One of the worst aspects of the federal tax code is the way it treats saving. Under ordinary circumstances, saving is treated to double taxation at the individual level, reducing after-tax returns to saving and...
- The Tax Policy Blog
- New Paper on Estate Tax Misses the Mark
New Paper on Estate Tax Misses the Mark
A new paper was released this week in the Pepperdine Law Review by Paul Caron (of the excellent TaxProf Blog) and James Repetti called Occupy the Tax Code: Using the Estate Tax to Reduce Inequality. This paper argues that due to the growing wealth inequality in America we can and should use the estate tax to redistribute income. They “think that [the federal wealth transfer tax is reducing inequality] because [it] clearly reduces the amount of wealth transferred by the largest estates to heirs.” They also argue it may not be the case that it reduces savings. However, even ignoring the effects on savings they miss some of the most burdensome costs of the estate tax and overstate the effects the tax may have on inequality.
The biggest costs that they missed are compliance costs. Actually, there is no mention of compliance costs associated with the estate tax at all. As research has shown, the estate tax’s compliance costs associated with the estate planning industry exceeds the revenue of the federal government from the estate tax. All of these resources could be employed elsewhere in the economy. Even worse, this huge compliance cost comes with very little benefit: Only .42 percent of federal revenue in 2012 came from the estate tax. Even more, collecting this revenue may actually be a drain on total revenues, as complete repeal of the estate tax would increase economic growth, thus increasing total revenue through the income tax; a pretty bad deal for the government overall.
As for income inequality, their one piece of evidence that the estate tax does reduce inequality is that in the past decade, the average effective tax rate on gross estates was around 16 percent. This number really doesn’t mean anything besides that those who paid the estate tax on average paid 16 percent of their gross estate to the government. It says nothing about who those people were or how they got their wealth, or whether the money was used to reduce inequality. As we have pointed out previously, studies found that only 2 percent of income inequality was explained though inherited wealth while 27 percent of all wealthy households accumulated wealth through inheritance. In other words, of the small number of people affected by the estate tax, only a fraction of them have inherited their wealth. Rather than reducing inequality, more likely you are just taxing those who have earned their money in the current generation or even small businesses and farms with illiquid assets. The former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Clinton and Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz argued that the estate tax could actually increase inequality. So it is not entirely clear that the estate tax has any effect on inequality.
Taxes should aim to be simple and neutral. The estate tax is neither; it creates a large loss to society through compliance costs and is far from efficient, distorting behavior and creating an entire industry around it. Looking at the economic costs of the estate tax goes far beyond just looking at its effects on savings and how much tax revenues it collects. The costs are a lot worse than those pointed out in this paper and the benefits are not so clear.
Subscribe to the Tax Foundation Newsletter
Join the Tax Foundation's fight for sound tax policy Go
About the Tax Policy Blog
The Tax Policy Blog is the official weblog of the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. Our economists welcome your feedback. If you would like to send an e-mail to the author of a blog post, please click on that person's name to locate his or her e-mail address or visit our staff page here.