So Who Pays For the Government and How?

I’ve always found putting things in historical perspective and looking at the long-term trend of things usually illuminates a lot of policy discussions. It’s easier to see “what’s really happening” if you look at the long-term trend.  Taxes, tax rates, and the government budget are often hot topics of policy debate.  So is the future of the intergenerational social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare (also here).

As Paul Krugman has often mentioned, the best way to think of the U.S. federal government budget is to think of the government as “an insurance company with an army”.  But who pays for this insurance company (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) and it’s accompanying army?  The distinct trend of the last few decades is that individuals are being asked to shoulder more and more of the burden and that corporations are carrying a less-and-less share. In fact, as this graph shows, the corporations are nearing becoming insignificant in their contribution to the general welfare and maintenance of our government.

The data for this graph is from Office of Management and Budget in this file.

 

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan and the 99%

In the constantly churning pool of Republican Presidential candidates, a seemingly political newcomer has risen to the top (for now): Herman Cain.  Mr. Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza where he engineered a leveraged buy-out from Pillsbury, isn’t really a political newcomer or outsider, though.  He only appears to be because he personally has never won an election despite several attempts.  (see Wikipedia biography). In fact, he’s been a campaign insider and advisor for many Republican candidates going back to at least Bob Dole in 1996. He also played a key role in defeating President Clinton’s attempts to reform healthcare in the 1990’s.

Herman Cain has risen to the top (some recent polls show him essentially tied with Mitt Romney) largely because of his “9-9-9” tax plan.  So what’s it all about and what are the likely consequences? Let’s explore what the plan is first.

I will summarize here.  A more in-depth analysis (pdf) is available from the Tax Policy Center.  The Cain campaign’s page on the plan is here. Cain is proposing to eliminate the existing corporate income tax and payroll taxes. I assume that this includes eliminating the Social Security tax and Medicare taxes, although the Cain campaign avoids saying that clearly by referring only to “payroll taxes”.  He then proposes to radically reform the existing individual income tax system and adding two new taxes.  The result is that the existing triad of corporate income tax, payroll tax, and individual taxes is replaced by a triad of three taxes which each have a 9% tax rate, hence the name for the plan.

  • Change existing Individual income tax system – charge a flat 9% on gross income with the only deduction allowed being for charitable contributions.  Home mortgage interest deduction is gone.  Personal exemptions are gone.  This means a single person with no dependents and $50,000 income pays $4,500 (9%), the same exact amount as a family of four with two small children and a $50,000 income.  It is unclear whether deductions for the expense of earning income are allowed or not such as sales representative deducting business expenses.  I presume they are not.  Only earned income from employment is taxed, not dividend income. It is unclear whether Cain would tax pension income or Social Security benefits.  He doesn’t clarify those.  My guess is they would be taxed.
  • A new national sales tax of 9% on everything.  Although most states currently exempt food and other essentials from sales tax, Cain does not.  Plan to add 9% to whatever you buy. The consumer pays the sales tax directly at the time of purchase.
  • A new national business tax of 9%. This is a modified form of value-added tax (VAT) commonly called a business transfer tax.  It essentially means that all businesses pay a 9% tax on everything they sell minus a deduction for whatever purchases they have made, not counting purchases of labor. I find the enthusiasm among Republicans for this part for the tax kind of strange.  The state of Michigan had a similar business transfer tax called the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) in recent years and it was the #1 target of Republicans to repeal when they came into office.  The MBT was absolutely hated.  That makes me skeptical that Cain either could actually get a a national business tax or that it would survive for longer than a year or so.  I expect that in implementation, the national business tax would soon be eliminated in favor of a higher individual income tax and/or higher sales tax and/or larger deficit. A business transfer tax like Cain’s proposed national business tax requires significant accounting and record-keeping.  Businesses would no doubt attack such a tax as a “heavy regulatory and reporting burden”.

Overall, estimates of the immediate effect of the 9-9-9 plan on tax revenues to the government show it would be largely neutral.  That is, the plan, when applied to today’s economy this year, should produce approximately the same revenue as today’s tax system produces.  In that sense, the plan represents neither a tax cut nor a tax increase in the overall macro sense.  At the individual  level, though, it’s a different story.  The 9-9-9 plan is either a really heavy tax increase or a really huge tax cut depending upon how high your income is.

