Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Why All Tax Credits Should Be Refundable

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted February 20, 2007.


Why do we skew tax breaks to favor richer people and more profitable businesses? There is a way to avoid incentive inequity.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by David Morris

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Critics of George W. Bush's proposal to expand the number of Americans with health insurance correctly identify its weak link: a reliance on tax deductions. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 43 percent of the 46 million uninsured have no income tax liability. As a result, the White House predicts its proposal will reduce the uninsured by only 7-10 percent.

Hopefully, the critical weakness of the White House health care incentive will open the door to a wider debate about the shortcomings of tax deductions (and credits) overall.

The cost of tax breaks, or as economists now more accurately describe them, "tax expenditures," is $500 billion to $800 billion a year, roughly 5 percent of the gross domestic product. The vast majority of these tax breaks are inherently unfair. A $1,000 tax deduction might be worth $400 to a wealthy household, $200 to a middle-income household, and not a penny to a poor family. Indeed, 37 percent of all households, home to almost half of all children, have no tax liability.

Why do we skew tax breaks to favor richer people and more profitable businesses? No evidence suggests that they have a higher propensity to engage in socially beneficial behavior. Just ask any waitress or waiter to tell you who tips them better, the wealthy or the working class.

There is a way to avoid incentive inequity. Make the tax incentives refundable tax credits. This is how the earned income tax credit (EITC) works. The government will send you a check even if you pay no taxes. As a result, the EITC is now the largest and arguably by far the most effective anti-poverty initiative.

More typical is our housing tax incentives. For all but the very rich, houses represent the single largest source of lifetime financial savings. The lack of housing, and the resulting lack of savings, is particularly high among blacks and Hispanics. In 2005, government provided $150 billion to homeowners in tax subsidies, but the way the subsidies were structured did little to improve the situation.

Why not replace the housing tax deductions with a level refundable tax credit? It could be revenue neutral by using the current Treasury loss for housing deductions as the cap. Economists Richard Green and Kerry Vandell have examined such a system and predicted it could increase overall home ownership by 3-5 percentage points, and even more impressive, increase home ownership by up to 8 percentage points among the lowest income households.

Economists at Brookings and MIT have proposed that we replace the current tax incentives for contributions to retirement plans with a 30 percent government matching contribution. Under this scenario, worker contributions to 401k accounts would no longer be excluded from taxable income. Contributions to IRAs would no longer be tax deductible. Employer contributions to the plan would be taxable, just the way current wages are.

To the federal treasury, the change would be revenue neutral. To the recipient, the tax policy would be a great deal fairer.

As currently designed, tax breaks are not only inequitable. They are inefficient. This is particularly striking with federal renewable energy incentives.

Owners of wind turbines currently qualify for a federal tax credit per kwh generated. But farmers and other rural residents very rarely earn sufficient taxable income to take advantage of this incentive. As a result, to enable "locally owned" wind turbines, which produce the same amount of wind energy while generating a far higher amount of local and regional economic activity, a cumbersome corporate structure is created. The locals become partners with Wall Street or corporate investment firms that take the tax incentives and provide the financing.

If the federal government converted the incentive into a refundable tax credit, the cost to the Treasury would be the same. But 100 percent of the incentive would reach the local owners and the rural development impact would be far greater.

Every legislative session and political campaign is replete with debates about taxes. Tax breaks, on the other hand, largely travel under the radar. With hundreds of billions of dollars on the table, and a demonstrably unfair and inefficient system currently in place, one would hope tax incentives would soon garner the attention they deserve.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: taxes

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minn., and director of its New Rules project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
have your cake
Posted by: edith on Feb 20, 2007 1:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the authors don't like tax deductions because deductions are worth more to high bracket taxpayers than to lower bracket taxpayers. But the cause of this is the graduated federal income tax. Make the income tax a flat rate, and everyone's deduction (if you have any deductions at all, that is) would be equal on a percentage basis. A low flat percentage tax with no deductions under the logic presented here should be fairer than the deduction riddled tax system that was last overhauled in 1986 under the watchful eye of Dan Rostenkowki, later disgraced Democratic chair of the Ways and Means Committee, and Bob Dole of the Senate Finance Committee, all with the support of key Democrat Pat Moynihan(D-NY).

