Who benefits from tax preferences? You do.

Just about everyone benefits from tax preferences, Gleckman writes, a conclusion reaffirmed by a new Congressional Budget Office report on the distribution of tax expenditures.

Ann Hermes/The Christian Science Monitor/File
Posters hang in the halls of the Internal Revenue Service building in Washington. The bottom line when it comes to tax preferences, Gleckman writes, is that everybody wins.

The Congressional Budget Office report on the distribution of tax expenditures is getting lots of buzz, nearly all of it positive. This is a gratifying and somewhat surprising outcome. The paper confirms many of the findings of my Tax Policy Center colleagues who have done similar analyses in recent years.

The basic story is pretty simple: Just about everyone benefits from these tax preferences (which, for the most part, look like government spending). The highest income households get the biggest share of these tax breaks. But when looked at through a somewhat different lens—how much these subsidies increase after-tax income–the lowest income households are the big winners. And middle-income households do pretty well too.

But to me the most interesting results are in the details. Who benefits from which preferences? Or, to put it another way, who would lose if Congress trimmed or even eliminated some of these provisions as part of a broad-based tax reform.

And make no mistake, CBO was looking at the big commonly used tax preferences that politicians often dismiss as loopholes or special interest tax breaks. When pols talk about cutting rates by getting rid of loopholes, this is what they are talking about. 

Note that CBO is looking at a broader universe of tax preferences than the Congressional Research Service did recently. CRS looked only at a handful of big deductions—such as mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable giving. CBO cast a much wider net that captures exclusions from taxable income for employer sponsored health insurance, Social Security benefits, and pension contributions and earnings; low-income refundable credits; and preferential rates on capital gains and dividends.

It is probably no surprise that the biggest beneficiaries of the Earned Income Credit and the Child Tax Credit are low-income households. That was the intent, and indeed, 80 Percent of the EITC and 51 percent of the CTC go to the lowest-income 40 percent.

Similarly, you won’t be shocked to read that preferential rates on investment income overwhelmingly benefit the highest income households.  Many analysts argue that these low rates are not subsidies in the same way most deductions and credits are, but they still show up in the list of tax expenditures.

Ninety-three percent of the benefit goes to the highest income 20 percent, and 68 percent goes to the top 1 percent. The low rates on gains and dividends represent 5.3 percent of the 1 percent’s after-tax income.

The story is very different for the exclusions. For the most part, the big winners are not the rich or the poor, but the middle-class. For instance, households in the fourth quintile (by CBO’s reckoning, two-person households making between $77,900 and $115,100) get about 26 percent of the benefit of the exclusion for health insurance, equal to 3.1 percent of their after-tax income. That group also gets about one-third of the benefit of the partial exclusion for Social Security benefits.

Bottom line: When it comes to tax preferences, Pogo was right. “We have me the enemy and he is us.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.