When
Welfare Is Disguised as a Tax Cut
by
John R. Lott, Jr.
The
debate over taxes has gone off track. As often happens in Washington,
it sounds like politicians are often not talking the same language.
Confusion abounds over what constitutes a tax cut or a welfare payment.
Confusion
exists over even simple facts such as whether the poor who would
benefit from a proposed child tax credit actually pay any taxes.
Republicans are even battling Republicans.
Let’s
take the simplest factual question first. House Republicans claim
that poor individuals do not pay income taxes, so how can they get
a "tax cut"?
Democrats
respond that while the poor don’t pay income taxes, they still pay
Social Security and Medicare taxes and should get a credit to compensate
them for having to pay those taxes. The White House has taken sides
dismissing House Republican objections, saying that "These
families deserve help and [the President] wants to give it to them."
To
most people, it probably appears that both sides are right, it just
depends upon where you want to draw the line.
Yet,
both sides are not right. The poor’s payroll taxes are already more
than subsidized by the income tax. The Earned Income Tax Credit
was originally justified politically for precisely this reason.
Generous
Refunds
Take
a family of four, where both the husband and wife work, where one
child has just started college and the other is under age 18. Indeed
even without any new credits, this family will get more back from
the government than they pay for income, social security and Medicare
until they make over $30,000.
At
$21,000, they still get over $2,200 back from the government, over
and above what they were paying in social security and payroll taxes.
Passing the proposed child "tax credit" for this family
will increase this giveback by another $400 because they have one
child under 18. The new credits will be available for people earning
between $10,500 and $26,625.
In
the 1990s, we finally reformed welfare and tried to rein in its
costs, but today the Earned Income Tax Credit has so ballooned that
it represents twice as much money as spent by the traditional federal
welfare program, the Aid for Families with Dependent Children. While
government welfare programs officially put time limits on how long
people can get welfare, the federal tax system makes the welfare
payments tax relief and makes them permanent. What we learned from
the success of the time limit getting people off of welfare appears
to have been forgotten.
Welfare
as Stimulus
President
Bush’s justifications for the his tax cuts have helped muddle the
whole debate on taxes by claiming that simply giving people more
money will stimulate the economy. Lost is the notion of creating
incentives to get people to work (lowering marginal tax rates).
Using the essentially Keynesian reasoning advanced for the tax cuts,
now even welfare payments appear to qualify as a stimulus for economic
growth.
Editorials
in the New York Times talk of "fat cats" getting
their tax cuts and that "there won’t even be crumbs left over
for the working folks." Somehow a tax bill that ensures that
high-income people will pay yet a greater share of the tax bill
has been painted as unfair to poor people.
For
that matter, the 2001 tax cut also shifted a greater share of the
tax burden to higher income people. Even without the newest tax
change, about 10 million more low-income people have been completely
removed from having to pay income taxes from 2000 to 2003.
How
many times can you pass transfer payments to offset payroll taxes?
Apparently, the answer is more than once. Completely lost in these
debates is the focus that Ronald Reagan brought to the issue of
marginal rates. Without even the fig leaf of justifying the child
tax credit as a tax cut for those paying payroll taxes, why not
call the lump sum payment to low income people what it is: permanent
welfare payments.
July
3, 2003
John
Lott [send him mail], a resident
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of the
newly released The
Bias Against Guns, which examines the evidence on multiple
victim killings.
Copyright
© 2003 John Lott
John
Lott Archives
|