For people who are in the lower 80% of the income distribution, meaning the poor, the working class, and the middle class, Cain’s plan represents a very, very serious tax increase.  Even households in the lowest 20% of the income distribution would pay an average of $1,854 more in taxes than they do currently each year.  The typical or normal household, the folks that are in the middle, the 60% of us that are neither in the top 20% or the bottom 20% (which most likely means you!), would pay more than $4,000 more each year in taxes.  That’s a serious tax increase.  How? Why? Currently people in these brackets, the majority of us, pay around 23-30% of our income in the form of all taxes to the all levels of government. Of those 23-30% points, approximately 10% points are taxes for state and local government.  Those taxes remain under Cain.  So currently the middle income ranks pay between 13-20% of their incomes to the federal government.  That initially sounds like it’s higher than Cain’s 9%.  But remember, Cain’s plan is a 9-9-9 plan.  You will pay a 9% income tax.  You’ll also pay 9% sales tax on everything you buy.  Let’s say you’re fortunate and prudent and only spend 90% of your income, that sales tax still equates to being 8% on your income.  But the sales tax is being applied to goods that have already been marked up in price by 9% by the retailer to pay for the business tax.  In effect, you’ll pay an 18% sales tax. That means that your real tax burden for the federal government will be closer to 9+9+9.  I expect the effective federal taxes paid by individuals in the middle income ranges under the Cain plan to be 24-27% depending on how much you save vs. spend.  Add in the 10% for state and local and you’ve got an individual tax burden in the 34-37% range – much, much higher than today.  The Tax Policy Center graphs out the actual expected change in your taxes in dollars by income quintile here:

Now what about the top 20%?  They come out ahead.  The average household in the top 20% gets a $14,442 tax cut.  If you’re not one of these fortunate rich people to get this large tax cut from the 9-9-9 plan, remember Herman Cain says it’s your fault you’re not rich.

In summary, the Cain 9-9-9 is a massive redistribution of the tax burden away from rich households onto the backs of poor and middle-income households.  As Jared Bernstein notes:

Conclusions:

–to implement the 9-9-9 plan would truly be the most dramatic and regressive shifting of the tax burden in the history of our nation;

–based on this policy, Herman Cain’s campaign is deeply out of touch with the challenges facing the American middle class;

But we haven’t really looked at the impact on the top 1% or the top 0.1%, the really, really rich folks, the Wall Street CEO’s and big hedge fund managers, the ones who have gotten large bonuses in recent years paid for by government bank bailouts.  The top 1% (which includes Herman Cain himself) will save on average $238,422 in taxes.  The top 0.1%, the 150 thousand or so households that are really, really rich and powerful, will get even more.  They will see an average cut of $1,356,078 in their taxes.  I also have a properly scaled graph to show this too, but it’s only after the jump for formatting reasons.  So click and take a look to see what Herman Cain calls making the tax system more fair.  It should add fuel to the Occupy Wall Street fires.

Continue reading

Can We Afford to Raise Taxes On High Incomes? Can We Afford Not To?


Another tax related post.  It appears that taxes, in particular, taxes on the top income bracket will be a major topic of debate propaganda for the next year and  a half until the next presidential election.  Part of the reason is because the tax deal done last December (2010) between Republicans and Obama last December (2010) perpetuated the Bush-era tax cuts until Dec. 31, 2012, just after the election.  Another reason is because the Republicans in Congress, led by Congressman Paul Ryan have passed a proposed budget that will cut the top individual federal marginal income tax rate to 25%, ten points below the even the Bush-era 35%!  (source: Reuters)

The Republicans and Tea Partiers basically offer three arguments for cutting the top tax rates on high-income folks. None of the arguments hold up under examination.  First, they argue that the U.S. is too heavily taxed already. So, let’s compare the U.S. to other countries in the graph at the right from CBPP.  The U.S. is in fact, a relatively low tax country compared with other developed, industrialized nations.  (although to be fair, we should note that the other countries on the graph pay for healthcare for all their citizens and most of it comes from the government budgets).

So let’s move onto the second argument.  Republicans like to argue that cutting taxes for the top end, for the rich and high income brackets will create jobs.  They repeatedly call these high-end income folks the “job creators”.  Apparently out of some pique, these people refuse to “create jobs” for us lesser people whenever their tax rates exceed some number around 35%.  Unfortunately, this concept has been tried before and found wanting.  Simply put, there’s no empirical support for the idea that cutting tax rates primarily on the top end bracket will create jobs.  See here and here for more details. George Bush and the Republican Congress cut taxes and tax rates in 2001. At the end of the decade, in December 2010, the net increase in jobs (employment) in the U.S. was zero. That’s right. Not a single net new job.  No more people were employed in Dec 2010 than were employed before the tax cuts.  As I’ve discussed before, this doesn’t mean that Keynesian theory that cutting total taxes collected on from the nation has been disproven. Rather it means that how the taxes are cut matters.  Tax cuts only work to stimulate the economy and create jobs when they create new spending.  Tax cuts on the top brackets don’t create new spending, though.  They create a boom market in fixed luxury assets such as mansions in the Hamptons, Vail, or outside the country.  Tax cuts on the top brackets help fuel investments in off-shore funds and overseas entities, but they don’t really drive much spending here at home, at least not the kind of spending that drives good jobs and middle-class incomes.  Let us not make a mistake, while the Bush-era tax cuts included some minor cuts for lower income brackets, the overwhelming benefit accrued to the top bracket, as shown below (again from CBPP).  For more details and to see the real empirical record of tax rates vs job creation/economic growth, see Presimetrics, a site and book well worth the read.

Now let’s consider the third argument often provided as to why we need to cut tax rates for the top bracket.  Strange as it may sound, but the argument is offered that it’s the fair thing to do.  I know when you look at comparable average tax rates by income bracket like I did here and here, that it seems like the tax code is already quite fair to people earning a million dollars or more.  Yet their argument goes that it’s the richest people who pay for most of the government’s total taxes paid.  They cite the fact that the top income bracket people pay the majority of all tax dollars collected by the government.  That’s true.  But they neglect to say that it’s because the top bracket gets the dominant share of income in the U.S, not because the tax rate is too high.  Indeed, the top bracket payers are the only ones who have really benefitted in the last 30 years and seen their incomes grow substantially.  See the accompanying CBPP chart to see how the top 1% has seen it’s income rise 281% since 1979 (as it’s tax rates have been on a long down-hill slide), while the lower 80% barely grew 25% income.  The reality is that the top bracket pays the majority of tax dollars because they get the majority of the nation’s income.  Yes, the income distribution numbers are that out of whack.  The top 1% of households by income get a whopping 17.9% of all national income.  That’s just the top 1%!  Their share was only 7.5% 30 years ago.  (source: CBPP)So, actually the fair thing would be for the top bracket to pay a little more since they’ve benefitted the most from the current tax regime.

During the 30 year time frame that the top bracket has been raking in a larger and larger share of the national income while seeing their income tax rates decline, the lower brackets, the ones with incomes below $100,000 have seen their payroll tax rates double to build a giant Social Security trust fund.

Overall, I think we can afford to raise tax rates on the high income tax bracket.  In fact, if anything, there are good reasons to raise tax rates on the high end. First, since our government persists in it’s belief that it must borrow to finance a deficit (an unnecessary self-imposed constraint) and since many politicians, including those Republicans, think it’s a good thing to reduce the deficit (opinion I do not share), then we should.  As I observed with the post on the do-nothing plan, letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire and letting the existing law take force in January 2013 to raise the top tax bracket to 39%, which it was during the Clinton low unemployment years is a good plan. Let’s see what happens when if we allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and let the top rate go back to the 90’s era 39% vs. keeping the present 35% rate.  Again, CBPP obliges.

A strong argument can be made that the top bracket benefits disproportionately from the work of the government.  It’s not the poorest households that have investments in the middle east and around the world that are protected by the U.S. global military presence. It’s the richest. Time to pay the bill.

More on Tax Fairness – We Pretty Much Have Flat Taxes Now

In the last couple of days I’ve posted a couple times on taxes. In one post, I observed how hedge fund managers have radically lower tax rates than the most of us because of a loophole introduced in the Bush-era tax cuts.  Yesterday, I showed  graphically how average income tax rates are actually lower than most people think.  In that last post, I introduced the idea that comparing income tax rates alone isn’t adequate. Since incomes below $106,150 are fully taxed for payroll taxes (Social Security/Medicare) but income over that threshold is payroll tax-free, the gap in average tax burdern between high income and median income is much smaller than most think.  But you may be asking what about other taxes? What about property taxes and sales taxes and state income taxes?

Well it’s a big task to do this analysis, but the folks at  Citizens for Tax Justice  used 2008 data for all federal, state and local taxes combined to do the analysis.  Here’s their analysis (via New York Times – warning paywall):

It found that the average effective tax rate is 29.8 percent, and that including state and local taxes makes the tax curve look much  less steep:

INSERT DESCRIPTION
Source: Citizens for Tax Justice Horizontal axis shows the income group. Vertical axis shows the percentage of income that the average member of that group pays in taxes. Taxes include all federal, state and local taxes (personal and corporate income, payroll, property, sales, excise, estate, etc.). Incomes include cash income, employer-paid FICA taxes and corporate profits net of taxable dividends.

So what do we learn from this?  It shows us that if we look at the overall tax system in the U.S., the complex patchwork system of federal-state-local income taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc., we are pretty close to having a flat tax system.  The poorest, lowest income folks pay 18.7% of income as some type of tax while the the richest 5% do pay more, but they only pay 32.2%.

What is really stunning is how the top 1%, the really-really rich multi-millionaires actually pay less average tax rate than the those who are only rich enough to make the top 5%.  It must really be nice to be so rich that Congress tweaks the tax code just for you.

So the system is very, very mildly progressive.  A progressive tax system is one where the higher your income, the higher your average rate is.  To make a system progressive, you must have higher marginal tax rates for higher income brackets.  A regressive system is one where the effective average tax rate goes down as your income goes up.  In general, sales taxes and payroll taxes are regressive.  That’s why the overall system is relatively flat.  While the federal income tax system is somewhat progressive (although much less so since the Reagan & Bush cuts), that progressivity is offset by a regressive payroll tax and the  regressive sales taxes of various states.

CEO’s Pay Grows, Average Worker Pay Stagnates

The top end of the income distribution has recovered from any ill effects of the Great Recession, but the average worker has not.  CEO’s in particular saw their compensation increase 27% in 2010, while the workers at the corporations these CEO’s “lead” has barely moved.  Wonkroom notes:

Households across the country are still feeling the effects of the Great Recession, with unemployment falling very slowly, while foreclosuresarestillincreasing, along with poverty rates and oil prices. Family wealth is currently down $12.8 trillion from its 2007 peak.

However, one group of Americans is doing very well — corporate CEOs, whose pay is returning to pre-recession levels:

At a time most employees can barely remember their last substantial raise, median CEO pay jumped 27% in 2010 as the executives’ compensation started working its way back to prerecession levels, a USA TODAY analysis of data from GovernanceMetrics International found. Workers in private industry, meanwhile, saw their compensation grow just 2.1%in the 12 months ended December 2010, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Median CEO pay last year was $9 million, the highest since 2007. The median CEO bonuswas $2.2 million. These gains come as income inequality in the U.S. is already the worst its been since 1928. “We have the recipe for controversy over CEO pay: big increases in CEO pay that show up following run-ups in stock prices coupled with high unemployment rates,” said Kevin Murphy, professor of finance at the University of Southern California…

But raising taxes on millionaires is not, in fact, the same as raising taxes on job creators. According to a recent Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, an overwhelming majority of Americans (81 percent) say that adding a surtax on millionaires is an acceptable way to reduce the budget deficit. …

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) recently released a bill that would implement a graduated income tax on millionaires that would raise $78 billion. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making more than $1 million could, in one instant, reduce eight percent of the medium-term budget deficit.

If the goal is truly to reduce or eliminate the deficit (a goal I do not share), then restoring taxes on these millionaires and CEO’s must be part of the agenda.  As noted previously, if we simply do nothing and let the existing laws on the books, especially letting the Bush-era preferential tax treatments for the highest bracket taxpayers expire, we can eliminate the primary deficit.

In the past, prior to the Reagan years, we had high marginal  tax rates for the highest income brackets.   For much of the 1950’s and 1960’s and early 1970’s, the highest marginal tax rates were between 70% and often as high as 91%. (source: Tax Foundation) Now this is marginal rates, the rate paid on income above the specified level, not the average paid on all income. Nobody pays the marginal rate on all their income.  At the time, the top bracket started at $200,000 or $250,000 for a married filing jointly return.  Given inflation, these are brackets that would be comparable to a $1,000,000 or so today.  The nation did not suffer for job creation in the 1950’s and 1960’s.  Yet, once we brought the top tax rates down into the 33-36% range during the Reagan years and ever since, we have suffered from low job formation relative to the 1950’s and 1960’s.  Even if we limit ourselves to just the 30 years since Reagan radically reduced the top marginal tax rates, we see that Clinton, who raised the top rate to 39% in 1993 had the best job creation record.  Clearly, low marginal tax rates on CEO’s and millionaires does not help create jobs. But, it does make the government deficit bigger.  Just a little food for thought as you file your taxes this year.

News Flash: Federal Taxes Have Plummeted

David Cay Johnston reported this a few weeks ago and I almost missed it.  It’s particularly relevant, though, what with official Washington talking about how to cut spending, restrain the deficit, etc. (at least attacking the English language with euphemisms about war in Libya).

Let’s recap what Washington, especially Republicans, have been saying (from Johnston’s article):

Notice these almost identical quotes from the Sunday morning talk shows five days after the midterms:

    We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
— Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
    Washington does not have a revenue problem. It’s got a spending problem.
— House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.
    We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
— House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
    I think it’s not a revenue problem; it’s a spending problem.
— Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

As framed, these advertising lines are matters of opinion, but how many Americans recognize them for what they are — opinions, not facts?

When these people talk about taxes at all, they claim that tax rate cuts actually raise tax revenues and grow the economy.  Unfortunately the facts don’t bare that out.  In fact, tax rate cuts result in lower tax revenues.  In plain terms, tax rate cuts create deficits.  If you add a recessions to the mix, you get even lower tax revenues and bigger deficits because unemployed people don’t pay much tax.

Johnston points out, using officially released data, that we’ve had an excellent test of this assertion that “tax rate cuts grow the economy and create more tax money”.  In 2001, at the beginning of the last decade, the Bush administration pushed through a very large cut in tax rates for both high-income individuals and for corporations.   I’ve already mentioned how this has allowed General Electric to avoid paying taxes despite billions in profits. But that’s just one corporation, albeit a very large one.

How have people overall done?  Are we over-taxed as the TEA Party folks claim?  Have taxes been rising?  The answer is a very clear: NO. Despite real GDP being 17.62% higher in 2010 Q4 than in 2000 Q4., total federal tax revenues are down.  That’s why we have a huge deficit.

Federal tax revenues in 2010 were much smaller than in 2000. Total individual income tax receipts fell 30 percent in real terms. Because the population kept growing, income taxes per capita plummeted.

Individual income taxes came to just $2,900 per capita in 2010, down 36 percent from more than $4,500 in 2000. Total income taxes and income taxes per capita declined even though the economy grew 16 percent overall and 6 percent per capita from 2000 through 2010.

Let me repeat that.  Individual income taxes per person in the U.S. are down 36 percent in 2010 vs. 2000.  Now you may be skeptical.  You may be thinking, I dont’ think my taxes are down.  You may be right.  That might be because you’re in the lower 1/3 or so of income earners who only pay payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare) but don’t pay income taxes.  You can’t pay lower than zero.  The people who pay the bulk of income taxes got the rate cuts.  Did they respond with such increased effort that incomes rose and they still pay more tax dollars at the lower rate (this is what Laffer-curve oriented Republicans claim)?  No. They pay less tax now.

But it wasn’t only high income individuals who benefitted from the generosity of Bush and the Republicans in 2001 (and again by both parties in 2010), corporations also benefitted. In particular, large multi-national firms benefitted. So what happened to the tax revenue they pay?

Corporate income tax receipts fell 27 percent and declined 34 percent per capita, even though profits boomed, rising 60 percent.

Johnston does note that payroll taxes, the taxes that workers pay for Social Security and Medicare did increase during the decade.  But these are taxes paid by all workers on income up to only $106,000.  The same politicians who falsely claim that income tax rate cuts increase revenues are in fact trying to use the deficits created by too-low income tax revenues as an excuse to cut Social Security benefits for those very workers who stepped up to the plate and paid their taxes.

There’s more damning evidence against both the politicians that perpetuate these false ideas that “tax cuts raise revenue” but also against the economists and pundits who repeat it despite the facts.  I urge the interested reader to read the whole article at:

http://tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EL2Y8?OpenDocument

5 Myths about Taxes

Bob Stoker (via TheMonkeyCage ) tries to shed light on the darkness by dispelling 5 myths about taxes.

Myth #1: Federal taxes are higher than they have ever been.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the opposite is true. Budget analysts typically measure the federal tax burden as a proportion of GDP because this accounts for the amount of our economic output that is devoted to paying federal taxes as the economy grows or contracts. Federal taxes from all sources were 14.8% of GDP in 2009 and are projected to be 14.6% of GDP in 2010. See the CBO report, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update,” August 2010, Table 1-2 (pdf).

By comparison, the lowest tax burden during Ronald Reagan’s Presidency was 17.3% of GDP. Under President Bush federal taxes reached their low point at 16.3% of GDP. See the CBO historic budget tables: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Myth #2: People at the top of the income distribution pay more than half of their incomes in federal taxes.

According to the Tax Policy Center, the average federal tax rate in 2009 (including income taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, and corporate taxes) among the top 20% of the income distribution was 22.9%. Among the top 1% of the income distribution, 26.1%; among the top 0.1 of the income distribution, 27.9. The top one tenth of one percent of the income distribution paid an average federal tax rate of less than 28%.

Myth #3: Poor people don’t pay taxes.

It would be more accurate to say working poor families with several children don’t pay federal taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center, the average federal tax burden on the bottom 20% of the income distribution is negative…that means, people in this income range typically get more money back from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes. However, this is a consequence of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit. For most families the most generous benefits are provided by the EITC and you must work to receive this credit. The current value of the credit is $5,657 for families with three or more qualifying children. Although modest EITC benefits are available to childless taxpayers, the credit is much more generous for families with children. When the generous benefits that are provided for working poor families are aggregated with others in the bottom 20% of the income distribution, the overall federal tax rate for this group is negative.

Myth #4: Federal marginal tax rates always go up as income increases.

The marginal tax rate is the rate that is applied to the last dollar of taxable income. Although it is generally true that federal marginal tax rates increase with income (because the personal income tax is progressive), this is not always true. The FICA tax that supports Social Security and Medicare is a significant portion of the federal tax burden for many taxpayers. The part of the FICA tax that supports Social Security (a 6.2% tax on earned income that is paid by employees and employers) has an income cap (currently $106,800). Earned income above that cap is excluded from the tax. Beyond this, at present unearned income is entirely excluded from the FICA tax (though this is scheduled to change for the part of the FICA tax that supports Medicare under provisions of the federal health care reform). Because most calculations of the federal tax burden include both the employer’s and employee’s share, moving earned income just above the cap reduces the federal marginal tax rate by 12.6%. Here is a history of FICA tax rates from the Social Security Administration.

Myth #5: Only affluent people pay federal taxes.

It is true that people in the top 20% of the income distribution provided 67.2% of federal tax revenues in 2009. However, they receive 54.3% of cash income. Despite this however, most American households pay a share of the federal tax burden. Although 47% of households paid no federal income taxes, two-thirds of these households did pay social insurance taxes to support Social Security and Medicare. The “deadbeats” who paid neither tax were mostly elderly people and people with annual incomes below $20,000. See again the analysis of the Tax Policy Center: