On July 30, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), along with six cosponsors, introduced the Taxpayer Responsibility, Accountability, and Consistency Act (H.R. 3408) which is aimed at stopping the misclassification of employees as independent contractors.

For each worker that a company "employs," it must withhold income and payroll taxes, pay benefits and unemployment insurance, and comply with labor laws. But companies do not have these expenses when they use "independent contractors" rather than "employees." Independent contractors are themselves responsible for paying the employer half of payroll taxes, as well as the employee half, and they generally don't receive other benefits like health insurance from companies that hire them.

As a result, some employers intentionally misclassify workers as "independent contractors" to avoid these costs.

It's unclear exactly how much misclassifying employees costs the U.S. Treasury. In theory, it would not matter to the Treasury whether payroll taxes are entirely paid by workers (as is the case for independent contractors) or half paid by employers (as is the case for employees) but the reality is that workers misclassified as independent contractors may be unable to shoulder the payroll taxes and are often unaware of this responsibility until the taxes are due. Or the income to independent contractors is simply not reported at all. 

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report issued earlier this year found that only 8 percent of small businesses with assets under $10 million submitted 1099-MISC forms that are due whenever independent contractors are used. It seems pretty unlikely that only 8 percent of those companies are really hiring independent contractors. When income is not reported to the IRS by a third party, the income is correctly reported only 46 percent of the time.

Many employers use a loophole created by Sec. 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 which is commonly referred to as "Sec. 530 relief." It allows employers to classify workers as independent contractors if they have historically done so, or if it is the industry practice. H.R. 3408 would repeal Sec. 530 and replace it with a new test which would be more difficult to meet. The old "Sec. 530 relief" would continue to be available for one year after the new bill is enacted.

New Data from Citizens for Tax Justice Shows that Many Survey Respondents Saying Income Taxes Are Too High Will Pay No Income Taxes for 2008

A recent Gallup poll found that 61 percent of respondents felt that the federal income tax they will have to pay this year is "fair." When asked about the specific amount of federal income taxes they pay, just over half felt they pay the right amount or too little.

Fewer than half of those polled said they thought their federal income taxes are "too high." It appears, however, that some of these respondents are basing their answers on the right-wing, anti-tax propaganda they've heard rather than their own income tax liability. A new report from Citizens for Tax Justice finds that many of the respondents who say they pay too much are likely to owe no federal income taxes at all, suggesting that education about the tax system could change their views.

Read the report.

New Data from Citizens for Tax Justice Shows that the U.S. Tax System Is Not as Progressive as You Think

Many politicians, pundits and media outlets have recently claimed that the richest one percent of American taxpayers are providing a hugely disproportionate share of the tax revenue we need to fund public services. New data from Citizens for Tax Justice show that this simply is not true. CTJ estimates that the share of total taxes (federal state and local taxes) paid by taxpayers in each income group is quite similar to the share of total income received by each income group in 2008.

- The total federal, state and local effective tax rate for the richest one percent of Americans (30.9 percent) is only slightly higher than the average effective tax rate for the remaining 99 percent of Americans (29.4 percent).

- From the middle-income ranges upward, total effective tax rates are virtually flat across income groups.

Read the fact sheet.

A new report from Citizens for Tax Justice answers many of the questions that are frequently asked about taxes during this time of year and clears up the old myths that are still accepted by many as fact. Here is just a sample of some of the questions that are answered:

Question: Does President Obama plan on raising our taxes?

Question: There might be cyclical downturns and upturns in the economy that no one can control, but don't tax cuts help us climb out of downturns a little faster?

Question: What are "tax havens" and why are some people in an uproar over them?

Question: What does it matter to me if someone else is hiding their income from the IRS?

Read the report.

As we approach April 15th, one complaint we often hear is that Americans who work hard and become successful have to pay over a third of their income in federal income taxes. But a recent report from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) shows that this is not remotely true.

As a new CTJ fact sheet explains, the IRS data show that the federal income tax rates paid by the highest-income Americans have dropped substantially since 2000, largely due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends pushed through by the Bush Administration. While income from work (salaries and wages) is subject to rates as high as 35 percent, income from investments (long-term capital gains and stock dividends) is taxed at only 15 percent.

The IRS report shows that in 2006 (the latest year for which data are available), the 400 richest income tax filers paid just 17.2 percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI) in federal income taxes. That is down from 22.3 percent in 2000, and is less than half of the top statutory income tax rate of 35 percent.

Read the CTJ fact sheet.

On February 13, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and seven co-sponsors introduced a bill that would impose a tax on securities transactions. The 0.25 percent tax would be imposed on the value of the securities traded. Rep. DeFazio proposes the measure as a way to pay for the various Wall Street bailouts.

This proposal would, in theory, raise revenue from the folks who benefitted from the bailouts. But there's another proposal we like better. Congress should simply eliminate the loophole in the income tax for long-term capital gains and corporate stock dividends, which subjects these forms of income to a top rate of just 15 percent.

People who earn wages must pay income taxes at progressive rates as high as 35 percent, and the first $102,000 a person earns in a year is, in addition, subject to payroll taxes of around 15 percent. So allowing people who live off their investments to pay a tax rate of only 15 percent is grossly unfair. As Warren Buffet recently pointed out, he pays a lower tax rate that his secretary, thanks largely to the loophole in the federal income tax for capital gains and dividends.

And it truly is the wealthy who primarily benefit. A report issued by CTJ in May of last year found that 70 percent of the benefits of President Bush's tax cut for capital gains and dividends goes to the richest one percent of taxpayers. The report also cited IRS data showing that in 2005, this loophole cost the Treasury $91.7 billion.

So getting back to Congressman DeFazio's proposal, we find several advantages of a higher capital gain rate over a securities transaction tax:

• Taxing capital gains at a higher rate would tax only those transactions that resulted in a gain, while a securities transaction tax would be imposed on every trade, whether or not there was a profit.
• A higher capital gains tax rate would be imposed on all capital gain transactions, not just those that arise from exchange-traded securities transactions. (Many derivative transactions are not traded on an exchange.)
• Taxing capital gains at ordinary tax rates would make the tax system much more fair and progressive. Taxpayers in the lower rate brackets would pay a lower rate on their capital gains while taxpayers in the higher brackets would pay a higher rate.
• Taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income would eliminate the many, many tax avoidance schemes that taxpayers use to convert ordinary income to capital gains.
• Taxpayers would make decisions based on economics -- not on the tax treatment of different investments -- eliminating a lot of market distortion.

Unfortunately, many lawmakers feel a strong urge to expand the most egregious loophole in the federal income tax rather than repeal it. On the same day that the DeFazio proposal was introduced, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced a bill to raise the capital loss limitation from the current $3,000 per year to $10,000 per year. This would provide another tax break for the wealthy. Generally, taxpayers can use capital losses to offset capital gains, and if they have net capital losses, they can deduct $3,000 of that against ordinary income. The rest is carried over to future years. If there were no limit, investors could choose to sell only assets that have a loss and offset other types of income, even though they might have unrealized gains in other capital assets. An October, 2008 CTJ report analyzed a similar proposal made by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) during his presidential campaign and criticized the idea for the same reason.

The financial collapse and the economic downturn of the past months begs the question of whether the economic policies of the Bush administration will be repudiated. Supply-side economics, the ideology that has driven the economic agenda of President Bush, has survived for years despite its complete failure in practice. For example, some anti-tax lawmakers and activists now claim that the answer to the economic crisis is... more tax cuts for investors. But now that we have seen two presidents over the last thirty years run up massive budget deficits through supply-side tax cuts that did not seem to make the economy any stronger, there is reason to think that politicians may finally start to see the failures of this ideology.

The Supply-Side Theory

This issue of the Tax Justice Digest explores supply-side economics, which is generally the idea that policies, particularly tax cuts for investment or for those who invest, can change incentives to invest in a way that will yield huge increases in economic growth. Most incredibly of all, this resulting economic growth is often argued to result in so much new tax revenue that the tax cut can be cost-free or can even lead to increased revenues. Keep in mind there is no actual evidence that tax cuts can pay for themselves or actually lead to increased revenues. The Treasury Department under President Bush issued a report finding that there was no evidence for this, and Bush's current budget director has also said that tax cuts do not pay for themselves or lead to increased revenue. And yet, President Bush and many of his allies (including, recently, John McCain) have stated numerous times that tax cuts cause increases in revenue.

The Laffer Curve

This idea of revenue increases resulting from tax cuts -- the crown jewel of the supply-side belief system -- could of course be true in some conceivable context. The concept is illustrated by the Laffer curve, named after its creator, which is basically a diagram showing that tax hikes will increase revenues only up to a point, after which tax hikes will actually lead to a decrease in revenue because incentives to work and invest are so severely damaged. If profits are already taxed at 95 percent, raising that rate might, in fact, lead to less revenue, as people realize there is little to be gained from investing or running a business and there are consequently less profits to be taxed. Lowering that rate could instead lead to more business activity, more business profits, and even more taxes paid on business profits. (Or at the very least, more business profits might be reported, leading to more taxes paid.)

But supply-siders often take this idea, which might apply in very few situations in real life, and apply it to the United States today.

While this is the most bizarre form that supply-side economics takes, even the ideology's more mainstream adherents seem to believe that tax cuts will lead to economic growth that is so great that higher budget deficits and starved public services should be considered nothing more than a minor side-effect.

Lawmakers and Media: The At-Risk Community

When a person brings up the idea that a tax cut might lead to increased revenues, serious economists laugh, but lawmakers and reporters often find themselves strangely mesmerized. An idea that justifies offering constituents both a tax cut and higher spending on services is like a narcotic for some lawmakers, impossible to resist even though its ill effects are obvious to all observers. Meanwhile, reporters who find economics to be outside of their area of expertise give uncritical and expansive coverage to an idea that almost no serious economist actually believes in.

How It Began

The supply-side movement began with, to put it mildly, a colorful cast of characters, as Jonathan Chait describes in his excellent book, The Big Con. One is George Gilder, whose book Wealth and Poverty, helped launch the movement. He is also known for such quotes as "There is no such thing as a reasonably intelligent feminist," and he is a strong proponent of ESP (extrasensory perception). Another is Jude Wanniski, who wrote another important book (The Way the World Works) and preached that high taxes led to all evils, including Hitler's decision to invade his neighbors. He later compared Slobedan Milosevic to Abraham Lincoln and insisted that Saddam Hussein never gassed his people.

Then, of course, there is Arthur Laffer, who met with Wanniski and Dick Cheney one day, drew his diagram on a cocktail napkin and convinced Cheney that tax cuts could result in increased revenues. The Laffer curve was born, and progressives have been trying to throw it back into the fires of Mordor ever since.

Rather than dwelling on these interesting characters, we have decided to provide the following information for those who would like to know what supply-side economics is about, how it has influenced policy-making and how we can respond to it.

Two New Reports Explore the Strange Allure of Supply-Side Economic Policies and the Overwhelming Evidence of Their Failure

Supply-Side Ideas Influence the Presidential Race

Isn't It Time to Reassess the Bush Tax Cuts for Investment Income?

Supply-Side Disasters in the Making at the State Level

Two recent reports help explain supply-side economics, its logical inconsistencies and its failures in practice. One is "Take a Walk on the Supply Side: Tax Cuts on Profits, Savings, and the Wealthy Fail to Spur Economic Growth" by Michael Ettlinger of the Center for American Progress and John Irons of the Economic Policy Institute. The report spends some time pointing out how supply-side economics is questionable even on a theoretical level. Do we really know that tax cuts always result in more work or more savings? What if you have a certain earnings goal or savings goal and you have to work or save less to reach that goal as the result of a tax cut? And how do we know more savings would mean more investment? Couldn't it lead to investment overseas, or maybe lower consumption which could in turn be harmful to the economy?

But things get even more interesting when Ettlinger and Irons look at the empirical evidence to compare economic performance after supply-side tax cuts during the Reagan and Bush II eras to economic performance after the deficit-reduction policies in the Clinton era. They look at the evidence in two ways: first, measuring economic indicators in a period immediately following the introduction of the new tax policy, and second, measuring economic indicators during the first economic expansion to take place after the introduction of the new tax policy. Investment is found to be stronger during the Clinton era than during the two supply-side eras. The same goes for GDP growth and several other indicators.

The second report is "Tax-Cut Snake Oil: Two Conservative Theories Contradict Each Other and the Facts," by Jeffrey Frankel at the Economic Policy Institute. Frankel adds to our understanding of the supply-side theory and the evidence that has discredited it after the tax cutting under Reagan and Bush II. He also adds a lot of interesting information about the key players involved. For example, he provides quotes from economists who worked for Reagan and George W. Bush saying that tax cuts cannot lead to increased revenues, as well as quotes of their bosses saying that they can.

But Frankel describes another development in the anti-tax movement that sits very strangely with supply-side economics: the "Starve the Beast" hypothesis put forward by many conservatives that cutting taxes will reduce revenues, run up deficits, and force politicians to shrink government. (This is put forward by those who believe shrinking the government would be inherently good.)

Frankel points out that it's not at all obvious why lawmakers would feel more constrained from spending under such a regime. Clearly, if constituents are told that increased spending might require tax increases now to pay for it, that might give some pause. But if taxpayers are told that increased spending will result in some future tax increase, that is surely less threatening to constituents and those who depend on their votes, and so there might be less pressure on lawmakers to limit spending. This is exactly what happens under the supply-side regime as deficits soar as a result of tax cuts. And of course, as Frankel points out, the Starve the Beast hypothesis should now be discredited by the explosive spending in the Reagan and Bush II eras.

Most amazing of all is that these two ideas -- cutting taxes is OK because it will lead to increased revenues, and, cutting taxes is good because it will lead to decreased revenues and thus smaller government -- somehow coexist within the same anti-tax movement.

Presidential candidate John McCain has made statements in the last year indicating that he believes tax cuts pay for themselves. Whether he actually believes this and how he came to this conclusion is all very murky. Senator McCain famously voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and has now reversed himself by favoring a permanent extension of all the Bush tax cuts even for the richest Americans, plus a lower rate for corporations and other cuts for business. When asked to explain his previous votes and his reversals, McCain has always given baffling and incoherent answers.

John McCain now says that he opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 because he thought they needed to be accompanied by cuts in spending to keep the budget deficit under control. Actually, what he said in 2000 about then-Governor George W. Bush's tax plan was, "I don't think the governor's tax cut is too big-it's just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans-and that's not the kind of tax relief that Americans need."

But even if we take his word that he was concerned about the budget, wouldn't that only mean he would be even more opposed to the Bush tax cuts now that we have deficits instead of surpluses? He explained at a debate on September 5 that he voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts because they did not include cuts in spending, which he thought were also necessary. But then he claims that "it's very clear that the increase in revenue we've experienced is directly related to the tax cuts that were enacted, and they need to be permanent."

McCain claims he went from worrying about how tax cuts might damage a budget in surplus to believing tax cuts will help a budget that is in deficit. His conversion may be inexplicable, but it's very real. His tax plan would extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich and slash taxes for corporations, which would benefit stock-holders. He would create an alternative "simplified" tax that would generally make the tax code more complicated. Since it would be voluntary, people would calculate their taxes under the regular system and under the alternative system to see which yields a lower tax. Our estimates show that it would cost in the neighborhood of $98 billion in 2012, half of which would go to the richest one percent.

During his 2000 presidential campaign, Senator McCain said, "There's one big difference between me and the others -- I won't take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. I'll use the bulk of the surplus to secure Social Security far into the future to keep our promise to the greatest generation."

So McCain once said he won't spend an entire budget surplus on tax cuts for the wealthy, but apparently he has no problem cutting taxes for the wealthy when the budget is in deficit. We would like to say this reversal is surprising but, sadly, we've seen it before.

What about McCain's opponent? One would hope that presidential candidate Barack Obama would represent a clean break with the supply-side thinking of the past, but the reality is slightly more complicated. During his speech at the Democratic convention in Denver, Senator Obama said, "Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it." Curiously then, Senator Obama proposes to keep in place a loophole for corporate dividends created in the Bush years. President Bush and his allies in Congress enacted a special loophole for dividends (a top rate of 15 percent) that will expire at the end of 2010 along with the rest of the Bush tax cuts if Congress simply does nothing. Instead of allowing the dividends loophole to completely expire, Senator Obama wants dividends to be taxed at a top rate of 20 percent for, roughly, the richest two and a half percent of Americans and a top rate of 15 percent for everyone else.

At the time the dividend tax cut was enacted in 2003, Michael Kinsley pointed out that "[u]nlike, say, interest on a savings account or money-market fund, which are taxed every year, corporate profits are allowed to compound tax-free until they are paid out as dividends or the stock is sold. A notorious quirk in the tax law wipes out a lifetime of taxes on stock that is passed on to your heirs. Dividends and capital gains are also exempt from the Social Security and Medicare taxes. One way or another, it is the rare dollar of corporate profits that bears a tax burden heavier than the burden on an employee's wages."

True, Senator Obama does want to allow tax rates on ordinary income to revert to the rates that existed under Clinton for the very richest Americans, and he will allow the tax subsidy for capital gains to shrink back to the level that existed under Clinton (a top rate of 20 percent instead 15). But apparently Obama agrees with President Bush that taxing dividends just like the income most people receive as wages would be either unfair, or damaging to the economy, or both.

Of course, Obama certainly has never claimed that tax cuts can pay for themselves. But the less insane aspects of the supply-side ideology have influenced some of what he has said about taxes. In particular, he seems to believe that not allowing most Americans to keep the taxes they received under Bush would be bad for the economy. He told the multitudes in Denver, "I will -- listen now -- I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class." We could probably think of all sorts of things that would be the "last" thing we want to do in an economy like this (cutting back on education spending, allowing the health care system to plod along in its current inefficient manner) and that would be worse than having a higher tax bill.

So Obama is certainly not a supply-sider, but he's not exactly facing down the supply-siders either. Allowing everyone but the richest 2 and a half percent to keep the Bush tax cuts (and even extending some cuts for these very richest taxpayers) is not exactly a clean break with the failed supply-side policies of Bush. At the same time, his tax cuts would be aimed at the middle-class and would make the tax code more progressive overall, which would be an enormous improvement over the policies of the current president.

(See CTJ's recent report, "The Tax Proposals of Presidential Candidates John McCain and Barack Obama.")

A report released this week from Citizens for Tax Justice explains how "tax day" has changed under President George W. Bush. The answer for most Americans is: very little. Despite claims made by the President and his supporters, the tax breaks enacted after 2000 provide little benefit for the middle-class. However, for the richest one percent of American families, tax day is considerably easier. Once the President's tax cuts are fully phased in, the majority of the benefits will flow to this small group of lucky families.

What has changed for most Americans is the very real threat posed by the increased national debt resulting from these tax cuts. The national debt must eventually be paid off with tax increases or cuts in public services that Americans -- particularly the middle-class -- rely on.

The report explains that:

• The tax cuts received by the typical American are nowhere near as large as the President and his supporters imply, and are in fact too small to make any difference in the life of a typical American family.

• When the Bush tax cuts are fully phased in, the majority of the benefits will go to the richest one percent.

• If the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, as the President proposes, the cost will be $5 trillion over the 2011-2020 period. To put that in context, the federal government collected $2.6 trillion in revenue last year.

• The Bush tax cuts received by the richest one percent in 2008 will be more than the funding received by the Department of Education, almost twice as much as the funds received by the Department of Homeland Security and over ten times as much as received by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Congressman Rangel's Tax Bill Would Make the Tax Code Simpler, More Progressive, and the Changes Are All Paid For

House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel introduced his proposal Thursday to address the Alternative Minimum Tax and simplify the tax code without increasing the federal budget deficit. One title of the bill would address the income tax for individuals, including the AMT reform which would be paid for by reducing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and closing some unfair loopholes that benefit the very richest taxpayers. The other title of the bill would simplify the corporate tax by trading a lower corporate tax rate for the elimination of some inefficient loopholes. Lawmakers may take some of the provisions, such as a one-year fix for the AMT, and pass them more quickly as a separate, smaller bill.

Individual Income Taxes Would Be Simpler and More Progressive

Several Republican lawmakers demand that Congress repeal the AMT without replacing the revenue because it was never "intended" to be collected. This is nonsense, because the Bush Administration very intentionally declined to address the AMT when it passed tax cuts. The President's most recent budget assumes that the AMT will, in fact, expand its reach to millions of families after 2007.

Congressman Rangel's bill includes a "patch" for the AMT for this year and then repeals it altogether. The revenue is replaced largely with a surtax on families with incomes over $200,000. These families have benefited the most from the Bush tax cuts. Nearly half of the benefits from the Bush tax cuts flow to the richest five percent of taxpayers, whose income is above $170,000. In 2010 well over half of the benefits will flow to this group if the Bush tax breaks are not repealed. So Congressman Rangel's bill would reduce the bonanza of tax cuts enjoyed by this elite group of families to help pay for AMT relief for families who are somewhat more likely to be middle-class.

In addition, the bill would eliminate the loophole for "carried interest" as many advocates have urged because it allows wealthy fund managers to pay a lower tax rate than middle-income people.

Congressman Rangel's bill also includes important improvements in the Child Tax Credit and the EITC for childless workers. The Child Tax Credit is currently structured so that the poorest families cannot benefit from it, while the EITC for childless workers is currently so low that childless workers can live in poverty and still pay federal income taxes, in addition to federal payroll taxes.

Corporate Taxes Would Be Simpler and More Efficient

The bill reduces the corporate rate from the current 35 percent to 30.5 percent and replaces the revenue lost from this change by eliminating certain loopholes. Corporations should consider themselves lucky to be offered this lower rate. CTJ has argued recently that Congress should close corporate tax loopholes and not lower the corporate rate but instead use the new revenue for deficit-reduction or to address the many needs this country faces right now.

It's often said that the U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is among the highest in the world, but really the effective rate is much lower because of the loopholes that corporations use to lower their taxes. The United States collects less in corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP than all but two OECD countries. In other words, corporations should be thankful they're being offered any tax breaks at all.

Wisely, the bill includes changes to offset the costs of the rate reduction. These include eliminating several existing tax provisions, including a tax subsidy for manufacturers, an accounting method that allows oil companies to understate their profits, and another provision that encourages companies to move operations offshore.

Republicans Defend Government Interference in the Economy Through the Tax Code, Defend Complexity in the Tax Code

Republicans in Congress have placed themselves in the strange position of defending a system that taxes some millionaires at lower rates than middle-class families, defending a tax system that provides subsidies to certain businesses at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers, and defending the complexity in a tax code that causes business decisions to be made for tax reasons rather than economic ones. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson went so far as to say (subscription required) "The corporate proposals will hurt the ability of our businesses and workers to compete in a global economy." This is despite the fact that closing loopholes to pay for a lower tax rate is an idea that he and others in the Bush administration proposed during the summer.