Opothleyahola

Part of a series on
Taxation
An aspect of fiscal policy
Policies Government revenue Property tax equalization Tax revenue Non-tax revenue Tax law Tax bracket Flat tax Tax threshold Exemption Credit Deduction Tax shift Tax cut Tax holiday Tax amnesty Tax advantage Tax incentive Tax reform Tax harmonization Tax competition Tax withholding Double taxation Representation Unions Medical savings account
Economics General Theory Price effect Excess burden Tax incidence Laffer curve Optimal tax Theories Optimal capital income taxation Distribution of Tax Tax rate Flat Progressive Regressive Proportional
Collection Revenue service Revenue stamp Tax assessment Taxable income Tax lien Tax refund Tax shield Tax residence Tax preparation Tax investigation Tax shelter Tax collector Private tax collection Tax farming
Noncompliance General Tax avoidance Repatriation tax avoidance Tax evasion Tax resistance Tax shelter Debtors' prison Smuggling Black market Unreported employment Corporate Tax inversion Transfer mispricing Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) Double Irish Dutch Sandwich Single Malt CAIA Locations Tax havens Corporate havens Offshore financial centres (OFCs) Offshore magic circle Conduit and sink OFCs Financial centres Financial Secrecy Index Major examples Ireland as a tax haven Ireland v. Commission Leprechaun economics Liechtenstein tax affair Luxembourg Leaks Offshore Leaks Paradise Papers Panama Papers Swiss Leaks United States as a tax haven Panama as a tax haven
Types Direct Indirect Per unit Ad valorem Aviation Airport improvement Landing Solidarity Capital gains Expatriation Consumption Departure Hotel Sales Stamp Television Tourist Value-added Dividend Environmental tax Carbon Landfill Natural resources consumption Severance Steering Stumpage Excise Alcohol Cigarette Fat Meat Sin Sugary drink Tobacco General Georgist Gift Gross receipts Hypothecated Income Inheritance (estate) Land value Luxury Payroll Pigouvian Property Single Surtax Turnover Use User charge/fee Congestion Fuel Road/GNSS Toll Vehicle miles traveled Corporate profit Excess profits Windfall Negative (income) Wealth
International Financial transaction tax Currency transaction tax European Union Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) Global minimum corporate tax rate Tobin tax Spahn tax Tax equalization Tax treaty Exchange of Information Permanent establishment Transfer pricing European Union FTT Foreign revenue rule
Trade Custom Duty Tariff Import Export Tariff war Free trade Free-trade zone Trade agreement ATA Carnet
Research Academic Mihir A. Desai Dhammika Dharmapala James R. Hines Jr. Ronen Palan Joel Slemrod Gabriel Zucman Advocacy groups Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) Oxfam (UK) Tax Foundation (US) Tax Justice Network (TJN) Tax Policy Center (US)
Religious Church tax Eight per thousand Teind Tithe Fiscus Judaicus Leibzoll Temple tax Tolerance tax Jizya Kharaj Khums Nisab Zakat
By country All Countries List of countries by tax rates Tax revenue to GDP ratio Tax rates in Europe Individual Countries Albania Algeria Argentina Armenia Australia Azerbaijan Bangladesh Bhutan Brazil Bulgaria BVI Canada China Colombia Croatia Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Iceland India Indonesia Iran Ireland Israel Italy Japan Kazakhstan Lithuania Malta Morocco Namibia Netherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Palestine Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Russia South Africa Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Tanzania United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay
Business portal  Money portal

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} "Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.^[6][7]

The regressivity of a particular tax can also factor the propensity of the taxpayers to engage in the taxed activity relative to their resources (the demographics of the tax base). In other words, if the activity being taxed is more likely to be carried out by the poor and less likely to be carried out by the rich, the tax may be considered regressive.^[8] To measure the effect, the income elasticity of the good being taxed as well as the income effect on consumption must be considered. The measure can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime.

The opposite of a regressive tax is a progressive tax, in which the average tax rate increases as the amount subject to taxation rises.^{[9][10][11][12]} In between is a flat or proportional tax, where the tax rate is fixed as the amount subject to taxation increases.

Examples

• Poll taxes is a tax levied on individuals as a condition for voting. It is typically a fixed amount per person, regardless of their income or assets.^[13].
• Lump-sum tax is a fixed tax imposed on individuals or businesses. It doesn’t vary based on income or wealth. This means that all taxpayers are required to pay the same fixed amount, regardless of their financial status.^[14]
• A tax with a cap, above which no taxes are paid, such as the American Social Security Tax, which does not apply to wages over an annual limit.^[15]
• So-called "sin taxes" (pigovian taxes) levies imposed on goods and activities deemed harmful to individuals or society (most common examples are tobacco, alcohol or gambling). Regressivity in sin taxes stems from their disproportionate impact on lower-income households, who tend to allocate a larger share of their income to sin goods compared to wealthier individuals ^[16]. Such taxes are often imposed at a flat rate so they will make up a greater proportion of the final price of cheaper brands, compared to the higher-quality products generally consumed by the wealthy. For example, "people in the bottom income quintile spend a 78% larger share of their income on alcohol taxes than people in the top quintile."^[8] Tobacco in particular is highly regressive, with the bottom quintile of income paying an effective rate 583% higher than that of the top quintile.^{[8][where?][dead link]} Other example is the fact that just 10% of households account for 80% of sin tax revenue in the USA.^[17]
• An allowance reduction^[18] in an income tax system allows for an individual's personal allowance to be withdrawn, making a higher marginal tax for a limited band before returning to the underlying rate. In the UK, there is^[when?] an effective 60% band at £100,000, which returns to 40% at £120,000.^[19]
• Non-uniform excise taxation based on everyday essentials like food (fat tax, salt tax), transport (fuel tax, fare hikes for public transport, mobility pricing), energy (carbon tax) and housing (council tax, window tax) is frequently regressive on income. The income elasticity of demand of food, for example, is usually less than 1 (inelastic) (see Engel's law) and therefore as a household's income rises, the tax collected on the food remains almost the same. Therefore, as a proportion of available expenditure, the relative tax burden falls more heavily on households with lower incomes. Some governments offer rebates to households with lower incomes, ostensibly in an effort to mitigate the regressive nature of these taxes.
  • A related concept exists where production and importation of essential goods are strictly controlled, such as milk, eggs, cheese and poultry under Canada's supply management system,^[when?] the result being that the products will sell for a higher price than they would under a free market system. The difference in price is often criticized for being a "regressive tax" even though such products are generally not taxed directly.
• Payroll taxes, such as FICA and Unemployment Insurance in the United States, and consumption taxes such as value-added tax and sales taxes are regressive in that they both raise prices of purchased goods.^[20] Lower-income earners save and invest less money, so pay a larger proportion of their income toward these taxes, directly for sales tax and as the price increase required to make revenue covering payrolls for payroll taxes.
• Property tax in regard to automobiles, better known as the "car tax" in some jurisdictions.
• Lotteries have been described as a disguised regressive tax.^[21]

Measurement

One common way to measure tax progressivity is by looking at the percentage change in after-tax income. This method assumes that a household’s economic wellbeing, or welfare, is closely linked to its after-tax income. Therefore, a tax cut that increases everyone’s after-tax income by the same percentage leaves the relative distribution of after-tax income unchanged. If a tax cut increases after-tax income proportionately more for lower-income taxpayers than for higher-income taxpayers, it will make the tax system more progressive (or less regressive). Conversely, a tax cut that increases after-tax income proportionately more for higher-income taxpayers than for lower-income taxpayers will make the tax system less progressive (or more regressive).^{[22][23][24][25]}

However, this method has its limitations. For instance, it does not take into account the fact that the burden of paying a certain amount of tax is much greater on a household with a lower income than it is on a household with a higher income. Therefore, some analysts believe that other measures, such as the share of the tax cut received, and the size of the tax cut in both absolute dollars and as a percentage of initial tax liability, are more accurate representations of the distribution of tax burdens.

Another approach to measuring tax progressivity is by looking at the redistributive effect of taxes and transfers. This method involves measuring the difference in the Gini coefficient of incomes before and after taxes and transfers. The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality, with 0 representing perfect equality and 1 representing perfect inequality. Therefore, a decrease in the Gini coefficient after taxes and transfers would indicate that the tax system is progressive.

In low-income countries, a detailed analysis of progressivity requires a welfare ranking of individuals or households, and for tax liabilities of each individual or household to be ascertained. This method takes into account the broader concept of redistribution, which includes not only taxes but also transfers and other forms of government intervention.^[26]

Political ideolgies and taxation policy

Political ideologies significantly influence tax policies, shaping the distribution of wealth and resources within a society. Neoliberalism, characterized by its emphasis on free markets, limited government intervention, and individual responsibility, has had a profound impact on tax systems worldwide. Neoliberal tax policies typically prioritize reducing taxes for the wealthy and corporations under the belief that such measures stimulate economic growth and investment. This approach often results in regressive tax structures, where the burden falls disproportionately on lower-income individuals and households.

In contrast to neoliberalism, social democratic ideologies advocate for progressive taxation as a means of redistributing wealth and funding social welfare programs. Progressive taxation entails higher tax rates for those with higher incomes, with the aim of mitigating inequality and providing resources for public goods and services. Social democratic countries often prioritize universal access to healthcare, education, and social security, funded through progressive taxation and robust public investment.

Implementations

Examining real-world examples of regressive taxation offers valuable insights into its impact on different societies and the efficacy of various policy responses. In 2005, the Swiss canton of Obwalden implemented a regressive taxation system. It was struck down by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland in 2007, because it ran counter to the Swiss Federal Constitution.^[27]

Regressive taxes are implemented in the United States primarily through sales taxes, excise taxes, and payroll taxes.^[28] Sales taxes are imposed by state and local governments on goods and services, impacting lower-income individuals more as they spend a larger portion of their income on necessities subject to these taxes. Excise taxes, such as those on gasoline, tobacco, and alcohol, also tend to affect lower-income households disproportionately because they consume a higher percentage of their income on these taxed items. Additionally, the Social Security payroll tax is regressive up to a certain income threshold, as it applies to all workers but only taxes a portion of their earnings, exempting higher-income earners beyond that threshold. These regressive tax mechanisms exacerbates inequality since lower-income individuals are paying a larger share of their income in taxes compared to higher-income individuals.Tax cuts for the wealthy under the Trump administration further tilted the scales in favor of the rich, contributing to income inequality concerns in the U.S.

Brazil uses regressive tax system. Those who earn up to twice the minimum wage spend 48.8% of their income ton taxes, while the families with income higher than 30 times the minimum wage pay only 26.3% of their income on taxes.^[29] In Brazil is huge gap between the poor and the rich. Regressive taxation only widens this gap. This is the reason why the inequality in Brazil is high as it is.^[30]

Arguments for regressive taxation

• Funding public goods: Regressive taxes can be an effective way to fund public goods and services. A sales tax can help fund public infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
• Healthier society: Sin taxes promote healthy behavior. The taxes can be used to discourage unhealthy behaviors. They can help reduce consumption of harmful products (cigarretes, alcohol or soda to name a few). Studies show that increased price is very effective way of incentiving smokers to quit smoking.^[31]
• Economic growth: Some economists argue that that lowering taxes on high-income earners encourages entrepreneurship, investment, and job creation, thereby benefiting the overall economy, this can potentially stimulate economic activity.^[32]
• Simplicity: Regressive tax system is easier to administer and enforce than a progressive one. This is because a regressive tax system has a flat tax rate for all income levels, requiring fewer resources to implement and enforce.
• Efficiency: Regressive taxes are non-distortionary. They do not discourage people from working or investing, unlike progressive income taxes.^[33]
• Balancing other taxes: Regressive taxes can help balance the tax system, since some parts of it are highly progressive (for example income tax). Thus introducing regressive taxes can help reduce the overall progressivity of the tax system.

Arguments against regressive taxation

• Economic inequality: This is arguably the main argument against regressive taxes. At the indivdual level, regressive taxes disproportionately burden low-income households, consuming a larger share of their disposable income. This can perpetuate cycles of poverty and hinder upward mobility, as struggling families are forced to allocate more resources towards basic necessities rather than savings or investments.
• Increased financial stress: Regressive taxes can lead to increased financial stress for low-income individuals and families. If a large portion of an individual’s income goes towards paying taxes, they may struggle to afford basic necessities such as food, housing, and healthcare.
• Decreased productivity of workers: Heavily taxed individuals may be discouraged to work hard or they may choose to work less (or to not work at all).^[34][35]
• Less consumer spending: People would spend less money because of higher tax burden. Lower purchasing power of consumers may lead to a failure of some businesses.^[36]

See also

• Lump-sum tax
• Progressive tax
• Proportional tax
• Tax incidence
• Laffer curve
• Suits index
• Ghetto tax
• Progressivity in United States income tax

Notes

External links