000.

Progressive taxation often must be considered as part of an overall system since tax codes have many interdependent variables. For example, when refundable tax credits and other tax incentives are included across the entire income spectrum, the United States has the most progressive income tax code among its peer nations; although its overall income tax rates are below the OECD average.

See also

• Laffer curve
• Proportional tax
• Regressive tax
• Robin Hood effect
• Suits index
• Tax incidence

References

1. Webster (4b): increasing in rate as the base increases (a progressive tax)
2. American Heritage (6). Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases.
3. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Tax levied at a rate that increases as the quantity subject to taxation increases.
4. Princeton University WordNet: (n) progressive tax (any tax in which the rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases)
5. ^ Sommerfeld, Ray M., Silvia A. Madeo, Kenneth E. Anderson, Betty R. Jackson (1992), Concepts of Taxation, Dryden Press: Fort Worth, TX
6. Hyman, David M. (1990) Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, 3rd, Dryden Press: Chicago, IL
7. James, Simon (1998) A Dictionary of Taxation, Edgar Elgar Publishing Limited: Northampton, MA
8. ^ Suits, Daniel B. (September 1977). "Measurement of Tax Progressivity". American Economic Review. 67 (4): 747–752. Retrieved 28 January 2014.
9. Internal Revenue Service: The luxury tax is a progressive tax – it takes more from the wealthy than from the poor.
10. Luxury tax – Britannica Online Encyclopedia: Excise levy on goods or services considered to be luxuries rather than necessities. Modern examples are taxes on jewelry and perfume. Luxury taxes may be levied with the intent of taxing the rich...
11. Clothing Exemptions and Sales Tax Regressivity, By Jeffrey M. Schaefer, The American Economic Review, Vol. 59, No. 4, Part 1 (Sep., 1969), pp. 596–599
12. http://www.unrv.com/economy/roman-taxes.php
13. http://www.taxworld.org/History/TaxHistory.htm
14. Philip B. Coulter: Measuring Inequality, 1989, ISBN 0-8133-7726-9 (This book describes about 50 different inequality measures.)
15. ^ Moyes, P. A note on minimally progressive taxation and absolute income inequality Social Choice and Welfare, Volume 5, Numbers 2-3 (1988), 227–234, DOI: 10.1007/BF00735763. Accessed: 19 May 2012.
16. Pickett and Wilkinson, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, 2011
17. Duncan, Denvil, Klara Sabirianova Peter (October 2012). "Unequal Inequalities: Do Progressive Taxes Reduce Income Inequality?" (PDF). Institute for the Study of Labor.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
18. The Economics of Welfare| Arthur Cecil Pigou
19. Andrew Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry, 2011, "Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin?" IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/11/08, International Monetary Fund
20. Alesina, Alberto (May 1994). "Distributive Politics and Economic Growth" (PDF). Quarterly Journal of Economics. 109 (2): 465–90. doi:10.2307/2118470. Retrieved 17 October 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
21. Castells-Quintana, David (2012). "Unemployment and long-run economic growth: The role of income inequality and urbanisation" (PDF). Investigaciones Regionales. 12 (24): 153–173. Retrieved 17 October 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
22. Shlomo Yitzhaki (1998). "More than a Dozen Alternative Ways of Spelling Gini" (PDF). Economic Inequality. 8: 13–30.
23. Piketty, Thomas, and Emmanuel Saez. INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES, 1913–1998. Tech. 1st ed. Vol. CXVIII. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2003. Print.
24. Arnold, Jens (14 Oct 2008). "Do Tax Structures Affect Aggregate Economic Growth? Empirical Evidence From A Panel of OECD Countries". OECD. Retrieved 02 Jan 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
25. McBride, William (December 18, 2012). "What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth?". Tax Foundation. Retrieved January 2, 2014.
26. McBride, William (February 20, 2013). "Comments on Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States". Tax Foundation. Retrieved January 2, 2014.
27. Becker, Gary S. (October 15, 2013). "Becker Explores the Roots of Upward Mobility". The University of Chicago. Retrieved January 24, 2014.
28. Campbell, Mary (2005). "11 Economic inequality and educational attainment across a generation". Focus. 23 (3): 11–15. we found that family income and wealth have positive and statistically significant links to attainment: children who grow up in families with higher income and greater wealth receive more schooling. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
29. ^ Mueller, Richard (May 2008). Access and Persistence of Students from Low ‐ Income Backgrounds in Canadian Post ‐ Secondary Education: A Review of the Literature. MESA Project. Educational Policy Institute. students from low income backgrounds are more sensitive to changes in tuition and aid packages than their colleagues from higher income families, as are students attending community colleges compared to universities.
30. Campbell, Mary (2005). "11 Economic inequality and educational attainment across a generation" (PDF). Focus. 23 (3): 11–15. Average achievement goes up slightly, but so does the variability of achievement. Average years of schooling increase by less than 1 percent. Inequality, in contrast, increases substantially, by over 8 percent when all four measures of inequality are considered together. Moreover, a higher proportion of students do not complete high school or 11th grade. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
31. Checchi, Daniele (May 2001). "Education, Inequality and Income Inequality". Distributional Analysis Research Programme Papers. 52. Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE. income inequality effectively reduces school enrollment, mainly at secondary level. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
32. "Growth in Means-Tested Programs and Tax Credits for Low-Income Households". Congressional Budget Office. February 11, 2013. Retrieved January 28, 2014.
33. "Why Some Tax Units Pay No Income Tax" (PDF). Tax Policy Center. July 2011. Retrieved January 28, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
34. ^ Heckman, J., L. Lochner and C. Tabner, Tax Policy and Human Capital Formation, American Economic Review, 88, 293–297. Accessed: 31 July 2012.
35. ^ Becker, Gary S. (May 2007). "The Upside of Income Inequality". The America. Retrieved Jan 8, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
36. Krueger, Dirk (May 2013). "Optimal Progressive Labor Income Taxation and Education Subsidies When Education Decisions and Intergenerational Transfers Are Endogenous". American Economic Review. 103 (3): 496–501. Retrieved 28 January 2014. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
37. Ansell, Ben (2010). From the Ballot to the Blackboard: The Redistributive Political Economy of Education. Cambridge University Press. p. 175. Under conditions of high income inequality and tax progressivity, there will be even greater support for higher education spending even if most people do not receive it
38. Shigehiro Oishi, Ulrich Schimmack, and Ed Diener,. Progressive Taxation and the Subjective Well-Being of Nations. Psychological Science 23(1) 86–92. (Published online before print December 8, 2011).
39. "The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010". The US Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2013-12-04. Retrieved 2014-01-28.
40. 26 USC 55. Also see IRS Form 6251 (individuals) and Form 4626 (corporations).
41. "Income tax rates for individuals". ird.govt.nz. Inland Revenue Department (New Zealand). Retrieved 15 May 2013.
42. "Individual income tax rates". ato.gov.au. Australian Taxation Office. Retrieved 15 May 2013.
43. Growing Unequal?: Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, ISBN 978-92-64-04418-0, 2008, pp. 103, 104.

External links

• The Progressive Income Tax: Theoretical Foundations
• What's Wrong with the Progressive Income Tax
• Slemrod, Joel B. (2002). "Progressive Taxes". In David R. Henderson (ed.) (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (1st ed.). Library of Economics and Liberty. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |editor= has generic name (help) OCLC 317650570, 50016270, 163149563

• Taxation and redistribution
• Tax incidence