Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: regressive taxation

Beer and pretzels.

Artisanal beer makers are asking for a tax break.

Because typical craft brewers produce fewer than 15,000 barrels a year, they already have a lower tax rate than the larger firms. Currently, US beer brewers pay a $7 tax per barrel (31 gallons) for the first 60,000 they produce annually. Anything more, the tax for each barrel increases to $18. At 98.5 million barrels for 2011, Anheuser-Busch InBev’s tax rate was pretty much the $18.

Hoping to support craft brewers, legislators have proposed the Small BREW Act. If passed, the new law will lower the tax on each of the first 60,000 barrels to $3.50. For production between 60,000 and 2 million, the tax per barrel would be $16. And then above 2 million, the $18 rate remains. Because the proposed act extends the definition of a small brewer, moderately larger firms like the makers of Samuel Adams would benefit.

As economists, instead of beer, we could say that our story is about a progressive tax. Structured just like our income tax system where the more affluent pay a higher proportion of their income than those who earn less, beer maker tax rates are higher for the bigger producers.

Others though see the Small BREW Act through an entirely different economic lens. Rather than debating the fairness of progressive taxes, opponents of the act say the cost is too high for society because of the negative externalities of excessive drinking.

Sources and Resources: There is lots more to beer than drinking. For the economics, this NY Times article provides a thorough picture of craft beer maker lobbying for lower taxes in the US while this article from The Hill provides a fascinating account of why the big beer makers oppose the Small BREW Act. Meanwhile, described in this Bloomberg article, French beer makers are protesting a massive tax hike. And everywhere, for centuries increased beer consumption has reflected middle class status in developing nations. We look at more of these beer facts, here and here, at econlife.com.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Our Transportation Infrastructure is Crumbling

In President Obama’s State of the Union address last January, he referred to the problem of our crumbling transportation infrastructure.

One solution is at the gas pump. When you filled your tank, you paid for fuel and probably also a road. In 1956, the first interstate highway system was financed with a 3-cent a gallon fuel tax. Now the federal tax is 18.4 cents for gasoline. Add that to your state’s tax and the total could be as high as 67 cents a gallon if you live in New York or California. (For state gas taxes, please see below.)

Still though, because gas taxes just don’t raise enough money, the federal Highway Trust Fund might soon be broke. Do you think the gas tax should go up? Or would you support being taxed by the mile with your GPS providing the data? Or, should we add more tolls and use EZ pass everywhere?

Before you decide, please consider your tax philosophy. Yes, you could say that a tax at the pump is fair because we all pay the same amount for the same purchase. Or, you could say you approve of the gas tax being used on roads because it means that the people who use the roads are paying for them.

However, do you feel okay about regressive taxation? With regressive taxes like the gas tax, people who earn less pay a higher proportion of their incomes. (A $10 tax on someone who earns $100 is 10%; a $10 tax on someone who earns $1000 is 1%.)

And finally, Harvard economist Ed Glaeser said that 4 words summarize 40 years of transportation research at Harvard: “Bus Good; Train Bad.”

Sources and Resources: While a good WSJ article on gasoline taxes was the source of most of my gas tax facts, I do recommend this Bloomberg article by Ed Glaeser and this Hamilton Project paper on infrastructure spending. Also, here, EconLife looks further at highway spending and the Highway Trust Fund.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

The Sugary Beverage Debate

If you lived in Richmond, California, would you vote yes or no for their proposed soda tax?

The tax is unusual because it does not charge people at the register. Instead, retailers would have to pay a license fee that is based on how many ounces of SSBs (sugar sweetened beverages) customers purchase. The city expects sellers to increase prices because of the fee.

City councilmen who like the proposal remind us that half of the children in Richmond are obese and that they can use the $3 million they project for sports fields, children’s diabetes treatment and nutrition education. An economist might add that the fee is Pigovian named after Arthur Pigou (1877-1959) who supported the concept because it discourages undesirable behavior and raises revenue.

On the other side, City Councilman Corky Boozé said it is unfair that the tax targets the poor. In a more affluent community, residents have the ability to avoid it by traveling elsewhere but not in Richmond where few people can afford cars. ”I eat sweet potato pie and candied yams,” he added, “And what about cupcakes? Are they going to tax them?” Predictably, one store owner worries that his business would suffer if he passes along the entire fee of 68 cents on a 2-liter drink to his customers.

Opponents also point out that the license fee is regressive. With a regressive tax or fee, the poor pay a higher percent of their income than those who earn more. Assume for example that 2 people both buy the same item and pay a $10 sales tax but one earns $100 a year and the other, $1000. The first individual is paying 10% of her income while for the second, it is 1%.

So many issues…

Do you believe the license fee is fair? Do you care if its impact is regressive? Do you like a Pigovian approach? Does it reflect an appropriate role for government?

In November, at the Richmond polls, how would you vote?

To read more about soda taxes, this NY Times update discusses New York City’s large size sugary beverage ban and herehere and here econlife looks at soda and fat taxes. For an academic approach, this Chicago Fed paper also focuses on the impact of soda taxes while details about the Richmond proposal are in this PBS interview, this NY Times article and a WSJ story.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16461_6.29_000011127784XSmall

Told that someone earns $250,000 a year, you should ask, “Where do you live?”

According to CNN, you would need to earn $545,000 in Manhattan to spend what $250,000 will buy in Missoula, Montana. On this map, you can see how your cost of living compares to the national average.

Specifically, here is a shopping list: “ground beef, tuna, milk, eggs, margarine, potatoes, bananas, bread, orange juice, coffee, sugar and cereal.” In Manhattan: $40.29; In Twin Falls, Idaho: $23.41.

Buying a 3-4 bedroom house? $750,000 in Glendale, California; $375,000 in Twin Falls, Idaho.

You can see where this is going. At first, it sounds simple. President Obama suggested $250,000 as a dividing line for increasing taxes. One number, one level of income. But is it?

The Economic Lesson

Taxes can relate to income in 3 basic ways:

  • Progressive taxation takes a higher percent from those who have higher incomes. 
  • Regressive taxation takes a higher percent from those with lower incomes. 
  • Proportional taxation takes the same percent from all.

Our current income tax approach is progressive while a sales tax is regressive.

An Economic Question: Using data from this map, explain how the cost of living varies.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

15591_4.18_000006902280XSmall

The Senate just said “No” to a VAT. Disagreeing, Paul Volcker sort of said “Yes” when he observed that a VAT is “not as toxic an idea” as we once believed. Suddenly everyone seems to be talking about a VAT.

Here are some basic VAT facts:

1. What is it?

Most fundamentally, the VAT is a consumption tax, sort of a distant relative of the sales tax. Please think about a pretzel. A sales tax on a pretzel would be paid at the cash register. (Federal sales taxes now provide only 3% of federal tax revenue.) 

The VAT, a value added tax, is also a consumption tax. If we levied a VAT, as with the sales tax, our pretzel would have a higher price.  However, the consumer does not pay the entire tax at the cash register. Instead, at each production stage, the value that is added to the product is taxed.

With a 10% VAT, when $100 of wheat for pretzels leaves the farm, the flour maker who buys the wheat pays $100 for the wheat and a $10 tax. Then, when the pretzel factory buys the flour, it pays (very hypothetically) $1000 for the flour plus $100 VAT minus a credit for the taxes that were already paid. At each stage, the VAT is levied on buyers of the unfinished product; the consumer covers the final VAT payment. Piecemeal, through a sequence of tax forms, the federal government identifies and charges for “value added”. 

2. Who uses the VAT?

Close to 100 countries generate revenue through a VAT. In France, for example, more revenue is raised through their VAT than through income taxes. I checked the OECD website and saw that VAT rates vary. Denmark: 25%; Spain: 16%; Thailand 7%.

But then I discovered that reality can be a lot more complex. In the U.K., for example, where food is tax free, they decided to exclude frozen yogurt that needs to be thawed. They faced similar dilemmas about children’s clothing, having to decide the whether small adult sizes are for children and even if flotation devices are clothing.

3. Why is a VAT desirable?

Many economists believe that a VAT can generate “a ton of revenue“. Also, as a consumption tax that elevates prices, a VAT can encourage saving. 

4. What is wrong with a VAT?

It is regressive. That is why the UK VAT, for example, excludes food. Also, a VAT can be complex.

5. When was the VAT created?

The VAT was invented in 1954 by Maurice Laure, a French tax official.

You can see where all of this is heading. It’s complicated. The basic issue, though, is if we spend more, we need more revenue.

The Economic Life 

In the U.S., the personal income tax generates 44% of all tax revenue while social insurance taxes account for 42%. Corporate income taxes are a distant third at 7%.

 

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment