Skip to main content

Americans' 90% tax rate

By Edward J. McCaffery, Special to CNN
February 8, 2013 -- Updated 1500 GMT (2300 HKT)
Marginal tax rates are chaotic, confusing, and all over the map, says Edward McCaffery.
Marginal tax rates are chaotic, confusing, and all over the map, says Edward McCaffery.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Edward J. McCaffery: The working poor face very high rates on their next dollar earned
  • McCaffery: High marginal tax rates create "poverty traps" that keep the poor poor
  • He says it means these people will not gain all that much from working additional hours
  • McCaffery: Rather than criticizing the poor, politicians should fix our tax system

Editor's note: Edward J. McCaffery is Robert C. Packard Trustee Chair in law and a professor of law, economics and political science at the University of Southern California. He is the author of "Fair Not Flat: How to Make the Tax System Better and Simpler."

(CNN) -- In a recent opinion column on Phil Mickelson's tax comments, I pointed out that some of the working poor face marginal tax rates "approaching 90% as they lose benefits attempting to better themselves."

Readers were incredulous, asking how it could be that in a nation with a top federal income tax rate of 39.6% on individuals making more than $400,000 a year, anyone could face a 90% rate.

It is true. Marginal tax rates, especially for those below the top rate brackets, are chaotic, confusing, and all over the map.

Edward J. McCaffery
Edward J. McCaffery

As a result, some of the working poor face extremely high rates on their next dollar earned. Tax scholars and economists have long known this. Dan Shaviro of NYU published a study in 1999 showing marginal tax rates above 100% on the working poor; specifically, he illustrated that a single parent earning $10,000 would lose over $2,500, after taxes, by earning another $15,000, pushing her income to $25,000.

Last year, a study from the Congressional Budget Office shows how a single parent making $18,000 now faces a marginal tax rate of 88% in 2013, down from 95% in 2012. The CBO report is 45 pages long, with complex details. Adding in all the taxes along with a host of other things that have strange acronyms like SNAP and TANF, and the result is that it is possible to face marginal tax rates approaching 90%.

What does this mean? It means that, like Mickelson, these individuals will not gain all that much from working additional hours.

Take a hypothetical single mother of two, Jane, earning $18,000 a year. Earning an additional $1 will increase Jane's actual cash available to spend by just 12 cents.

Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.



How can this be? The effect comes about because governments at various levels give aid to the very poor, such that the extremely low earners face negative tax rates. In short, we pay some poor to work -- this is the "welfare to workfare" move of Bill Clinton's legacy. But then the law takes these benefits back from the near-poor via high marginal tax rates in a "phaseout" range. The most important of these provisions is the earned income tax credit (EITC) located in the federal income tax. This provision pays the working poor up to 40 cents on the dollar up to approximately $10,000 of earnings.

If Jane makes $10,000, the government mails her a check for $4,000. Over a certain range, Jane keeps that money. But as she starts earning more than approximately $18,000, Jane begins to lose the $4,000, at a roughly 20% rate. Add that to payroll taxes (7.65%), the regular income tax (15%, at that range), and Jane is in a rate bracket over 40%, and we are just getting started -- other federal, state and local programs and taxes pile on to the same effect.

You might be thinking that losing a benefit is not a tax. That is an understandable sentiment, but Jane will not be comforted by it. Looking just at the EITC, as Jane's earnings go over $18,000, she loses some of the dollars she is earning to "regular" taxes, and the $4,000 she was getting in assistance is disappearing. It's real, green, money that she is losing. This is the net effect that Shaviro was describing: Compare Jane earning $10,000 in the workplace to Jane earning $25,000, and the latter Jane simply has over $2500 fewer dollars to spend.

If this is all so complex, how can it affect anyone's real behavior? But what we don't know, or don't fully, can affect us.

Obama: Avoid sequester, pass small cuts
Phil Mickelson takes a tax mulligan

It is known that working more brings in little if any additional cash for many poor households, especially those with children. These taxpayers may not calculate their actual rate, yet they notice the stress and lack of funds. That's real life. It is also a fact that marriage is very costly for the poor largely because of taxes and phaseouts -- and so, again, there is less cash, more stress, and fewer examples of married households all around. More a quarter of American children are being raised in single-parent households, most of them poor. A staggering 72% of African-American children are being raised by just one parent.

Some may conclude that it is fair to take back the money given to the poor as soon as they are no longer really poor. But this creates the high marginal tax rates just noted. And this is a major public policy problem, for at least two reasons.

One, these high marginal tax rates create "poverty traps" that keep the poor poor, and make escape to the middle class difficult. Similarly, the middle class these days are having a hard time doing the savings that might elevate them from their class into the upper class. Our tax laws essentially create a caste system, with barriers between income class levels.

Two, the poverty trap is also a severe marriage penalty, making it virtually economically impossible for lower income classes to marry. If Jane, making $18,000 a year, marries Dick, also making $18,000, suddenly Dick and Jane become a household, a single taxpayer (and benefits recipient) as far as the government is concerned. Their income has moved from $18,000 to $36,000 -- exactly a range of steep marginal tax rates.

Politicians on both the left and right criticize the poor for not having more stable marriages, but they conveniently ignore the simple but brutal fact that the poor cannot afford to marry.

This is not the "fault" of the poor any more than it is Mickelson's "fault" that he is considering leaving the country for tax reasons. The poor cannot go to Canada, France, or Russia to flee taxes. But they can flee the institution of marriage. And they do. It is time to fix this situation, beginning with paying attention to it.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Edward J. McCaffery.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
October 30, 2014 -- Updated 1539 GMT (2339 HKT)
Mike Downey says the Giants and the Royals both lived through long title droughts. What teams are waiting for a win?
October 30, 2014 -- Updated 1832 GMT (0232 HKT)
Mel Robbins says if a man wants to talk to a woman on the street, he should follow 3 basic rules.
October 29, 2014 -- Updated 2103 GMT (0503 HKT)
Peter Bergen and David Sterman say more terrorism plots are disrupted by families than by NSA surveillance.
October 29, 2014 -- Updated 2125 GMT (0525 HKT)
Time magazine has clearly kicked up a hornet's nest with its downright insulting cover headlined "Rotten Apples," says Donna Brazile.
October 29, 2014 -- Updated 2055 GMT (0455 HKT)
Leroy Chiao says the failure of the launch is painful but won't stop the trend toward commercializing space.
October 29, 2014 -- Updated 1145 GMT (1945 HKT)
Timothy Stanley: Though Jeb Bush has something to offer, another Bush-Clinton race would be a step backward.
October 28, 2014 -- Updated 1237 GMT (2037 HKT)
Errol Louis says forced to choose between narrow political advantage and the public good, the governors showed they are willing to take the easy way out over Ebola.
October 27, 2014 -- Updated 1803 GMT (0203 HKT)
Eric Liu says with our family and friends and neighbors, each one of us must decide what kind of civilization we expect in the United States. It's our responsibility to set tone and standards, with our laws and norms
October 27, 2014 -- Updated 1145 GMT (1945 HKT)
Sally Kohn says the UNC report highlights how some colleges exploit student athletes while offering little in return
October 26, 2014 -- Updated 1904 GMT (0304 HKT)
Terrorists don't represent Islam, but Muslims must step up efforts to counter some of the bigotry within the world of Islam, says Fareed Zakaria
October 24, 2014 -- Updated 1302 GMT (2102 HKT)
Scott Yates says extending Daylight Saving Time could save energy, reduce heart attacks and get you more sleep
October 27, 2014 -- Updated 0032 GMT (0832 HKT)
Reza Aslan says the interplay between beliefs and actions is a lot more complicated than critics of Islam portray
October 27, 2014 -- Updated 1119 GMT (1919 HKT)
Julian Zelizer says control of the Senate will be decided by a few close contests
October 24, 2014 -- Updated 1212 GMT (2012 HKT)
The response of some U.S. institutions that should know better to Ebola has been anything but inspiring, writes Idris Ayodeji Bello.
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 1312 GMT (2112 HKT)
Sigrid Fry-Revere says the National Organ Transplant Act has caused more Americans to die waiting for an organ than died in both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq
ADVERTISEMENT