Monday, November 19, 2012

How Federal largesse traps the poor

Welfare, food stamps, the earned income tax credit, and healthcare insurance subsidies are all designed to help the poor and even much of the middle class. But the unintended consequence of these income assistance programs (i.e., transfer payments) is that they make it much harder for people to work their way out of poverty. That's because all that money being handed out has to be taken away as people climb the income ladder, and that has the effect of increasing marginal tax rates.


This chart, courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office, comes from a new study of effective federal marginal tax rates. The top range of each of the bars is the effective marginal tax rate faced by some people in various income groups covering 80% of all taxpayers. Note that some of those making 100-149% of the poverty rate face marginal tax rates of as high as 60%!! If someone at the poverty line wants to work harder, he or she may only be able to keep 40 cents of each additional dollar earned.

On average, the vast majority of workers have effective marginal tax rates of 30%. As Greg Mankiw notes, "In 2014, after various temporary tax provisions have expired and the newly passed health insurance subsidies go into effect, the average effective marginal tax rate will rise to 35 percent." That is almost as much as the marginal tax rates of the rich.


As the chart above shows, average tax rates for the poor are relatively low, with 80% of taxpayers in 2007 paying an effective average tax rate of between 4% and 17%. We do indeed have a very progressive tax code if all you look at are average tax rates (i.e., total taxes divided by income). But it's marginal tax rates which have the greatest impact on incentives, and marginal tax rates are much higher than average rates under a progressive tax system loaded with subsidies. On a marginal basis, our income tax is actually regressive—the poor face marginal tax rates that are much higher than those faced by the rich.

Although the CBO study is an eye-opener, the reality for some people could be even worse. In a post last year, I quoted Daniel Kessler's WSJ article, in which he describes the punitive marginal tax rates (higher than 100%!) that will be faced by some families if ObamaCare is implemented:

Starting in 2014, subsidies will be available to families with incomes between 134% and 400% of the federal poverty line. For example, a family of four headed by a 55-year-old earning $31,389 in 2014 dollars (134% of the federal poverty line) in a high-cost area will get a subsidy of $22,740. A similar family earning $93,699 (400% of poverty) gets a subsidy of $14,799. 
But a family earning $1 more—$93,700—gets no subsidy. Consider a wife in a family with $90,000 in income. If she were to earn an additional $3,700, her family would lose the insurance subsidy and be more than $10,000 poorer.

There is no getting around it: a highly progressive tax system that relies on subsidies and other income assistance for the poor and even upper-middle income earners will inevitably yield very high marginal tax rates. This makes climbing the income ladder more difficult, and effectively "traps" many of the poor. Why work harder if you can only keep a fraction of the extra income?

Greg Mankiw also provides a reasonable solution:

... we could repeal all these taxes and transfer programs, replace them with a flat tax along with a universal lump-sum grant, and achieve approximately the same overall degree of progressivity.

UPDATE: John Cochrane has an excellent post that nicely expands on the issue of how marginal tax rates for the poor have become prohibitively high, with several real-world examples and more charts. Simply put, very high effective marginal tax rates for those on the low end of the income spectrum end up trapping many people in poverty. The Law of Unintended Consequences is very much alive and well.

UPDATE 2: Here is an excellent presentation by Gary Alexander (Secretary of Public Welfare, PA) that illustrates how disastrous our welfare system is. More importantly, however, it also shows how this can be fixed relatively easily. Here are two charts from the presentation that show how welfare programs create "welfare cliffs" that result in marginal tax rates that exceed 100% (translation: many families on welfare find that they are better off working less than working more, since earning more can cause their disposible income to decline). (click to enlarge) HT: Brian McCarthy



7 comments:

Jono said...

And, consequentially, the party which promotes this aid must keep these populations in their current circumstances or they lose voters. That party is, in effect, working to keep people dependent, intentionally or not.

steve said...

"intentionally or not"? seriously? anyone who believes the dems are not intentionally enabling dependence is delirious. the more dependent, the more they get the vote. called the "Curley" effect after James Michael Curley-and it's very effective and of course, pernicious.

Public Library said...

Couple of intersting pieces worth quoting from the paper before a few radicals start blaming politicians on the left...

"The responsiveness
of labor supply to tax changes varies across groups. On
average, working-age men are not very responsive to
changes in marginal tax rates."

"In light of the
difficulty people face when determining their marginal
tax rate, the disincentives to work caused by high marginal
tax rates may be partially mitigated."

Donny Baseball said...

Milton Friedman wrote about this alot, so it is not as if this is a mystery. He even did a segment on this in his "Free to Choose" videos where he interviewed a guy in Belfast who was "on the dole". Would cost him more to take a job. Happens the world over. But we keep doing it. Stupid.

Scott Grannis said...

Re: " On average, working-age men are not very responsive to changes in marginal tax rates."

"In light of the difficulty people face when determining their marginal tax rate, the disincentives to work caused by high marginal
tax rates may be partially mitigated."

That is a very lame excuse for a policy that unquestionably penalizes the poor and makes it harder for them to advance in life.

Is there anything "fair" or smart about marginal rates for the poor that are higher than for the rich?

This goes beyond partisan politics. It's simply very bad policy. Period.

Joseph Constable said...

PL – “on average, working-age men are not responsive to marginal changes in tax rates”. The bureaucratic and soviet socialist disease of not working with quality is certainly two good examples of disincentives from marginal rates.

So people can’t figure out their marginal rates? I beg to differ as my real world experience as an account who has worked with many employees in many companies over a long working life has shown me people really do understand and calculate even if it is an estimate, the after tax effects of decisions. Besides, it is creepy to con those people who can estimate or calculate so well with complicated laws.

Gloeschi said...

Funnily, none of these pundits trying to tell other people how they should react to tax rates has been found moving to Wyoming, the lowest-tax state in the US according to taxfoundation.org