Report | Budget Taxes and Public Investment

A perfect match: Coupling tax fairness with job creation for a stronger economy

Issue Brief #329

 Download PDF
 Press release

Share this page:

The tax code has been fundamentally changed in the last few decades in ways favoring wealthy and high-income households (Pollack and Thiess 2011). The top marginal tax rate has fallen from 70 percent during the 1970s to 50 percent through most of the 1980s to 35 percent for the past decade. The tax rate on capital gains—income created from wealth rather than work—has fallen from 40 percent in the late 1970s to just 15 percent today. These preferential rates on unearned income undermine the principle of tax fairness that effective tax rates should rise with income, allowing Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney, for example, to pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than many middle-class households pay (Pollack 2012). Tax reform that closes tax breaks for and raises rates on high-income individuals is good policy because it shifts the distribution of taxes back toward those best able to shoulder the burden.

But that’s not the only benefit these tax policies would provide. They would also raise revenue, and at a time when the economy remains weak we can use this revenue to create jobs.

Over the past two years, Congress has largely ignored or paid scant attention to job creation and has instead directed its rhetoric, if not its actions, toward the budget deficit. This debate is more than just a distraction, it is also counterproductive: The economic policies we need to alleviate the ongoing jobs crisis—increased social safety net benefits, low-income tax credits, infrastructure investment, aid to states, etc.—generally result in higher deficits, at least in the short run. This is, in fact, exactly what we should do: Invest more in job creation, and finance the cost through additional borrowing.

But a misplaced opposition to higher near-term deficits need not preclude effective job creation policies, because Congress could simply use tax fairness reforms to pay for job creation policies. This combination has a number of virtues. First, tax increases on high-income households create very little drag on near-term economic growth. Because these households save a high share of each marginal dollar they receive, a high-income individual facing a tax increase will reduce his or her consumption in response, but by less than a lower- or middle-income earner facing the same tax increase. Second, by pairing job creation policies—which are temporary—with permanent tax changes, deficits would be reduced substantially over the medium and long term (which is what really matters). And finally, moving back toward full employment and increasing taxes on higher-income earners both push against the income inequality trends of the last few decades. (High unemployment also hurts employed lower- and middle-income workers because slack in the labor market reduces their ability to negotiate the real wage increases needed to keep inequality from growing.)

Progressive taxes to raise revenue

The Congressional Progressive Caucus’s Budget for All—which the EPI Policy Center helped develop and analyze—includes a number of tax policies that raise revenue while having only a minimal impact on the economy in the near term (Fieldhouse and Thiess 2012). This analysis examines the impact of four such policies that could be implemented in a way to promote job creation.

Cap the value of deductions at 28 percent: Itemized deductions and other tax expenditures that reduce taxable income are regressive because their value—which is equal to a filer’s marginal tax rate—rises with income. By capping the value of deductions at 28 percent, taxpayers with over $200,000 of income will still be able to take all the itemized deductions they want, but the value of their deductions will be no greater than the value enjoyed by middle-class taxpayers. This policy change would generate $333 billion in revenue over the next decade (see Table 1).

Table 1 Table 1 (continued)

Job impact of implementing various tax policies and spending the revenue on infrastructure (revenue in billions of dollars)

2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017* 2013–2017 2013–2022
1. Cap deductions at 28%
Revenue $20 $25 $28 $30 $33 $136 $333
Job impact 163,720 195,686 201,746 207,810 213,815
2. Fairness in taxation/equalization
Revenue $78 $121 $133 $142 $151 $624 $1,511
Job impact 631,952 933,968 966,194 973,245 980,619
3. Obama international corporate tax package
Revenue $7 $15 $16 $17 $18 $73 $168
Job impact 58,258 120,907 124,483 123,135 121,734
4. Financial transactions tax
Revenue $55 $76 $79 $82 $86 $378 $849
Job impact 433,649 577,157 566,267 555,572 546,717
 Total job impact 1,287,579 1,827,718 1,858,690 1,859,762 1,862,885

*Assuming economy remains below full employment

Source: Author’s analysis of data from Citizens for Tax Justice (2008), the Budget for All (Fieldhouse and Thiess 2012), and Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012)

Raise tax rates on high earners: Not only has the top income tax rate been cut in half over the last 30 years, but also our tax system does a poor job of differentiating between high-income and really high-income individuals. All income above $380,000 is taxed at the same marginal rate, whereas the cutoff for the top marginal tax rate was roughly $3 million in the 1950s and $1 million in the 1970s (adjusted to current dollars). The policy proposed by the CPC incorporates President Obama’s proposal to allow the top two brackets to revert to their Clinton-era levels as well as Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s (D-Ill.) Fairness in Taxation Act (FTA), which would adopt five additional brackets, ranging from 45 percent for taxable incomes above $1 million to 49 percent for incomes above $1 billion. The FTA would also eliminate the preferential tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Overall, these proposals would generate roughly $1.5 trillion in revenue over the next decade.

Close corporate loopholes: The corporate income tax code contains tax loopholes and preferences that result in low revenues relative to historical levels, opportunities for tax evasion, and perverse incentives for overleveraging, offshoring, and using fossil fuels. Citizens for Tax Justice looked at 280 Fortune 500 corporations with combined pretax profits of $160 billion and found that 26 of them paid no income taxes in any of the last four years (Citizens for Tax Justice 2012). Adopting the reforms to the U.S. international tax system proposed in President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget—reforms that largely target international corporate tax avoidance—would raise $168 billion over the next decade.

Adopt financial transactions tax (FTT): The general purpose of the financial sector in the economy is to allocate capital and risk in a way that allows individuals and businesses to grow and prosper. In this way, the financial sector is only an intermediary, a sector that facilitates the growth of the rest of the economy but does not produce growth itself. Over the last 30 years, the financial sector has grown from 3.8 percent to 7.6 percent of the economy, yet this growth does not seem to have provided any commensurate benefits to the overall economy—if anything, the economy has underperformed during these 30 years compared with the three decades prior (Mishel and Bivens 2011). These trends suggest that much of the financial sector’s recent growth produces profits for itself without adding actual value to the economy or society. By levying a small tax on the sales of financial products, large sums of revenue can be raised in a progressive manner while dampening volatility and without distorting productive economic activity. The Congressional Progressive Caucus’s version of the FTT would raise $849 billion over the next decade.

Jobs impact of investing the new revenue

The potential jobs impact of moving toward a fairer and more progressive tax system, as described above, and dedicating the near-term proceeds to infrastructure investment or another form of economic stimulus with a similar economic impact is substantial.

Using standard macroeconomic modeling consistent with private- and public-sector projections, we estimate that fiscal support financed with these progressive tax provisions would boost employment by nearly 1.3 million jobs in 2013 and by over 1.8 million jobs in each year during 2014–2017. Table 1 summarizes the jobs impact for each year through 2017, and Tables 2–5 detail the state-by-state job impacts.

Table 2 Table 2 (continued)

Capping deductions for high-income taxpayers and spending on infrastructure, job impact by state

2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017*
Total 163,720 195,686 201,746 207,810 213,815
Alabama 2,654 3,173 3,271 3,369 3,467
Alaska 431 515 531 547 563
Arizona 2,886 3,450 3,556 3,663 3,769
Arkansas 1,647 1,969 2,030 2,091 2,151
California 13,932 16,652 17,168 17,684 18,195
Colorado 2,778 3,320 3,423 3,526 3,628
Connecticut 1,485 1,774 1,829 1,884 1,939
Delaware 547 654 674 694 714
District of Columbia 1,038 1,241 1,279 1,318 1,356
Florida 8,534 10,200 10,516 10,832 11,145
Georgia 5,016 5,995 6,181 6,367 6,551
Hawaii 777 929 957 986 1,015
Idaho 834 997 1,028 1,059 1,090
Illinois 6,893 8,239 8,494 8,749 9,002
Indiana 4,047 4,837 4,987 5,137 5,285
Iowa 2,184 2,611 2,692 2,773 2,853
Kansas 1,836 2,195 2,263 2,331 2,398
Kentucky 2,586 3,091 3,187 3,283 3,378
Louisiana 2,710 3,239 3,340 3,440 3,539
Maine 838 1,002 1,033 1,064 1,094
Maryland 2,739 3,274 3,375 3,477 3,577
Massachusetts 3,579 4,278 4,410 4,543 4,674
Michigan 5,218 6,237 6,431 6,624 6,815
Minnesota 3,391 4,053 4,178 4,304 4,428
Mississippi 1,555 1,858 1,916 1,974 2,031
Missouri 3,693 4,414 4,550 4,687 4,822
Montana 614 734 757 780 802
Nebraska 1,360 1,625 1,675 1,726 1,776
Nevada 1,376 1,644 1,695 1,746 1,796
New Hampshire 770 921 949 978 1,006
New Jersey 3,655 4,368 4,503 4,639 4,773
New Mexico 1,131 1,352 1,394 1,436 1,477
New York 10,067 12,033 12,406 12,778 13,148
North Carolina 5,286 6,318 6,513 6,709 6,903
North Dakota 610 729 752 774 797
Ohio 7,125 8,517 8,780 9,044 9,306
Oklahoma 2,227 2,662 2,745 2,827 2,909
Oregon 2,190 2,618 2,699 2,780 2,860
Pennsylvania 7,584 9,065 9,345 9,626 9,904
Rhode Island 591 707 729 751 772
South Carolina 2,587 3,092 3,188 3,283 3,378
South Dakota 604 722 744 767 789
Tennessee 3,699 4,421 4,558 4,695 4,830
Texas 13,293 15,888 16,380 16,872 17,360
Utah 1,682 2,010 2,072 2,135 2,196
Vermont 405 484 499 514 529
Virginia 4,234 5,060 5,217 5,374 5,529
Washington 3,448 4,121 4,249 4,377 4,503
West Virginia 1,127 1,348 1,389 1,431 1,472
Wisconsin 3,834 4,582 4,724 4,866 5,007
Wyoming 392 469 483 498 512

*Assuming economy remains below full employment

Source: Author’s analysis of data from Citizens for Tax Justice (2008), the Budget for All (Fieldhouse and Thiess 2012), and Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012)

Table 3 Table 3 (continued)

Raising rates on high-income taxpayers and spending on infrastructure, job impact by state

2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017*
Total 631,952 933,968 966,194 973,245 980,619
Alabama 10,246 15,143 15,665 15,779 15,899
Alaska 1,663 2,458 2,543 2,561 2,581
Arizona 11,140 16,464 17,032 17,156 17,286
Arkansas 6,359 9,398 9,722 9,793 9,867
California 53,776 79,476 82,219 82,819 83,446
Colorado 10,723 15,848 16,395 16,514 16,640
Connecticut 5,731 8,469 8,761 8,825 8,892
Delaware 2,111 3,119 3,227 3,251 3,275
District of Columbia 4,008 5,923 6,127 6,172 6,219
Florida 32,939 48,682 50,361 50,729 51,113
Georgia 19,362 28,615 29,602 29,818 30,044
Hawaii 2,999 4,432 4,585 4,618 4,653
Idaho 3,221 4,760 4,925 4,961 4,998
Illinois 26,606 39,321 40,677 40,974 41,285
Indiana 15,622 23,087 23,884 24,058 24,240
Iowa 8,432 12,462 12,892 12,986 13,084
Kansas 7,089 10,476 10,838 10,917 11,000
Kentucky 9,984 14,755 15,264 15,375 15,492
Louisiana 10,461 15,461 15,994 16,111 16,233
Maine 3,235 4,780 4,945 4,981 5,019
Maryland 10,573 15,626 16,165 16,283 16,407
Massachusetts 13,814 20,416 21,121 21,275 21,436
Michigan 20,143 29,770 30,797 31,021 31,256
Minnesota 13,088 19,343 20,010 20,156 20,309
Mississippi 6,002 8,870 9,176 9,243 9,313
Missouri 14,253 21,065 21,792 21,951 22,117
Montana 2,371 3,505 3,626 3,652 3,680
Nebraska 5,248 7,756 8,023 8,082 8,143
Nevada 5,310 7,847 8,118 8,177 8,239
New Hampshire 2,974 4,395 4,546 4,579 4,614
New Jersey 14,106 20,848 21,567 21,725 21,889
New Mexico 4,367 6,453 6,676 6,725 6,776
New York 38,859 57,431 59,412 59,846 60,299
North Carolina 20,403 30,154 31,194 31,422 31,660
North Dakota 2,355 3,480 3,600 3,626 3,654
Ohio 27,504 40,648 42,051 42,358 42,679
Oklahoma 8,598 12,707 13,145 13,241 13,342
Oregon 8,454 12,494 12,925 13,020 13,118
Pennsylvania 29,273 43,263 44,756 45,083 45,424
Rhode Island 2,283 3,374 3,491 3,516 3,543
South Carolina 9,985 14,757 15,266 15,378 15,494
South Dakota 2,331 3,445 3,564 3,590 3,617
Tennessee 14,277 21,099 21,827 21,987 22,153
Texas 51,309 75,829 78,446 79,018 79,617
Utah 6,491 9,594 9,925 9,997 10,073
Vermont 1,563 2,309 2,389 2,407 2,425
Virginia 16,341 24,151 24,984 25,166 25,357
Washington 13,310 19,670 20,349 20,498 20,653
West Virginia 4,352 6,432 6,653 6,702 6,753
Wisconsin 14,799 21,871 22,626 22,791 22,964
Wyoming 1,514 2,238 2,315 2,332 2,349

*Assuming economy remains below full employment

Source: Author’s analysis of data from Citizens for Tax Justice (2008), the Budget for All (Fieldhouse and Thiess 2012), and Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012)

Table 4 Table 4 (continued)

Closing international corporate tax loopholes and spending on infrastructure, job impact by state

2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017*
Total 58,258 120,907 124,483 123,135 121,734
Alabama 924 1,918 1,975 1,954 1,931
Alaska 152 315 325 321 318
Arizona 1,034 2,146 2,209 2,185 2,160
Arkansas 574 1,191 1,226 1,213 1,199
California 5,180 10,751 11,069 10,949 10,825
Colorado 991 2,056 2,117 2,094 2,070
Connecticut 562 1,166 1,200 1,187 1,174
Delaware 193 400 412 408 403
District of Columbia 361 750 772 764 755
Florida 3,070 6,370 6,559 6,488 6,414
Georgia 1,774 3,681 3,790 3,749 3,707
Hawaii 274 569 586 579 573
Idaho 292 606 624 617 610
Illinois 2,463 5,112 5,263 5,206 5,147
Indiana 1,408 2,922 3,009 2,976 2,942
Iowa 756 1,569 1,616 1,598 1,580
Kansas 643 1,334 1,374 1,359 1,343
Kentucky 899 1,865 1,920 1,899 1,877
Louisiana 945 1,960 2,018 1,996 1,974
Maine 292 606 624 617 610
Maryland 1,002 2,079 2,140 2,117 2,093
Massachusetts 1,300 2,697 2,777 2,747 2,715
Michigan 1,838 3,814 3,927 3,884 3,840
Minnesota 1,203 2,497 2,571 2,543 2,514
Mississippi 541 1,123 1,156 1,144 1,131
Missouri 1,290 2,677 2,756 2,726 2,695
Montana 213 443 456 451 446
Nebraska 472 981 1,010 999 987
Nevada 491 1,019 1,050 1,038 1,026
New Hampshire 275 570 587 581 574
New Jersey 1,372 2,846 2,931 2,899 2,866
New Mexico 395 819 843 834 824
New York 3,629 7,531 7,754 7,670 7,582
North Carolina 1,856 3,853 3,967 3,924 3,879
North Dakota 210 435 448 443 438
Ohio 2,487 5,161 5,314 5,256 5,196
Oklahoma 774 1,607 1,655 1,637 1,618
Oregon 769 1,595 1,642 1,625 1,606
Pennsylvania 2,668 5,538 5,701 5,640 5,576
Rhode Island 209 435 447 443 437
South Carolina 902 1,872 1,927 1,906 1,884
South Dakota 209 433 446 441 436
Tennessee 1,292 2,682 2,761 2,731 2,700
Texas 4,722 9,799 10,089 9,979 9,866
Utah 588 1,219 1,255 1,242 1,228
Vermont 142 295 304 300 297
Virginia 1,528 3,172 3,266 3,231 3,194
Washington 1,231 2,555 2,631 2,602 2,573
West Virginia 390 809 832 823 814
Wisconsin 1,338 2,777 2,860 2,829 2,796
Wyoming 137 285 293 290 287

*Assuming economy remains below full employment

Source: Author’s analysis of data from Citizens for Tax Justice (2008), the Budget for All (Fieldhouse and Thiess 2012), and Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012)

Table 5 Table 5 (continued)

Instituting a financial transactions tax and spending on infrastructure, job impact by state

2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017*
Total 433,649 577,157 566,267 555,572 546,717
Alabama 7,095 9,443 9,265 9,090 8,945
Alaska 1,145 1,525 1,496 1,468 1,444
Arizona 7,622 10,145 9,953 9,765 9,610
Arkansas 4,403 5,860 5,749 5,641 5,551
California 36,193 48,171 47,262 46,369 45,630
Colorado 7,352 9,785 9,600 9,419 9,269
Connecticut 3,826 5,093 4,997 4,902 4,824
Delaware 1,454 1,935 1,898 1,862 1,833
District of Columbia 2,776 3,694 3,625 3,556 3,499
Florida 22,499 29,944 29,379 28,824 28,365
Georgia 13,321 17,730 17,395 17,066 16,794
Hawaii 2,065 2,749 2,697 2,646 2,604
Idaho 2,226 2,962 2,906 2,851 2,806
Illinois 18,224 24,255 23,797 23,348 22,975
Indiana 10,821 14,403 14,131 13,864 13,643
Iowa 5,853 7,790 7,643 7,499 7,379
Kansas 4,898 6,519 6,396 6,275 6,175
Kentucky 6,920 9,210 9,037 8,866 8,725
Louisiana 7,241 9,638 9,456 9,277 9,130
Maine 2,239 2,980 2,924 2,868 2,823
Maryland 7,170 9,542 9,362 9,185 9,039
Massachusetts 9,397 12,506 12,270 12,039 11,847
Michigan 13,883 18,478 18,129 17,787 17,503
Minnesota 8,992 11,968 11,742 11,521 11,337
Mississippi 4,157 5,532 5,428 5,325 5,240
Missouri 9,857 13,119 12,872 12,628 12,427
Montana 1,644 2,187 2,146 2,106 2,072
Nebraska 3,637 4,840 4,749 4,659 4,585
Nevada 3,638 4,842 4,751 4,661 4,587
New Hampshire 2,038 2,713 2,662 2,612 2,570
New Jersey 9,454 12,583 12,345 12,112 11,919
New Mexico 3,022 4,022 3,946 3,871 3,810
New York 26,518 35,294 34,628 33,974 33,433
North Carolina 14,078 18,737 18,384 18,036 17,749
North Dakota 1,639 2,181 2,140 2,100 2,066
Ohio 19,028 25,325 24,847 24,378 23,989
Oklahoma 5,958 7,930 7,780 7,633 7,511
Oregon 5,835 7,766 7,619 7,476 7,356
Pennsylvania 20,184 26,863 26,357 25,859 25,447
Rhode Island 1,570 2,090 2,050 2,012 1,980
South Carolina 6,911 9,198 9,025 8,854 8,713
South Dakota 1,619 2,154 2,114 2,074 2,041
Tennessee 9,873 13,140 12,892 12,649 12,447
Texas 35,235 46,896 46,011 45,142 44,422
Utah 4,489 5,974 5,862 5,751 5,659
Vermont 1,078 1,435 1,408 1,382 1,360
Virginia 11,144 14,831 14,552 14,277 14,049
Washington 9,120 12,138 11,909 11,684 11,498
West Virginia 3,023 4,023 3,948 3,873 3,811
Wisconsin 10,237 13,625 13,368 13,116 12,907
Wyoming 1,046 1,392 1,366 1,340 1,319

*Assuming economy remains below full employment

Source: Author’s analysis of data from Citizens for Tax Justice (2008), the Budget for All (Fieldhouse and Thiess 2012), and Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012)

There would be a bonus impact of this investment policy for deficit reduction. The increase in growth and employment from the revenue-financed job creation measures would diminish the budget deficit as more workers pay taxes and less money is spent on automatic stabilizers (e.g., unemployment compensation and food assistance). Every dollar in increased economic activity is associated with roughly a $0.37 improvement in the budget deficit (Bivens and Edwards 2010).

Conclusion

The best economic policy would be job creation without any offsets, because in the near term a higher deficit is a net benefit to the economy. Perhaps the best illustration of this principle is Britain, which two years ago implemented a massive austerity package—and six months later its recovery stalled out. Over the past six quarters the British economy has not only failed to grow, it has contracted and lost jobs and is now back in recession, the first double-dip recession in roughly four decades.

But while increasing the deficit is preferable, it isn’t necessary. Pairing tax fairness reforms with job creation investment accomplishes two goals: It reduces inequality by ensuring progressivity in the tax code, and it makes everyone better off by creating jobs and expanding economic activity. And the extra revenue in the medium term and long term doesn’t hurt.

Appendix: Methodology for calculating jobs impact

The jobs impact of each policy was calculated by applying a multiplier to the fiscal impact in each year. The multipliers used were: investing in infrastructure investment, 1.44; capping deductions at 28 percent, 0.37; raising upper-income tax rates, 0.37; raising corporate tax revenue, 0.32; and adopting financial transactions tax, 0.39. Each of these multipliers are published by Mark Zandi at Moody’s Economy.com (Zandi 2011), although capping deductions and raising upper-income rates options use an average of two multipliers (0.35 for permanently extending the Bush-era tax cuts and 0.39 for permanently extending temporary capital gains and dividends tax cuts). These estimates assume that the economy has not returned to potential output by 2017, which is consistent with CBO projections (CBO 2012); this assumption implies elevated fiscal multipliers.

The state shares of the tax policy changes were calculated using state data on the distribution of taxpayers who make over $200,000, published by Citizens for Tax Justice (2008). The state shares of the infrastructure investments were calculated using each state’s share of national employment (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012). We did not want to presume a certain state allocation of funds for three reasons: (1) different types of infrastructure would entail different allocations; (2) certain allocations, such as the transportation allocations, are currently being debated and will likely change soon; and (3) for some infrastructure areas, such as school construction, it isn’t clear what formula would be used.

It should be noted that each tax policy is scored against a current policy baseline in which current tax policies—including the Bush tax cuts—are extended. But if all four tax policies are implemented together, there may be interactions that are not captured in this analysis. For example, capping deductions against a baseline of higher marginal rates would bring in much more revenue than against a current policy baseline because, in the former scenario, the value of the deductions would be higher. In this instance, the interaction would cause this analysis to understate the actual aggregate revenue increase—and thus jobs impact—of the proposals.

References

Bivens, Josh, and Kathryn Edwards. 2010. Cheaper Than You Think: Why Smart Efforts to Spur Jobs Cost Less Than Advertised. Economic Policy Institute Policy Memo No. 165. http://www.epi.org/publication/pm165/

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. “State and Metro Area Employment, Hours, and Earnings,” March 30. http://bls.gov/sae/

Citizens for Tax Justice. 2008. “Who’s Rich?” January 16. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/whosrich.pdf

Citizens for Tax Justice. 2012. “Big No-Tax Corps Just Keep on Dodging,” April 9. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/notax2012.pdf

Congressional Budget Office. 2012. The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42905

Congressional Progressive Caucus. 2012. The Budget for All: Budget of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Fiscal Year 2013. http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Executive%20Summary%20FINAL.pdf

Fieldhouse, Andrew, and Rebecca Thiess. 2012. The Budget for All: A Technical Report on the Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget for Fiscal Year 2013. Economic Policy Institute Policy Center Working Paper. http://www.epi.org/publication/wp293-cpc-budget-for-all-2013/

Mishel, Lawrence, and Josh Bivens. 2011. Occupy Wall Streeters Are Right about Skewed Economic Rewards in the United States. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper No. 331. http://www.epi.org/publication/bp331-occupy-wall-street/

Pollack, Ethan. 2012. “Romney May Not Like Government, but He Loves Its Tax Subsidies.” Economic Policy Institute Working Economics [blog], January 19. http://www.epi.org/blog/mitt-romney-loves-tax-subsidies/

Pollack, Ethan, and Rebecca Thiess. 2011. “Taxes on the Wealthy Have Gone Down Dramatically,” Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, April 14. http://www.epi.org/publication/taxes_on_the_wealthy_have_gone_down_dramatically/

Zandi, Mark. 2011. “At Last, the U.S. Begins a Serious Fiscal Debate.” Moody’s Analytics Dismal Scientist, April 14. http://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=198972&src=msnbc


See related work on Budget Taxes and Public Investment

See more work by Ethan Pollack