The Widening Gap Under the Internal Revenue Code: The Need for Renewed Progressivity

Abstract

“I have never viewed taxation as a means of rewarding one class of taxpayers or punishing another. If such a point of view ever controls our public policy, the traditions of freedom, justice and equality of opportunity, which are the distinguishing characteristics of our American civilization, will have disappeared and in their place we shall have class legislation with all its attendant evils.” Andrew Mellon (1924)The words written by Andrew Mellon more than 75 years ago represent an idealistic view of the tax system. Despite the ideas expressed by Mr. Mellon, it is difficult to devise a tax scheme that conforms to his standards. Our present scheme of taxation is intended to promote vertical equity, which means that the higher income taxpayer should pay a higher level of taxes based on an abilityto-pay concept. In theory, this objective is met by the progressive tax structure imposed under the Code. Arguably, a progressive tax system is inconsistent with the principles expressed by Mellon because of the purported penalty levied against high-income taxpayers in the form of inflated tax rates and the reward bestowed on low-income taxpayers in the form of lower tax rates. In reality, a progressive tax system does not reward or punish one class of taxpayers over another, but it is necessary to ensure that taxpayers do not pay more tax dollars to finance the government than they can afford. A progressive tax scheme is also necessary to enable every taxpayer to retain sufficient income to live above the poverty threshold. To the extent that a taxpayer lives below the poverty threshold, that taxpayer should not be required to pay income taxes. The current tax scheme is only partially successful in preventing taxpayers’ after-tax income from falling below the poverty threshold.