Progressive tax
301892
226175863
2008-07-17T04:27:47Z
EECavazos
1702868
[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 226173734 by [[Special:Contributions/71.238.178.170|71.238.178.170]] ([[User talk:71.238.178.170|talk]]) rvv
{{Merge-multiple-to|Regressive tax|Proportional tax|target=Tax progressivity|discuss=Talk:Progressive tax#Merge / Split Restructuring|date=February 2008}}
{{Public finance}}
A '''progressive tax''' is a [[tax]] imposed so that the [[tax rate]] increases as the amount subject to taxation increases.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Progressive Webster] (4b): increasing in rate as the base increases (a progressive tax)</ref><ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/61/69/P0586900.html American Heritage] (6). Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases.</ref><ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-375969.html Britannica Concise Encyclopedia]: Tax levied at a rate that increases as the quantity subject to taxation increases.</ref><ref>[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=Progressive+tax Princeton University WordNet]: (n) progressive tax (any tax in which the rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases)</ref><ref name="Sommerfeld">Sommerfeld, Ray M., Silvia A. Madeo, Kenneth E. Anderson, Betty R. Jackson (1992), ''Concepts of Taxation'', Dryden Press: Fort Worth, TX</ref> In simple terms, it imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the rich than on the poor. "Progressive" describes a distribution effect on [[income]] or [[Consumption (economics)|expenditure]], referring to the way the rate progresses from low to high, where the average tax rate is less than the marginal tax rate.<ref name="Hyman">Hyman, David M. (1990) ''Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy'', 3rd, Dryden Press: Chicago, IL</ref><ref name="James">James, Simon (1998) ''A Dictionary of Taxation'', Edgar Elgar Publishing Limited: Northampton, MA</ref> It can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Progressive taxes attempt to reduce the [[tax incidence]] of people with a lower [[wikt:ability-to-pay|ability-to-pay]], as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with a higher ability-to-pay.
The term is frequently applied in reference to personal [[income tax]]es, where people with more [[disposable income]] pay a higher percentage of that income in tax than do those with less income. It can also apply to adjustment of the tax base by using [[tax exemption]]s, [[tax credits]], or selective taxation that would create progressive distributional effects. For example, a sales tax on [[luxury good]]s or the exemption of basic necessities may be described as having progressive effects as it increases a tax burden on high end consumption or decreases a tax burden on low end consumption respectively.<ref name="understandingtaxes">[http://web.archive.org/web/20070816190910/http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/whys/lp/IWT5L1lp.jsp Internal Revenue Service]: The luxury tax is a progressive tax--it takes more from the wealthy than from the poor.</ref><ref name="luxury">[http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9370763/luxury-tax Luxury tax - Britannica Online Encyclopedia]: Excise levy on goods or services considered to be luxuries rather than necessities. Modern examples are taxes on jewelry and perfume. Luxury taxes may be levied with the intent of taxing the rich...</ref><ref name="exempt">[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282(196909)59%3A4%3C596%3ACEASTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3 Clothing Exemptions and Sales Tax Regressivity], By Jeffrey M. Schaefer, [[The American Economic Review]], Vol. 59, No. 4, Part 1 (Sep., 1969), pp. 596-599</ref> The opposite of a progressive tax is a [[regressive tax]], where the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Regressive Webster] (3): decreasing in rate as the base increases (a regressive tax)</ref><ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/R0127100.html American Heritage] (3). Decreasing proportionately as the amount taxed increases: a regressive tax.</ref><ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regressive Dictionary.com] (3).(of tax) decreasing proportionately with an increase in the tax base.</ref><ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-376673.html Britannica Concise Encyclopedia]: Tax levied at a rate that decreases as its base increases.</ref> In between is a [[proportional tax]], where the tax rate is fixed as the amount subject to taxation increases.<ref name="Sommerfeld" />
==History of intellectual debate==
The idea of a progressive tax has garnered support from economists and political scientists of many different [[ideologies]] - ranging from [[Adam Smith]] to [[Karl Marx]], although there are differences of opinion about the optimal level of progressivity. Some economists<ref>Stein, Herbert (1994, April 6). "Board of Contributors: Remembering Adam Smith." ''Wall Street Journal'' (Eastern Edition), p. PAGE A14. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from Wall Street Journal database. (Document ID: 28143064).</ref> trace the origin of modern progressive taxation to Adam Smith, who wrote in ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'':
{{quote|The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.<ref>Adam Smith, [http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c2-article-1-ss3.htm An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations] (1776). Book Five: Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth. CHAPTER II: Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society. ARTICLE I: Taxes upon the Rent of House.</ref>}}
In most western European countries and the United States, advocates of progressive taxation tend to be found among the majority of economists and social scientists who realize that completely proportional taxation is not even a possibility.<ref name="Klein">{{cite web|url=http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/w4q363786573275h/|title=Economists' policy views and voting | publisher=Public Choice Journal | last=Klein | first=D. B. | coauthors=Stern, C. |date=2004-12-06 |accessdate=2007-07-02}}</ref><ref name="Boxx&Quinlivan">Boxx, W. T. & Quinlivan, G. M. (1994). The Cultural Context of Economics and Politics. Lanham, MA: University Press of America.</ref><ref name="Klein2">{{cite web|url=http://www.mises.org/story/2318|title=Why Intellectuals Still Support Socialism | publisher=Ludwig Von Mises Institute |date=2006-11-15 | last=Klein | first=G. P. | accessdate=2007-08-21}}</ref> In the U.S., the vast majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation.<ref name="Klein" /><ref name="Boxx&Quinlivan" /><ref name="Klein2" />
=== Arguments for implementation ===
* If the [[utility]] gained from income exhibits [[diminishing returns|diminishing marginal returns]], as many psychologists assert (see [[Weber-Fechner law]]), then for the tax burden to be shared in a [[utilitarian]] way the tax-bill must increase [[non-linear]]ly with income.
* As income levels rise, levels of consumption tend to rise. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing the tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes. {{fact|date=July 2008}}
* It is also argued that people with higher income tend to have a higher percentage of that in disposable income, and can thus afford a greater tax burden (this is the “[[vertical equity]]” argument). Some would claim that a person earning exactly enough money to pay for food and housing cannot afford to pay any taxes without it causing material damage, while someone earning twice as much can afford to pay up to half their income in taxes.
* Some believe that the wealthy have a disproportionately greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as security of property rights, [[defense]] and [[infrastructure]], as they have much more to lose if these fail than do the poor. Public investments in defense and foreign aid often support assets abroad whose [[expropriation]] is a far greater risk than is the risk involving domestic investments.
* Some supporters of progressive taxation favor increasing taxes on [[middle class]] tax-payers, who have [[income elasticity of demand|inelastic household budgets]].{{Fact|date=January 2008}}
* A progressive tax is an [[automatic stabilizer]] in the sense that if a person were to suffer a decrease in wages due to a recession then the money regained by being in a lower tax bracket lessens this blow.
* It is inherent in tax policy that it implements economic and social policy. People who are concerned about a runaway, cancerous character in the global economy, greenhouse gases, etc., see benefits in progressive taxation, both in its braking effect on the economy and in helping shape economic activities towards necessities more effectively than purely monetary or fiscal policies.
* As long as after-tax income is a strictly increasing function of gross income, there is a monetary incentive to increase compensation received. Indeed, for any particular income goal, the higher the tax rate, more compensation one must receive to reach that income goal. For this reason, progressive income tax may increase the incentive to produce among the largest producers (if higher production is truly associated with higher compensation).
=== Arguments against implementation ===
Arguments against progressive taxation tend to be found among [[libertarian]]s and some [[conservative]]s. Among economists and social scientists, and to a lesser extent the general population, opponents of progressive taxation tend to be in the minority.<ref name="Klein, D. B. & Stern, C. (6 December, 2004) Economists' policy views and voting. ''Public Choice Journal''.">{{cite web|url=http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/w4q363786573275h/|title=Klein, D. B. & Stern, C. (6 December, 2004) Economists' policy views and voting. ''Public Choice Journal''.|accessdate=2007-07-02}}</ref><ref name="Boxx & Quinlivan">Boxx, W. T. & Quinlivan, G. M. (1994). The Cultural Context of Economics and Politics. Lanham, MA: University Press of America.</ref><ref name="Klein, G. P. (15 November, 2006). Why Intellectuals Still Support Socialism. ''Ludwig Von Mieses Institute''. (Survey results were taken from a tetriary source in this case)">{{cite web|url=http://www.mises.org/story/2318|title=Klein, G. P. (15 November, 2006). Why Intellectuals Still Support Socialism. ''Ludwig Von Mieses Institute''. (Survey results were taken from a tetriary source in this case)|accessdate=2007-08-21}}</ref>
* Progressive taxes lower savings rates. High-earners have a lower [[average propensity to consume]], so shifting the tax-burden away from them will increase the aggregate [[savings rate]], which should increase [[steady state]] growth (if the savings rate is initially below the [[Golden Rule savings rate]]).
**The classical argument against progressive taxation runs as follows: <blockquote>The diminishing returns argument applies to the fraction of income used for present consumption. As income rises, diminishing returns implies that a smaller and smaller fraction of income will be spent on consumption goods. The remaining income will (of necessity) be used to purchase capital goods. This acts as a form of positive feedback that in turn yields more income for capital spending. Meanwhile (and because) these capital goods induce a decline in the costs of production which has the effect of raising real wages generally and implicitly raising the general standard of living. The income paid back on the capital helps create the disincentive to consume that creates capital spending. Thus, those capitalists who effectively manage their property are rewarded and given control of more (newly created) property, of which they are increasingly less inclined to consume and increasingly more inclined to purchase capital goods and thus further elevate the general standard of living by driving down the costs of production. As they acquire more capital goods, eventually their ownership outstrips their ability to manage and oversee what they own; however, they only control as many capital goods as can be attributed to the income of their prior capital---which previously did not exist. Therefore, their ownership does not negatively contribute to the general standard-of-living relative to counterfactual state of them not purchasing those goods. It would thus be misleading to argue that redistributing their capital may yield further increases in the standard-of-living. Doing so may well cause that effect, but doing so neglects that it was the assumption that redistribution would not happen that induced the accumulation of capital. — [[Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk]], ''Karl Marx and the Close of his System'', 1896</blockquote>
**A belief that progressive taxation shifts the total economic production of society away from [[capital goods|capital investments]] (tools, infrastructure, training, research) and toward present [[consumption goods]]. This could happen because high-income earners tend to pay for capital goods (through investment activities) and low-income earners tend to purchase consumables. [[Adam Smith|Smithian]] and [[Exogenous growth model|neo-classical growth]] theory says that spending more on consumption goods and less on capital goods will slow the rise of the [[standard of living]], and possibly even reduce it since capital goods increase future [[production possibilities curve|production possibilities]].
* Brain drain and tax avoidance. High progressive taxes may encourage [[emigration]] because taxes are not internationally harmonized, so very high earners are sometimes able to [[tax competition|relocate in order to pay less tax]], or find [[tax haven]]s for their income. Unlike the opposing [[income effect]] and [[substitution effect]] of leisure which may make tax progressivity neutral in terms of working hours, the emigration rate can only [[Monotonic function|increase]] with the top rates of tax.{{Fact|date=January 2008}}
** The differential in the higher rates of tax between the [[United States]] and Europe are cited as a factor in the "[[brain drain]]" of high-earners to America in the 1960s, and is considered an important influence on modern "economic migration."{{Fact|date=January 2008}}
* Increase in tax loopholes such as [[income splitting]] techniques. This creates an incentive for business owners to split their business into smaller, less efficient ones for a lower tax bracket. It also encourages production from less efficient smaller businesses than larger ones.
* The increasing energy expended on [[tax avoidance]]s which occur with greater progressivity produces an increase in the work of [[accountant]]s and [[lawyer]]s. Because tax avoidance creates no net wealth this work is unproductive, and can make taxes on the rich less efficient than on the middle class, who have less motivation to exploit tax loopholes.{{Fact|date=January 2008}}
* Progressive taxes are argued to create work disincentive. Consider again someone who makes twice the minimum required to live on, but pays all income above the minimum living threshold in taxes. Such a person had no monetary incentive at all to try to increase his or her income above the base level.<ref name="modeltaxrates">When the ‘optimal’ tax rates are derived in [[economic model]]s it is almost always assumed that: (1) Increasing labour leads to increasing dis-[[utility]], (2) the more ‘[[productive]]’ high-earners will make a choice between consumption and work that makes them at least as well off as lower-rate tax payers (a “self-selection constraint”). With these two assumptions, mathematical models maximizing various social ‘objectives’ can be designed but (excluding compulsion) all require some increase in consumption for higher-tax payers. For an example of this constraint in the most redistributive model (the [[A Theory of Justice|Rawlsian]] model) see page 4 of: [http://bear.cba.ufl.edu/hamilton/wpapers/core2.pdf Optimal Income Taxation and the Ability Distribution: Implications for Migration Equilibria] from Jonathan Hamilton and Pierre Pestieau (2002).</ref>
*Justice in representation. [[Equity (economics)|Economic equity]] is sometimes used to argue against progressive taxation, on the grounds of representation being out-of-proportion to taxation: While the top 5% in income in most countries pay over half the taxes<ref name="plutocrat">. [http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.html Tax breakdown for the United States from the IRS] which shows this pattern. The [[Economist]] magazine tends to rate the U.S. tax codes as being surprisingly progressive (below the levels of the super-rich) – perhaps because U.S. citizens rarely emigrate or move away from urban centres. However, in comparison to European [[social democratic]] countries, U.S. rates are certainly not unusually progressive, and many countries have any even greater proportional "[[Disenfranchising|disenfranchisement]]" of the rich.</ref> they only have 5% of the voting weight. This argument can be reversed into the [[plutocrat]]ic case that if tax is to be progressive it should be accompanied by greater say in elections for those who contribute most.
*Policymakers are argued to be under a pressure from lower and middle income voters to limit higher incomes by the means of progressive taxation. A few economists argue against [[inequity aversion]]: "If policy makers' primary goal is … economic prosperity for all, they should avoid focusing on the [[Class envy|politics of envy]]." ([[Gregory Mankiw]])<ref name="nyt_mankiw">Reply by [[Gregory Mankiw]] to the [[June 7]][[2005]] [[New York Times|NYT]] editorial: [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/opinion/07tues1.html “The Bush Economy”]</ref>
*A study from the [[libertarian]] Institute for Policy Innovation, which aims to reduce government intervention in the economy, has concluded that progressive taxes fail to decrease [[real income|real]] [[income inequality]].<ref>http://www.ipi.org/ipi%5CIPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullTextPDF/7412EB9AFBB4D28786256B4D00738EBE/$File/PR162-Hartman-Redistribution.pdf?OpenElement</ref>
==Measuring progressivity==
Models such as the [[Suits index]], [[Gini coefficient]], [[Theil index]], [[Atkinson index]], and [[Robin Hood index]] are sometimes used to factor progressivity through measures of [[income inequality metrics|inequality of income distribution]] or [[Wealth condensation|inequality of wealth distribution]].<ref name="measures">Philip B. Coulter: ''Measuring Inequality'', 1989, ISBN 0-8133-7726-9 (This book describes about 50 different inequality measures.)</ref>
{{Sectstub|date=May 2008}}
=== Inflation and tax brackets ===
Many tax laws are not accurately indexed to inflation. Either they ignore inflation completely, or they are indexed to the [[Consumer Price Index]] (CPI), which tends to understate real inflation.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/waggon/2004-11-25-inflation_x.htm | title=If you think inflation is on the move, time to protect portfolio | last=Waggoner | first=John | publisher=USA Today | date=2004-11-26 | format=HTML | accessdate=2008-02-03}}</ref> In a progressive tax system, failure to index the brackets to inflation will eventually result in effective tax increases (if inflation is sustained), as inflation in wages will increase individual income and move individuals into higher tax brackets with higher percentage rate. One example is the United States [[Alternative Minimum Tax]]; since it is not indexed to inflation,<ref>[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/newsevents/events_amt_facts.cfm TPC Tax Topics Archive: The Individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT): 11 Key Facts and Projections<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36988-2004Mar6.html Falling Into Alternative Minimum Trouble (washingtonpost.com)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> an increasing number of upper-middle-income taxpayers have been finding themselves subject to this tax.
===Marginal and effective tax rates===
{{main|Marginal tax rate|Effective tax rate}}
The rate of tax can be expressed in two different ways, the ''marginal rate'' expressed as the rate on each additional piece of income or expenditure (or last dollar spent) and the ''effective (average) rate'' expressed as the total tax paid divided by total income or expenditure. In most progressive tax systems, both rates will rise as amount subject to taxation rises, though there may be ranges where the marginal rate will be constant. With a system of [[negative income tax]], [[refundable tax credit]]s, or income-tested [[welfare benefit]]s, it is possible for marginal rates to fall as amount subject to taxation rises: this can still be seen as progressive providing that the marginal rate is higher than the average rate at any particular level, since the average rate will rise; high marginal rates for those with low means can lead to a [[Welfare trap|poverty trap]] within a progressive system, even if they face negative average rates.{{fact|date=June 2008}}
==Base of taxation==
===Income===
The key concept of progressive [[income taxation]] is that income is considered in different steps, where income earned between certain points will be taxed at a certain rate. This is done to avoid creating incentive traps, where earning more might actually decrease your income (e.g., if income up to 10,000 is untaxed and after 10,001 you pay 10%, you will receive 9,000.90 if you make 10,001 and 10,000 if you make 10,000). The size and severity of the different steps varies a great deal and the differences inside the term "progressive" can be enormous. In this sense, it is not surprising that most economists support progressive taxation to some degree - the primary differences come when looking at the maximum income taxes that the highest earners might have to pay.
===Expenditure===
While a tax on expenditures can be structured like a pure [[sales tax]], many proposals make adjustments to decrease [[regressive tax|regressive]] effects. Using [[tax exemption|exemptions]], graduated rates, [[tax deduction|deductions]], [[tax credits|credits]] or [[tax refund|rebates]], a [[consumption tax]] can be made less regressive or progressive, while allowing savings to accumulate tax-free.<ref name="greenspan">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/politics/04tax.html | title=Fed's Chief Gives Consumption Tax Cautious Backing | last=Andrews | first=Edmund L. | publisher=[[The New York Times]] | format=HTML | date=2005-03-04 | accessdate=2008-02-05}}</ref><ref name="consumptiontax">{{cite news | url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112492381500022421.html | title=A Consumption Tax | publisher=[[The Wall Street Journal]] | last=Auerbach | first=Alan J | date=2005-08-25 | accessdate=2008-02-05}}</ref> A sales tax on [[luxury good]]s or the exemption of [[Basic needs|basic necessities]] may be described as having progressive effects as it increases a tax burden on high end consumption or decreases a tax burden on low end consumption respectively.<ref name="understandingtaxes" /><ref name="luxury" /><ref name="exempt" /> Economist [[Alan J. Auerbach]] of [[University of California, Berkeley]] states that "annual income is not an especially accurate measure of one's ability to pay. A household's consumption tends to fluctuate less from year to year than its income does, and in some respects offers a better measure of a family's sustainable standard of living. Averaged over periods longer than one year, which smoothes out fluctuations in annual income, consumption taxes look less regressive relative to income than they look on an annual basis."<ref name="consumptiontax" /> [[Tax reform]] proposals that transition from a income tax to a consumption tax would place an additional burden on the owners of existing assets, which would contribute to progressivity in the short run.<ref name="consumptiontax" />
==Tax systems==
===United States===
{{seealso|Income tax in the United States|Taxation in the United States}}
The progressive aspects of the Federal income tax rates in the United States have varied widely since 1913. For example, in 1954 the Congress imposed a Federal income tax on individuals, with the tax imposed in layers of 24 income brackets at tax rates ranging from 20% to 91% (for a chart, see [[Internal Revenue Code of 1954]]). [[As of 2006]], there are six "tax brackets" ranging from 10% to 35% used to calculate the percentage of taxable income (of individuals) that must be paid to the [[United States Treasury]]. If taxable income falls within a particular tax bracket, the individual pays the listed percentage of income ''on each dollar that falls within that monetary range''. For example, a person who earned $10,000 in [[taxable income]] (income after adjustments, deductions, and exemptions) for 2006 would be liable for 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 7,550th dollar, and then for 15% of each dollar earned from the 7,551st dollar to the 10,000th dollar, for a total of $1,122.50. This ensures that every rise in a person's salary results in an increase of after-tax salary. The Treasury Department in 2006 reported, based on [[Internal Revenue Service]] (IRS) data, the share of all federal taxes paid by taxpayers of various income levels. The data shows the progressive structure of the U.S. federal tax system that reduces the [[tax incidence]] of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes - the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of all federal taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).<ref>[http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB115714468338152049.html Incomes and Politics], Wall Street Journal, ''[[September 02]], [[2006]]''</ref>
However, if the federal taxation rate is compared with the [[wealth distribution]] rate, which was studied in ''A Rolling Tide: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth in the U.S.'' by Arthur Kennickell at [[Levy Economics Institute]], the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).<ref name="Kennickell">{{cite web | last=Kennickell | first=Arthur | url=http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2003/200324/200324pap.pdf | title=A Rolling Tide: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth in the U.S., 1989-2001 | publisher=United States Federal Reserve |date=2003-03 | accessdate=2007-09-19}}</ref> Other taxes in the United States with a less progressive structure or a regressive structure, and legal [[tax avoidance]] loopholes change the overall tax burden distribution. For example, the [[payroll tax]] system is regressive on income with no standard deduction or personal exemptions taxing only the first $97,500 for 2007 from gross wages, and none earned from capital investments or interest. The [[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]] states that ''three-fourths'' of U.S. taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.<ref name="newlight">{{cite web| url=http://www.cbpp.org/8-25-04tax.htm| last=Kamin| first=David| coauthors=Shapiro, Isaac|title=Studies Shed New Light on Effects of Administration's Tax Cuts| work=| publisher=Center on Budget and Policy Priorities|date=2004-09-13| accessdate=2006-07-23}}</ref>
===United Kingdom===
{{details|Taxation in the United Kingdom}}
The [[United Kingdom]] has the following progressive income tax brackets (all values in [[Pound sterling]]): 20% from £2231 to £34,600 and 40% for £34,600 and above. These taxation rates are only applicable, of course, for taxable income. For those aged 18-65 and not in full time education, the income tax allowance (the amount of income against which no income tax will be levied) is £5225.
===New Zealand===
{{details|Taxation in New Zealand}}
[[New Zealand]] has the following progressive income tax brackets (all values in [[NZD|New Zealand dollars]] with earner levy included): 19.5% up to $38,000, 33% from $38,001 to $60,000, 39% above $60,001, and 49% when the employee does not complete a declaration form (IR330).<ref name="nz">[http://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax-individual/itaxsalaryandwage-incometaxrates.html The actual tax rates on the NZ Inland Revenue site] (with examples).</ref> In New Zealand, the income is taxed by the amount that falls within each tax bracket. In other words, if a person earns $60,000, they will only pay 33% on the amount that falls between $38,001 and $60,000 rather than paying this on the full $60,000.
===Australia===
{{details|Taxation in Australia}}
[[Australia]] has the following progressive income tax brackets (all values are in [[AUD|Australian dollars]]): 0% up to $6000, 15% from $6001 to $25000, 30% from $25001 to $75000, 40% from $75001 to $150000, and 45% tax for any amount over $150000. These taxes are paid throughout Australia.
== See also ==
* [[Tax incidence]]
* [[Laffer curve]]
* [[Proportional tax]]
* [[Regressive tax]]
* [[Robin Hood effect]]
* [[Suits index]]
== Notes ==
{{reflist}}
==External links==
{{wikiquote|Taxation}}
*[http://nontrivialpursuits.org/Tax_Policy.htm#taxation ''The Progressive Income Tax: Theoretical Foundations'']
*[http://www.educationreport.org/article.aspx?ID=1706 ''What's Wrong with the Progressive Income Tax'']
[[Category:Taxation and redistribution]]
[[bg:Прогресивен данък]]
[[da:Progressiv skat]]
[[de:Steuerprogression]]
[[et:Progressiivne tulumaks]]
[[fr:Impôt progressif]]
[[ko:누진세]]
[[id:Pajak progresif]]
[[la:Vectigal per gradus]]
[[hu:Progresszív adó]]
[[nl:Progressieve inkomstenbelasting]]
[[ja:累進課税]]
[[pl:Podatek progresywny]]
[[ru:Прогрессивное налогообложение]]
[[fi:Progressiivinen vero]]