Progressive Taxes & Government Spending

Ryan Heshmati

September 27, 2024 (Last Modified September 29, 2024)

The United States federal income tax model hinges upon a progressive tax framework. Depending on the level of income an individual makes, they reach different tax brackets. For single filers, their first earned dollars start taxed at 10% (thanks to the standard deduction, it ends up being 0%), but for dollars at $609,351 and up, the rate is 37%. This system heavily shifts the tax burden for the federal government’s revenues onto top earners. Indeed, according to the Tax Foundation, the top 1% made up 45.8% of the federal income tax revenue in 2021. It is worth exploring why we use a progressive model in this nation and whether it is the right way to collect revenues.

Why the progressive model? Supporters would argue that progressive taxes make sure struggling low-income Americans are not responsible for paying a large share of their already small income in taxes. These proponents, in turn, would assert that high earners have more to give and thus should be expected to do so. In response to criticisms that high earners attain their status through economic value creation (and would consequently deserve to keep more of the rewards), progressive tax defenders could credit the environment the United States government maintains (in terms of infrastructure and enforcement of law to support commerce) as integral to high earners’ livelihoods. Thus, as this reasoning goes, they should pay more in taxes. However, this counterargument would only go so far as to defend a progressive tax model in funding government spending that supports commerce, not other programs (of which there are many) that the federal government budget entails. In other words, as soon as government spending is not tethered to supporting economic activity for high earners, the rebuttal no longer applies.

Regardless of whether it is fair to collect taxes with a progressive model, is it the most efficient means of collecting revenue, or does it hinder economic growth? Critics of the progressive tax model would likely argue that high earners are the most efficient value creators and capital allocators in the economy. Otherwise, they would not be able to achieve a high income in the first place. For instance, a CEO who earns $10 million in a year would presumably be receiving that salary for guiding their company to hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars in profit per quarter. Naturally, these ideal stewards of the economy should be incentivized to keep going, some might claim. Those who disagree would point out that even at the highest tax bracket, the post-tax proceeds from such a substantial income would likely still be a motivator for these individuals ($10 million after. 40% in taxes is still a large chunk of change). Additionally, another critique might be that high earners are not even necessarily more beneficial for society and thus should not be incentivized to generate high incomes at all. Conversely, many would probably recognize that it is often the case that high earners provide specialized value to society, warranting their larger incomes (doctors performing advanced medical procedures or attorneys handling complex litigation).

If the United States were to move away from the progressive tax system, a flat tax would be a likely alternative. Under a flat tax, every dollar in income is taxed at the same rate as the next (a flat rate). Those in favor would point out that high earners would still pay a much larger nominal amount than low-income taxpayers under a flat tax. Ultimately, those who cannot get behind the flat rate would return to one of the core defenses for a progressive tax: higher earners have more to give up in taxes.

With a Congress that can barely agree to fund the government, it is unlikely the progressive tax model will change anytime soon in the United States. Nevertheless, it is important to move beyond political viability and tackle the question of whether the model is really the right way to tax personal income.