Donald Nichols

In a regressive tax system, lower-income taxpayers pay larger percentages of their incomes in taxes compared to higher-income taxpayers. Although most policymakers and citizens view regressive taxation as generally unfair and unethical, the U.S. tax system taxes wage, salary, and self-employment income in a manner that deliberately subjects lower-income taxpayers to marginal tax rates that are greater than those imposed on higher-income taxpayers. As a result, some lower-income taxpayers pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than higher-income taxpayers. In this essay, we argue that this regressiveness in the taxation of salaried income is unfair and unethical. We then evaluate President Obama’s social security plan, which would retain most of the current tax system’s regressive structure. Finally, we offer two simple alternative proposals that are non-regressive, and thus more fair and ethical approaches to the taxation of salaried income.

Current U.S. income tax laws allow many taxpayers to exclude from taxable income part or all of the cost of acquiring health insurance through an employer‐sponsored benefit plan. This favorable tax treatment generally applies regardless of whether the employer or employee actually pays the health insurance premiums. We describe the effects of this tax policy on the U.S. tax system's horizontal and vertical equity. We also explain how taxpayers covered by employer‐sponsored plans are significantly subsidized by the government in acquiring health insurance, whereas taxpayers who acquire health insurance by other means or who are not covered by health insurance at all receive no such government assistance. We conclude that any prospective health‐care policy initiatives, including modifications to the 2010 health‐care reforms, should contemplate both the horizontal and vertical equity of the tax treatment of health insurance premiums.