Democrats and Republicans have created the current swiss cheese deduction system. Many lower income people as the authors state do not pay any federal income tax and indeed qualify for an EITC credit.

If one desires 'fairness" (always in the eye of the beholder), get rid of all deductions, lower all rates to a single rate that would balance the budget and accelerate repayment of the national debt, and let the states and private associations handle major new spending programs like national health insurance. DOD's budget should be halved, with a gradual attrition of the thousands of Americans now employed by this current version of the WPA employment program of FDR, and the elimination of foreign bases, "missile defense" and obsolete Cold War spending programs like the F22 and new aircraft carriers.

Realize it would-be federal spenders: The Feds are broke. All that can be done is to spread the pain of paying our way out of the hole Bush and Congress dug for us by a no deduction, one low rate tax.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: have your cake Posted by: Uncle Crabby
» Yum yum Posted by: edith
» Wrong direction >RE: have your cake Posted by: scott.gregory
» RE: plenty to invest in around the world Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Sounds like socialism Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Sounds like socialism Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Sounds like socialism Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Sounds like socialism Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Sounds like socialism Posted by: EagleMB
Why not stop subsidizing successful business?
Posted by: Obijuan on Feb 20, 2007 2:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corruption is destroying America because votes should never be for sale as they are now.

I think a major issue in American is exactly what we do with money we have...not to mention that the whole income tax system is unconstitutional in the first place.

We need to stop subsidizing profitable industries like petroleum companies. With billions in profit each year, stories of golden parachutes worth millions, there is no reason they shouldn't be paying a huge tax on this success. This is success derived directly from US citizens...all we need to do is force them to pay the taxes instead of us. We will need to elect REAL independent representatives if this is to happen.

This point can be applied across the board. Training grants for new employees at Mc Donalds and Burger king...must be eliminated. Subsidies for military aid to Israel...must be eliminated. Subsidies for large corporate farming and related industries...must be eliminated. And of course, the virtual elimination of the DOD as we currently know it. This would make taxing the US citizens almost unnecessary, as it should be in a highly successful capitalist economy: Corporations and companies (through taxes and tariffs) should provide the tax-based income to the gov't and the citizens it serves...rather than paying "taxes" in the form of money to assist in the reelection of their friends/puppets in the gov't. That's money that should be paid to us as taxes, not contributions to campaign funds. This must come to an end...or we are a "votes for sale" pseudo-republic like Franklin warned us about.

As it currently stands, we as citizens pay a tax on nearly everything...while companies get tax breaks, subsidized buildings and factories, as well as countless other economic benefits, assistance, and down right charity. Again, this is all because they have been buying votes for decades now.

We need to take back America with the truth. Transparent governance is the key we currently do not hold as citizens, although it should be ours as keepers of the republic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FICA, etc.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Feb 20, 2007 3:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You should really go after payroll taxes, which are very regressive, but few people talk about them.

Other severely regressive "taxes" are PMI, credit card interest, interest on auto financing, payment plan interest, etc...all those things that make money cost a lot more to the working man than to the wealthy...Of course, one trick to that would be to seperate needs from wants, and prevent fraud and abuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liars, Damn Liars, The DLC & Republicans
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 20, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The income tax should not be used for social engineering or economic policy. Tax credits & deductions are a scoundrel way of hiding subsidies (read welfare for rich people and corporations) while putting the screws to everyone else. They always favor those who have over those who don't have.

State & Local Tax deductions amount to a federal subsidy to high tax & high assessment (high cost of living) states & municipalities. Mortgage deductions are a subsidy for homeowners over renters. The hits keep on coming.

The primary purpose of taxation is to generate the revenue necessary to run the government-- not create an elaborate industry of accountants and lawyers dedicated to cheating the system for fun and profit. Manipulation of the tax code is a primary source of the truckloads of money corrupting our political process.

You get the politicians out of the business of gaming the tax system for whatever reason or purpose and you will have gone a long way toward cleaning up government. Tax simplification and tax fairness is in everyone's best interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Author forgot one
Posted by: chaoslegs on Feb 20, 2007 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Additional Child Tax Credit is another refundable tax credit, but is not for the low income.

I disagree with some of the earlier posters. Flat tax credit poster, I would guess you are a Cato Institute/libertarian sort of person. The idea is intriguing, but your ideology makes the actual proposal you have very unappealing.

To NoPCZone, why shouldn't the government use tax incentives to encourage behavior? If we increase home ownership via the benefits of itemized deduction, and home ownership increases community activism, then I am all for it. I realize there are many people as the author stated who are left out of it because of other factors, but I am not categorically against the government using carrots as opposed to sticks (regulations and requirements) to acheive a desired result.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Silly question
Posted by: willymack on Feb 20, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do tax laws favor the wealthy? Because they're in charge, that's why. As long as our lawmakers supplement their government pay with bribes from corporate crooks (you know, the ones with all that money), it'll stay this way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hard to get 'tax breaks' when you don't pay taxes
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Feb 20, 2007 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this is why most 'tax breaks' go to 'rich' people and companies. Because they have enough income generated to be taxed. Of course the whole system is a joke and should be eliminated with consumption taxes only (fees, sales tax, etc.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Power not Wealth is the Enemy Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Power not Wealth is the Enemy Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: You missed anotther one Posted by: chaoslegs
» RE: You missed anotther one Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: You missed anotther one Posted by: EagleMB
Why do we skew tax breaks to favor richer people and more profitable businesses?
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Feb 20, 2007 11:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Elementary, my dear Watson, these are the people who fund the campaigns of both parties.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Truthsayer
Posted by: Truthsayer on Feb 21, 2007 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the book "Infinity's Rainbow: The Politics of Energy, Climate and Globalization," author Michael P. Byron discusses how corporate personhood was the beginning point of the loss of our democracy.

Corporations have been granted the same rights as humans, but they are super-human in that they don't die, and they have far more mental and financial resources to fight their causes than any one normal human can muster against them. Even worse, they are able to buy entire governments of countries to further their selfish interests in America and abroad. They don't give a damn about people, the environment, or our futures. They don't even give a damn about their own investors, and will rip them off with total impunity, and with only a wrist-slap as a semi-consequence. If you doubt this, just look at the California energy rip-off and that the courts refused to make the corporations give back the billions of dollars that they had stolen from an entire state. The bottom line is all that matters, and they will trample roughshod over anyone that gets in their way.

It is because of corporate personhood that political corruption is rampant, that fascism is on the rise everywhere, that America's entire financial network has been twisted into a war economy, that our only significant domestic product anymore is WMD, that all our good jobs are migrating overseas, that those jobs that remain are being staffed by legal and illegal aliens that will work for a pittance.

Byron proves that this is an all-out war on the middle class. No amount of election reform will work until we get the corporations OUT OF OUR POLITICS by repealing corporate personhood and removing human rights from non-humans. Corporations don't vote, and they should not be allowed to meddle in our politics either.

We need to get off our complacent asses, stop shopping, and do something about this -- starting with reading Byron's book, and then with getting the abomination of corporate personhood repealed.

You can see Byron's blog at: http://www.michaelpbyron.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So the solution is tax the rich and give to the poor???
Posted by: EagleMB on Feb 21, 2007 5:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tax breaks tend to benefit the wealthier because they are the ones that pay the taxes. But if it makes you feel better, I suggest all tax breaks be worded in the form of a uniform reduction. For example, all US citizens shall receive a 10% tax break. This, of course, means that those with a $75,000 tax liability would save $7,500, and those with a $0 liability will save $0. The net affect is that the wealthier actually get a break, and the poor don't, but at least the break woul dbe uniform.

For those who think my point is ridicules, consider this: Whenever the democrats implement tax increases, the poor still pay $0, and the wealthier pay more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Screw tax credits scrap the whole thing
Posted by: cinattra on Feb 24, 2007 12:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are just too many inefficiencies in today's tax system. The entire thing needs to be thrown out with the bath water.

We have a lot of intelligent people with the sole job of finding tax loopholes. We have a cumbersome system of filing that can require hours upon hours of calculations.

Our tax system is being made more and more ineffective through manipulation and political influence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement