Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
American tax policy since World War II tells the story of a great pendulum swing. For decades after the war, sky-high tax rates on the wealthy helped create the most equal society in modern American history. Then everything changed.
Starting in the 1980s, a new philosophy took hold: cut taxes on the rich and investment income, and prosperity will trickle down to everyone else. The results speak for themselves. Today, the top 1% of Americans capture nearly 20% of all income, compared to just 9% in the 1960s.
This transformation didn’t happen by accident. It was the product of deliberate policy choices that favored capital over labor, investment income over wages, and the wealthy over the middle class. The story reveals how tax policy became one of the most powerful forces shaping who gets what in America.
The Post-War Tax Revolution
When 91% Was the Top Rate
In 1945, America had something unprecedented: a 91% top tax rate. The number sounds shocking today, but it only applied to income over $200,000 – equivalent to about $3 million now. Even then, only a handful of Americans ever hit that bracket.
This wasn’t just about raising money for the government. The extreme top rates served as what economists call an “income cap.” No CEO wanted to push their salary into the 91% bracket, so executive compensation stayed reasonable. Corporate boards had little incentive to offer sky-high packages when most of the money would go to Uncle Sam.
The system was remarkably comprehensive for its time. The wealthy couldn’t escape through other channels:
Corporate tax rate: 40% on business profits, ensuring companies couldn’t easily shelter income
Capital gains: 25% maximum on investment profits, preventing the wealthy from converting wages into lightly-taxed gains
Estate tax: 77% on wealth over $10 million, blocking the creation of permanent dynasties
But here’s the key insight that’s often missed: very few people actually paid 91%. The typical rich person’s effective tax rate was around 40-50%. The super-high rates worked more like a speed limit than a toll booth – they shaped behavior rather than collected massive revenue.
The real power was psychological and social. In boardrooms across America, executives knew that astronomical pay packages were pointless. This created what economists call a “social norm” against extreme compensation.
The Mass Tax Revolution
World War II changed everything about who paid taxes. Before the war, only 7% of Americans paid federal income tax – it was essentially a “class tax” on the wealthy. By 1944, that jumped to 64% of the population.
This wasn’t accidental. Congress deliberately lowered the income threshold and reduced personal exemptions to pull millions of middle-class families into the tax system. The war’s enormous costs required a broad-based funding mechanism that couldn’t rely solely on the rich.
The transformation was stunning. In 1940, a family of four didn’t pay income tax unless they earned over $2,000 (about $37,000 today). By 1944, that threshold had fallen to just $624 (roughly $9,000 today). Suddenly, factory workers, shop clerks, and teachers were writing checks to the federal government.
The median family earned $2,379 in 1945, and most paid modest but meaningful rates:
- Poorest 20%: 1.7% effective rate
- Second quintile: 6.2%
- Middle class: 8.9%
- Fourth quintile: 10%
- Richest 20%: 20.7%
This expansion created a new political constituency. For the first time, ordinary workers had skin in the game of federal tax policy. Middle-class tax relief became a central issue that would dominate political campaigns for the next eight decades.
The broader tax base also meant the government could fund ambitious projects. The GI Bill, interstate highways, and space program all became possible because millions of Americans were contributing to the federal treasury.
The Great Compression Era
From 1945 to the 1970s, America experienced what economists call “The Great Compression” – an era of historically low and stable inequality. The country built the largest middle class in world history.
The progressive tax system was a key driver. It prevented the rapid re-accumulation of the massive fortunes that had defined the Gilded Age. Research by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez shows the share of income going to the top 1% fell from over 20% in the late 1920s to around 11% by 1945, where it stayed for decades.
This wasn’t just about higher taxes. The entire economic structure supported broad-based prosperity:
Union membership: Nearly 35% of workers belonged to unions, giving them bargaining power for better wages
Corporate culture: CEOs typically earned 20-40 times what their average worker made, compared to 300+ times today
Financial system: Banks focused on traditional lending rather than complex financial engineering
Regulatory environment: Strong antitrust enforcement prevented excessive corporate concentration
The ultra-wealthy “coupon clippers” who had lived off investment income were displaced by the “working rich” – high-earning doctors, lawyers, and executives whose wealth came primarily from their jobs rather than inherited capital.
This period saw the emergence of what historian Jackson Lears called the “managerial elite” – professionals who earned high salaries but were still fundamentally employees rather than capital owners. They lived well but couldn’t accumulate the dynastic fortunes of earlier eras.
How the System Actually Worked
The post-war tax code was far more complex than just high rates. It included numerous provisions that shaped economic behavior:
Income averaging: Allowed taxpayers to spread irregular income over several years, helping entertainers, athletes, and farmers
Investment incentives: Accelerated depreciation for businesses encouraged productive investment rather than financial speculation
Municipal bond exemption: Made state and local government borrowing cheaper, supporting public infrastructure
Pension preferences: Encouraged employers to provide retirement benefits, creating the foundation for middle-class security
The code also included what we’d now call “tax expenditures” – deductions and credits that served policy goals. But these were far more limited than today. The mortgage interest deduction existed but was less valuable because fewer people itemized. There was no state and local tax deduction, child tax credit, or earned income tax credit.
Most importantly, the distinction between ordinary income and capital gains was much smaller. While investment income got some preferential treatment, the gap wasn’t wide enough to make tax planning the central concern of wealthy individuals.
The Keynesian Experiment
The 1964 Tax Cut
By the early 1960s, a new generation of economists led by Walter Heller had a radical idea: cut taxes to grow the economy. President Kennedy embraced this approach, arguing that the economy was underperforming due to excessive tax rates.
The 1964 Revenue Act represented the first deliberate use of tax cuts as macroeconomic stimulus. The theory was elegantly simple: put more money in people’s pockets, and they’ll spend it, creating demand that drives job creation and economic growth.
The cuts were substantial across the board:
- Top rate: Fell from 91% to 70%
- Bottom rate: Dropped from 20% to 14%
- Corporate rate: Reduced from 52% to 48%
- Minimum standard deduction: Created to remove low-income families from the tax rolls entirely
The distributional impact was significant. About 90% of taxpayers got some relief, but the benefits tilted toward higher earners. The top 15% of taxpayers received 40% of the total tax reduction.
The Economic Boom
The results were spectacular, at least in the short term. The economy responded exactly as Heller and his team predicted:
Unemployment: Fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, then to 3.8% in 1966 GDP growth: Accelerated to over 5% annually Consumer spending: Surged as families had more take-home pay Business investment: Rose as companies saw increased demand and lower tax rates
Even government revenues grew after an initial dip. The larger economic base generated more tax revenue despite lower rates, seeming to validate the Keynesian approach.
The success created a new economic orthodoxy. Tax cuts went from being a conservative preference for smaller government to a mainstream tool for economic management. Both parties embraced the idea that lower taxes could solve economic problems.
The Dangerous Precedent
But the 1964 cuts created a dangerous precedent that would haunt tax policy for decades. They legitimized the idea that tax cuts were always good for growth, regardless of economic conditions or existing tax levels.
The Kennedy-Johnson cuts made sense in context. The economy was underperforming, unemployment was relatively high, and tax rates were extremely high by today’s standards. The 91% top rate probably was high enough to discourage economic activity.
However, future politicians would invoke the 1964 success to justify tax cuts in very different circumstances – when the economy was already growing, unemployment was low, and tax rates were much more moderate.
The cuts also shifted the political debate. Instead of asking “what tax level will fund needed government services?”, the question became “how low can we cut taxes to maximize growth?” This reframing would prove enormously influential in later decades.
The Birth of the Alternative Minimum Tax
By 1969, the limitations of the regular tax system had become embarrassingly apparent. Treasury Secretary Joseph W. Barr delivered shocking news to Congress: 155 households with incomes over $200,000 had legally paid zero federal income tax.
The problem was “tax preferences” – deductions, exclusions, and credits designed to encourage specific activities. Wealthy taxpayers, aided by sophisticated accountants, could layer these preferences to completely eliminate their tax liability.
A typical strategy might combine:
- Municipal bond interest: Tax-free income from state and local government bonds
- Oil depletion allowances: Generous write-offs for petroleum investments
- Depreciation: Accelerated write-offs for real estate and equipment
- Capital gains: Converting ordinary income into lightly-taxed investment gains
Congress was flooded with angry mail. Citizens were outraged that millionaires could game the system while middle-class families paid their full share. Some members reported receiving more mail about the 155 non-taxpaying millionaires than about the Vietnam War.
The response was the Alternative Minimum Tax, created by the Tax Reform Act of 1969. This parallel tax system applied a flat rate to a broader definition of income that included many tax preferences.
The AMT was supposed to be a narrow backstop affecting only wealthy tax avoiders. Instead, it became a decades-long nightmare that eventually threatened millions of middle-class families.
The Reagan Revolution
Supply-Side Economics Takes Over
The 1980s brought the most dramatic philosophical shift in tax policy since World War II. Ronald Reagan and his advisors embraced “supply-side economics” – the theory that cutting taxes on the wealthy would unleash so much economic growth that everyone would benefit.
The intellectual godfather was economist Arthur Laffer, famous for his “Laffer Curve” supposedly drawn on a napkin during a 1974 dinner. The curve illustrated a simple but powerful idea: somewhere between 0% and 100% tax rates, there’s an optimal point that maximizes government revenue.
Laffer argued that America was on the “wrong side” of the curve – tax rates were so high that cutting them would actually increase revenue by spurring economic growth. The theory was seductive because it promised something for nothing: lower taxes and higher government revenues.
Supply-siders made three key claims:
- High tax rates discourage work: People would rather not work than give most of their income to the government
- High tax rates discourage saving: Why save money if the government will tax the returns heavily?
- High tax rates discourage investment: Businesses won’t expand if they can’t keep the profits
The solution was to dramatically cut tax rates, especially on high earners and investors. This would unleash entrepreneurial energy, boost productivity, and create broadly shared prosperity.
The 1981 Tax Cut
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was pure supply-side ideology translated into law. It represented the largest tax cut in American history up to that point.
Individual rates: Cut 23% across the board over three years. The top rate dropped from 70% to 50%, while the bottom rate fell from 14% to 11%.
Capital gains: Slashed from 28% to 20%, dramatically reducing taxes on investment income and making it much more attractive than wage income.
Business incentives: Created the Accelerated Cost Recovery System (ACRS), allowing companies to write off investments much faster than actual depreciation.
Retirement accounts: Expanded Individual Retirement Account (IRA) eligibility to all workers, encouraging private saving over Social Security.
Inflation protection: For the first time, tax brackets were indexed to inflation starting in 1985, ending “bracket creep” that had been a hidden tax increase on the middle class.
The inflation indexing was particularly important for middle-class families. Throughout the 1970s, inflation had pushed families into higher tax brackets even when their real purchasing power hadn’t increased. This automatic tax increase had been a major source of middle-class frustration.
The 1986 “Grand Bargain”
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was even more radical than the 1981 cuts, but in a different direction. It represented a bipartisan “grand bargain”: eliminate loopholes and deductions in exchange for dramatically lower rates.
The philosophy was “tax neutrality” – the idea that the tax code shouldn’t pick winners and losers. Economic decisions should be based on merit, not tax considerations.
The changes were revolutionary:
Rate structure: Collapsed the complex 16-bracket system into just two rates: 15% and 28%. This was the flattest tax structure since the 1920s.
Capital gains: Eliminated the preferential treatment that had existed since the 1920s. Investment income would be taxed exactly like wages – a historic progressive victory.
Corporate rate: Cut from 46% to 34%, making American companies more competitive internationally.
Base broadening: Repealed the investment tax credit, limited depreciation write-offs, and cracked down on tax shelters. The Alternative Minimum Tax was strengthened to catch more avoiders.
Personal exemptions: Increased to remove more low-income families from the tax rolls entirely.
The law was a study in contradictions. It cut rates dramatically while raising taxes on many businesses and wealthy individuals who lost their favorite deductions. It was simultaneously the most progressive and most regressive tax change in decades.
Political Dynamics
The 1986 reform succeeded because it created strange political bedfellows. Liberals loved the base-broadening provisions that closed loopholes used by the wealthy. Conservatives loved the rate cuts that reduced marginal tax rates on work and investment.
The bill was crafted in secret by a small group of legislators and administration officials. They deliberately avoided input from lobbyists and interest groups, knowing that every tax break had powerful defenders.
The process revealed something important about tax policy: comprehensive reform was only possible when done quickly and quietly. Once interest groups mobilized, they could usually preserve their benefits.
The Inequality Explosion
The Reagan tax cuts coincided with a dramatic increase in inequality that continues today. The promise that cuts would “pay for themselves” proved false. Federal deficits soared, and the national debt nearly tripled during the 1980s.
More importantly, the income share of the top 1% began its steep climb precisely when the tax cuts took effect. Congressional Budget Office analysis found that while the wealthy paid a larger share of total taxes, this was only because their pre-tax incomes grew 42% compared to 25% for everyone else.
The tax system became significantly less progressive. The caps on extreme wealth accumulation that had defined the post-war era were removed. Several factors contributed to rising inequality:
Executive compensation: With top tax rates much lower, corporate boards had new incentives to offer enormous pay packages to CEOs
Financial innovation: Lower capital gains taxes encouraged the growth of private equity, hedge funds, and other investment strategies
Globalization: Reduced taxes on capital made it easier for companies to move operations overseas
Technology: Computer systems allowed for more sophisticated tax planning and financial engineering
The changes unleashed forces of income concentration that had been held in check for nearly four decades by the post-war tax structure.
| Tax Reform Comparison | 1981 Act | 1986 Act |
|---|---|---|
| Top Individual Rate | 50% (from 70%) | 28% (from 50%) |
| Bottom Individual Rate | 11% (from 14%) | 15% (from 11%) |
| Number of Brackets | 15 (phased to 14) | 2 (plus phase-out) |
| Top Corporate Rate | 46% (unchanged) | 34% (from 46%) |
| Capital Gains Rate | 20% (from 28%) | 28% (from 20%) |
| Main Philosophy | Supply-side rate cutting | Tax neutrality |
The Clinton and Bush Years
Clinton’s Course Correction
The massive deficits of the 1980s – reaching 6% of GDP by 1983 – forced a political reckoning. Voters elected Bill Clinton in 1992 partly on his promise to reduce the deficit through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy.
President Clinton’s 1993 budget deal was one of the most politically courageous acts in modern tax policy. It raised taxes during a recession, focusing the increases squarely on high earners:
New tax brackets: Created 36% and 39.6% rates for high-income households, partially reversing the Reagan cuts
Medicare tax: Removed the cap on wages subject to Medicare payroll tax, creating an unlimited 2.9% tax on all wage income
Corporate rate: Raised from 34% to 35%
Gasoline tax: Increased by 4.3 cents per gallon to fund deficit reduction
Republicans unanimously opposed the plan, predicting economic disaster. Vice President Al Gore had to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.
The results confounded critics. The economy boomed throughout the 1990s, unemployment fell to historic lows, and the deficit turned into a surplus by 1998. The combination of higher taxes on the wealthy and strong economic growth proved that progressive taxation was compatible with prosperity.
The Rise of Tax Credits
This period also saw the creation of targeted tax credits designed to help specific groups:
Child Tax Credit: Created by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, starting as a $500 non-refundable credit for families with children. It marked a growing trend toward using the tax code for social policy rather than just revenue collection.
Earned Income Tax Credit expansion: Already created in 1975, the EITC was dramatically expanded during the 1990s to provide wage subsidies for low-income working families.
Education credits: New tax breaks for college tuition and student loan interest, reflecting the growing importance of higher education.
These credits represented a new approach to social policy. Instead of direct government spending, benefits were delivered through the tax system. This made them more politically palatable to conservatives while providing real help to working families.
The Bush Tax Cuts: A New Philosophy
By 2001, the fiscal landscape had changed dramatically. The federal government was running large budget surpluses, projected to total $5.6 trillion over the next decade. President Bush argued for returning that money to taxpayers while providing economic stimulus after the dot-com crash and September 11th attacks.
The result was two major laws: the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. These laws, collectively known as the “Bush tax cuts,” represented a return to supply-side economics after the Clinton interlude.
Individual rates: All tax rates were reduced, with the top rate falling from 39.6% to 35%. A new 10% bracket was created for low earners.
Capital gains and dividends: Both were slashed to 15%, creating a massive gap between tax rates on wages (35%) and investment income (15%).
Estate tax: Put on a gradual path to extinction, with the exemption rising and the rate falling until the tax was fully repealed for one year in 2010.
Child Tax Credit: Doubled from $500 to $1,000 and made partially refundable, extending benefits to low-income families for the first time.
Marriage penalty relief: Reduced the tax disadvantage some two-earner couples faced compared to single filers.
Alternative Minimum Tax: Temporary patches prevented millions of middle-class families from being hit by the AMT.
The Two-Tiered Tax System
The most consequential change was the creation of a formal two-tiered system where investment income was taxed at less than half the rate of wages. This wasn’t just a modest preference for capital – it was a fundamental restructuring that divided the economy into two classes of income.
For wealthy taxpayers, this created powerful incentives to convert wages into capital gains. Business owners could take minimal salaries and receive most of their compensation through stock appreciation. Private equity managers could treat their fees as capital gains rather than ordinary income. Hedge fund managers could defer taxes for years by reinvesting profits.
The middle class, who earned almost all their income from wages, got no such benefits. A teacher earning $50,000 faced a higher marginal tax rate than a billionaire selling stock.
This disparity had profound economic effects:
Asset bubbles: Lower taxes on capital gains encouraged speculation in real estate and financial markets
Corporate behavior: Companies focused more on boosting stock prices than investing in productive capacity
Inequality: The wealthy could accumulate capital much faster when investment returns were lightly taxed
Tax Policy Center analysis found the cuts raised after-tax incomes by 6.7% for the top 1%, but only 2.8% for the middle class and 1.0% for the bottom quintile.
The Sunset Strategy
To pass the cuts with a simple majority and comply with Senate budget rules, Republicans employed a clever but dangerous tactic: they made almost all provisions automatically expire after 10 years.
This “sunset” strategy fundamentally changed tax politics. Instead of asking “should we cut taxes?”, future debates would be framed as “should we raise taxes on everyone?” This made the cuts much harder to reverse politically.
The strategy also shifted the burden of proof. Tax cut opponents had to actively vote for tax increases rather than simply blocking new cuts. This was much more politically difficult, especially for middle-class tax provisions.
As 2010 approached, the expiration created the political dynamic known as the “fiscal cliff.” Virtually every American faced automatic tax increases unless Congress acted. This gave tremendous leverage to tax cut supporters.
Economic Performance
The Bush-era tax cuts were sold as essential for economic growth, but the results were disappointing. The 2000s saw the slowest job growth since the 1930s, mediocre wage gains, and two major recessions bookending the decade.
The promised investment boom never materialized. Instead, lower capital gains taxes encouraged financial engineering and speculation. The housing bubble was partly fueled by favorable tax treatment of real estate investment.
Studies by the Congressional Budget Office and other nonpartisan groups found little evidence that the cuts boosted long-term growth. They did, however, contribute significantly to the return of large budget deficits and rising inequality.
The Obama Years and Fiscal Cliffs
The Great Recession’s Impact
The 2008 financial crisis dramatically changed the fiscal landscape. Government revenues plummeted as unemployment soared and investment income dried up. Automatic stabilizers like unemployment insurance and food stamps increased spending. The deficit reached $1.4 trillion in 2009.
President Obama faced a difficult choice as the Bush tax cuts approached their 2010 expiration. Allowing them to expire would raise taxes on everyone during a recession, but extending them would add trillions to the national debt.
The political dynamics were brutal. Republicans framed any expiration as a massive tax increase on working families. Democrats wanted to preserve middle-class cuts while letting rates rise on high earners. The result was a series of temporary extensions and cliff-hanger negotiations.
The 2012 Fiscal Cliff Deal
The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 finally resolved the Bush tax cut expiration. The compromise made most cuts permanent for middle-class families while allowing rates to rise on high earners:
Individual rates: The top rate returned to 39.6% for individuals earning over $400,000 and couples over $450,000. Lower rates were made permanent.
Capital gains and dividends: Rose to 20% for high earners but remained at 15% for everyone else.
Estate tax: Set at 40% with a $5 million exemption, indexed for inflation.
Payroll taxes: Allowed the temporary 2% Social Security payroll tax cut to expire, raising taxes on all workers.
AMT: Permanently indexed for inflation, ending the annual threat to middle-class families.
The deal locked in most of the Bush tax structure while generating some additional revenue from high earners. It represented a partial return to Clinton-era tax rates for the wealthy.
The Affordable Care Act Taxes
The 2010 Affordable Care Act included several new taxes designed to fund healthcare expansion:
Net Investment Income Tax: 3.8% on investment income for high earners, the first broad-based tax on capital income in decades
Additional Medicare Tax: 0.9% on wages over $200,000/$250,000, creating a 3.8% total Medicare tax for high earners
Medical device tax: 2.3% excise tax on medical devices
These taxes were significant because they represented the first major new levies on high earners since the 1990s. They also extended payroll taxes to investment income for the first time.
The Modern Tax Landscape
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was the largest tax overhaul since 1986 and represented a return to pure supply-side economics. But unlike earlier reforms, it created a stark division between permanent benefits for corporations and temporary relief for individuals.
The law’s architects faced a fundamental constraint: Senate budget rules limited the cost to $1.5 trillion over 10 years. To stay within this limit, they made individual provisions temporary while prioritizing permanent corporate cuts.
Corporate rate: Slashed from 35% to 21%, permanently. This was the centerpiece of the legislation, designed to make American companies competitive with lower-tax countries.
Pass-through deduction: Created a new 20% deduction for “qualified business income” from partnerships, S-corporations, and sole proprietorships. This complex provision was designed to prevent corporations from having a big advantage over other business forms.
International system: Shifted from taxing U.S. companies’ worldwide income to a “territorial” system that largely exempts foreign profits from U.S. tax.
Individual rates: Modest cuts across the board, with the top rate falling from 39.6% to 37%. But all individual provisions expire after 2025.
Standard deduction: Nearly doubled to $24,000 for married couples, while personal exemptions were completely eliminated.
State and local taxes: Capped deductions at $10,000, effectively raising federal taxes on residents of high-tax states.
Child Tax Credit: Doubled to $2,000 per child and made available to much higher-income families, with the income phase-out starting at $400,000 for couples.
Estate tax: Doubled the exemption to over $11 million per person, effectively eliminating the tax for all but a few thousand of the wealthiest families.
The Geographic Tax War
The cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions was unprecedented in American tax policy. For the first time, the federal tax code was explicitly used to penalize residents of specific states.
The politics were nakedly partisan. High-tax states like California, New York, and New Jersey tend to vote Democratic and have robust public services funded by state and local taxes. The SALT cap functioned as a targeted tax increase on these “blue state” residents.
The policy also violated longstanding principles of federalism. Since 1913, the federal tax code had allowed deductions for state and local taxes, recognizing that taxpayers shouldn’t face double taxation on the same income.
The impact was substantial. Tax Policy Center analysis found that 11 million households lost an average of $12,000 in deductions. Most were middle- and upper-middle-class families in expensive metropolitan areas.
States responded with creative workarounds, like allowing taxpayers to make “charitable contributions” to state funds in exchange for tax credits. The IRS initially tried to block these schemes but later allowed limited versions.
Who Really Benefits
Analyses by the Tax Policy Center, Congressional Budget Office, and other nonpartisan groups consistently found the TCJA’s benefits flow overwhelmingly to the wealthy, especially in the long term.
The permanent corporate cuts primarily benefit shareholders, who are disproportionately high-income. About 70% of corporate stock is owned by the wealthiest 10% of households. Foreign investors also benefit significantly from lower U.S. corporate taxes.
The pass-through deduction flows mainly to high earners. While it was marketed as helping small businesses, most of the benefits go to large partnerships and professional service firms. Wealthy taxpayers can also manipulate the rules to convert wage income into lightly-taxed business income.
Middle-class families saw smaller, temporary tax cuts. When individual provisions expire in 2025, many middle-income households will face net tax increases compared to pre-TCJA law.
The distributional impact changes dramatically over time:
2018: All income groups saw tax cuts, with the largest percentage benefits going to high earners
2025: When individual cuts expire, middle-class families lose most benefits while corporate cuts remain
2027: Many middle-income households pay higher taxes than under pre-TCJA law
Economic Effects
The TCJA was sold as essential for economic growth, with promises of sustained 3% GDP growth and significant wage increases for workers. The results have been mixed at best.
The economy did grow faster in 2018, but much of this was due to fiscal stimulus from higher deficits rather than supply-side effects. By 2019, growth had slowed back to trend levels.
The promised investment boom was modest. While business investment did increase initially, it was concentrated in short-lived equipment rather than productivity-enhancing structures and technology.
Wage growth remained disappointing despite low unemployment. Most of the benefits from lower corporate taxes flowed to shareholders through dividends and stock buybacks rather than to workers through higher wages.
CBO projections suggest the law will provide a small short-term boost to GDP but reduce long-term growth due to higher deficits crowding out private investment.
The Hidden Architecture of Tax Policy
The Alternative Minimum Tax Nightmare
The AMT’s evolution from narrow backstop to middle-class threat illustrates how tax policy can spiral out of control when politicians refuse to make hard choices.
Created in 1969 to ensure 155 millionaires paid some tax, the AMT was designed with fatal flaws. Most critically, its parameters weren’t indexed for inflation. As wages and prices rose over decades, more families were pushed into the AMT without any legislative action.
The regular tax system was also being cut repeatedly. The Bush tax cuts reduced normal tax liability for millions of families, but AMT liability stayed the same. This created a “crossover effect” where middle-class families found themselves subject to the parallel system.
By 2010, the AMT was projected to hit 33 million taxpayers, including an astonishing 73% of households earning $75,000-$100,000. The tax had become an unintentional penalty on middle-class life:
State and local taxes: The AMT disallowed deductions for state income and property taxes, penalizing families in states with good schools and public services
Personal exemptions: No deductions for children, effectively punishing larger families
Standard deduction: AMT used a different, smaller standard deduction
Miscellaneous deductions: Tax preparation fees, union dues, and work expenses weren’t deductible
The political response was pathetic. Instead of fixing the AMT permanently, Congress passed annual “patches” that temporarily raised the exemption amounts. This created annual uncertainty for millions of families and made tax planning nearly impossible.
The patches were also expensive, costing over $100 billion annually by the late 2000s. But because they were “temporary,” the costs didn’t appear in long-term budget projections.
The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 finally indexed the AMT for inflation. The TCJA went further, dramatically raising exemption levels and reducing the number of AMT payers to around 200,000.
This fix, however, is temporary and expires after 2025. Without action, the middle-class AMT trap will return.
Tax Expenditures: The Hidden Welfare State
Much of American social policy happens through “tax expenditures” – deductions, credits, and exclusions that reduce what people owe. These provisions cost the government over $1.6 trillion annually, more than all discretionary spending combined.
The structure of these benefits creates profound distributional effects that are often invisible to policymakers and the public.
Deductions and exclusions: These are worth more to high-income taxpayers because they’re in higher tax brackets. A $1,000 deduction saves $370 for someone in the 37% bracket but only $120 for someone in the 12% bracket.
Credits: These provide the same dollar benefit regardless of income, making them more progressive than deductions.
Refundable credits: These can create net payments to families with no tax liability, making them the most progressive tax expenditures.
This creates what policy experts call “upside-down” subsidies where the government effectively spends more to help the wealthy than the poor.
The Mortgage Interest Deduction
The home mortgage interest deduction is one of the largest and most regressive tax expenditures. It costs about $25 billion annually and provides virtually no benefit to low- and moderate-income families.
The deduction was an historical accident. When the income tax was created in 1913, all interest payments were deductible because it was difficult to separate personal and business borrowing. As other consumer interest deductions were eliminated over the decades, the mortgage deduction survived due to political pressure from homebuilders and realtors.
The policy is badly designed for its stated goal of promoting homeownership:
Income targeting: Benefits flow overwhelmingly to high-income households who would buy homes anyway
Geographic concentration: Most benefits go to expensive coastal markets where homes cost more
Debt encouragement: The deduction creates incentives to borrow more rather than pay off mortgages
Rental exclusion: Renters get no comparable benefit, creating bias against rental housing
The TCJA made the deduction even more regressive by raising the standard deduction. Now only about 13% of taxpayers itemize deductions, concentrating mortgage interest benefits among the wealthy.
Policy experts across the political spectrum have called for eliminating or capping the deduction, but it remains politically untouchable due to real estate industry lobbying.
The Child Tax Credit Evolution
The Child Tax Credit shows how tax expenditures can evolve from narrow tax breaks into powerful anti-poverty tools.
1997: Created as a $500 non-refundable credit, primarily helping middle-class families reduce their tax bills
2001: Made partially refundable under the Bush tax cuts, extending benefits to some low-income families
2017: TCJA doubled the credit to $2,000 and made it available to much higher-income families
2021: American Rescue Plan made the credit fully refundable and increased it to $3,000-$3,600 per child, temporarily transforming it into a near-universal child allowance
The 2021 expansion was revolutionary. For one year, the United States had something approaching a universal basic income for families with children. The credit was paid out in monthly installments, and families didn’t need to file tax returns to receive it.
The results were dramatic. Census Bureau data showed child poverty fell by nearly 40% in 2021, the largest single-year decline on record. The credit lifted 3.7 million children out of poverty.
But the expansion was temporary and expired after 2021. Child poverty immediately began rising again, illustrating the power of tax policy to shape social outcomes.
The Earned Income Tax Credit
The Earned Income Tax Credit is the largest anti-poverty program in the United States, providing over $60 billion annually to low-income working families.
Created in 1975 and expanded multiple times, the EITC is designed to “make work pay” by supplementing the wages of low-income workers. It’s fully refundable, meaning families can receive the credit even if they owe no income tax.
The EITC has several unique features:
Work requirement: Only available to families with earnings from jobs
Phase-in: Benefits increase with earnings up to a maximum
Phase-out: Benefits decline as income rises, eventually reaching zero
Family structure: Larger benefits for families with more children
Research has consistently found the EITC has positive effects on employment, earnings, and child outcomes. It encourages work while providing substantial support to low-income families.
But the credit also has limitations:
Childless workers: Receive minimal benefits, creating a gap in the safety net
Marriage penalties: Two-earner couples can lose benefits when they marry
Complexity: Complicated rules make the credit difficult to understand and claim
Fraud: Refundable nature creates opportunities for fraudulent claims
Retirement Tax Benefits
The tax code provides massive subsidies for retirement saving through 401(k) plans, IRAs, and other vehicles. These cost over $200 billion annually – more than most cabinet departments’ budgets.
But retirement tax benefits are highly regressive:
Income skewing: High earners contribute more and get larger tax benefits
Employer plans: Professional workers are much more likely to have access to 401(k) plans
Investment knowledge: Wealthy families can use retirement accounts for sophisticated tax planning
Inheritability: Retirement accounts can be passed to heirs, creating tax-advantaged wealth transfer
The current system essentially subsidizes retirement saving for the wealthy while providing minimal help to low-income workers who can’t afford to save.
Proposals for reform include:
Universal accounts: Government-provided retirement accounts for all workers
Flat credits: Replace deductions with credits that provide equal benefits regardless of income
Auto-enrollment: Require employers to automatically enroll workers in retirement plans
Public option: Expand Social Security benefits instead of relying on private accounts
Capital vs. Labor: The Great Divide
The most profound change in American tax policy since World War II has been the growing gap between how wages and investment income are taxed. This shift has fundamentally altered who prospers in the American economy.
The Historical Treatment of Capital Gains
Capital gains – profits from selling assets like stocks or real estate – have been a political football for decades. The top rate has swung wildly based on the prevailing economic ideology:
1945: 25% maximum rate, seen as a modest preference for investment
1970s: Rose to 35% as concerns about inequality grew
1981: Cut to 20% under Reagan’s supply-side policies
1986: Eliminated preferential treatment entirely, taxing gains like wages
1990s: Restored preference with rates of 20% then 15%
Present: 20% for high earners, plus 3.8% investment income tax
This volatility reflects the central tension in capital gains taxation. Supporters of preferential treatment argue that:
Economic growth: Lower taxes encourage investment and entrepreneurship
Double taxation: Corporate profits are taxed twice – once at the corporate level, then again as dividends or capital gains
Inflation adjustment: Gains may be partly due to inflation rather than real economic growth
Risk premium: Investment involves risk that should be rewarded with lower taxes
International competition: Other countries offer preferential rates for investment income
Critics counter that preferential treatment:
Increases inequality: Benefits flow overwhelmingly to wealthy households who own most capital
Reduces efficiency: Creates incentives for tax planning rather than productive investment
Unfairly advantages capital: Workers who earn wages face higher rates than investors who earn capital gains
Encourages speculation: Lower rates can fuel asset bubbles and financial instability
Reduces revenue: Forces higher taxes on wages to compensate for lost capital gains revenue
The Modern Capital-Labor Divide
Today’s tax system creates a stark division between how different types of income are taxed:
Wages and salaries: Top rate of 37%, plus payroll taxes of 15.3% (with employer share), for a combined rate over 50%
Long-term capital gains: Maximum rate of 20%, plus 3.8% investment income tax, for a total of 23.8%
Qualified dividends: Same as capital gains – 23.8% maximum
Pass-through business income: May qualify for 20% deduction, reducing effective rates
This creates powerful incentives for wealthy individuals to structure their compensation as capital rather than wages. The strategies are numerous and sophisticated:
Private equity: Fund managers treat their fees as capital gains rather than wages
Real estate: Investors can defer taxes through like-kind exchanges
Business ownership: Entrepreneurs take minimal salaries and receive most compensation through stock appreciation
Derivatives: Complex financial instruments can convert ordinary income into capital gains
The middle class has access to few of these strategies. Teachers, nurses, and factory workers earn almost all their income from wages subject to the highest tax rates.
The Estate Tax Decline
The estate tax has undergone perhaps the most dramatic change of any major tax provision. Once a powerful tool against dynastic wealth, it now affects fewer than 2,000 families annually.
1945: 77% top rate on estates over $10 million (about $140 million today)
1976: 70% rate with $60,000 exemption ($280,000 today)
2001: 55% rate with $675,000 exemption
2017: 40% rate with $5.5 million exemption
Present: 40% rate with $13.61 million exemption per person
A married couple can now pass over $27 million to their heirs tax-free. This effectively eliminates the estate tax for all but the ultra-wealthy.
The decline wasn’t accidental. A well-funded campaign by wealthy families and conservative groups successfully rebranded the “estate tax” as the “death tax,” suggesting it affected ordinary families rather than just the super-rich.
The campaign was remarkably successful despite affecting very few people. Polls showed most Americans supported repealing the “death tax,” even though over 99% would never pay it.
The estate tax’s decline has profound implications for American society:
Dynastic wealth: Large fortunes can now pass intact across generations
Opportunity hoarding: Wealthy families can provide enormous advantages to their children
Democratic values: Concentrated wealth can translate into political power
Economic efficiency: Inherited wealth may be used less productively than earned wealth
International Tax Competition
The treatment of capital income has become increasingly influenced by international tax competition. Countries compete to attract investment and wealthy individuals by offering preferential tax rates.
This “race to the bottom” has several effects:
Revenue pressure: Countries lose tax revenue as capital becomes more mobile
Inequality increase: Benefits flow mainly to wealthy individuals who own mobile capital
Policy constraints: Governments feel unable to tax capital effectively
Democratic deficit: Tax policy is shaped by mobile capital rather than democratic preferences
The United States has participated in this competition despite being large enough to set global standards. The 2017 corporate tax cut was explicitly designed to make America competitive with lower-tax countries.
Recent international efforts like the OECD minimum tax represent attempts to limit this competition, but their effectiveness remains uncertain.
The Data on Inequality
The numbers tell a clear story about how tax policy has reshaped American society over the past 80 years:
| Share of Pre-Tax Income | 1967 | 1981 | 1986 | 2001 | 2017 | 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bottom 20% | 4.0% | 4.2% | 3.8% | 3.5% | 3.1% | 2.9% |
| Second 20% | 10.8% | 10.2% | 9.5% | 8.7% | 8.1% | 7.9% |
| Middle 20% | 17.3% | 16.8% | 15.7% | 14.6% | 14.1% | 13.9% |
| Fourth 20% | 24.2% | 24.4% | 23.6% | 23.0% | 22.7% | 22.6% |
| Top 20% | 43.6% | 44.4% | 47.4% | 50.1% | 52.0% | 52.7% |
| Top 1% | 8.8% | 10.0% | 14.4% | 17.5% | 21.0% | 19.6% |
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Historical Income Tables, Piketty-Saez-Zucman World Inequality Database
This data reveals the famous “U-shaped curve” of American inequality. The relatively flat distribution of the early post-war period gave way to steadily rising concentration at the top.
The timing correlates strongly with major tax policy changes:
1970s: Inequality begins rising as top tax rates start falling
Early 1980s: Sharp acceleration after Reagan tax cuts
Late 1980s: Continued growth despite 1986 reform
1990s: Brief pause during Clinton-era rate increases
2000s: Renewed acceleration after Bush tax cuts
2010s: Continued concentration despite some rate increases on high earners
International Comparisons
American inequality is now higher than in any other developed country. The U.S. Gini coefficient – a standard measure of inequality – is comparable to developing countries rather than European peers.
This wasn’t always true. In the 1970s, American inequality was similar to other rich countries. The divergence began precisely when the U.S. started cutting taxes on high earners and capital income.
Countries that maintained higher taxes on the wealthy – like France, Germany, and the Nordic nations – saw much smaller increases in inequality. This suggests tax policy, not just technological change or globalization, played a crucial role in American inequality growth.
Wealth vs. Income Inequality
The concentration of wealth is even more extreme than income inequality. The top 1% of Americans now control about 32% of all wealth, compared to 23% in 1989.
Tax policy affects wealth concentration through several channels:
Capital gains rates: Lower taxes allow investment returns to compound faster
Estate taxes: Weaker inheritance taxes permit wealth to pass across generations
Retirement accounts: Tax-advantaged savings primarily benefit high earners
Business taxation: Lower rates on pass-through income help business owners accumulate capital
The wealth data shows how tax changes can have long-term effects that compound over time. A family that could keep more of their investment returns in the 1980s might now be worth tens of millions more than a similar family facing higher tax rates.
Global Tax Competition and Reform Efforts
The Race to the Bottom
Since the 1980s, countries around the world have engaged in a “race to the bottom” on tax rates, particularly for corporate income and capital gains. This competition has several driving forces:
Capital mobility: Investment and businesses can move more easily across borders
Tax havens: Small countries offer extremely low rates to attract foreign investment
Political pressure: Business groups lobby for lower taxes by threatening to relocate
Ideology: The spread of supply-side economics beyond the United States
The results have been dramatic. The average corporate tax rate among developed countries fell from 32% in 2000 to 21% in 2021. Many countries eliminated or reduced taxes on capital gains and dividends.
This competition has created a prisoner’s dilemma where each country has incentives to cut taxes, but all countries lose revenue as a result. The biggest winners are wealthy individuals and multinational corporations who can shop for the lowest tax rates.
Recent Reform Efforts
Growing concern about inequality and revenue loss has sparked new efforts to limit tax competition:
OECD Minimum Tax: In 2021, over 130 countries agreed to a 15% minimum tax on multinational corporations. The deal aims to reduce incentives for profit-shifting to tax havens.
Financial Transaction Taxes: Several European countries have implemented small taxes on stock trades to raise revenue and reduce speculation.
Wealth Taxes: Countries like France and Spain have experimented with annual taxes on large fortunes, though results have been mixed.
Digital Services Taxes: Many countries are implementing special taxes on large tech companies that earn profits locally but pay little tax.
The United States has been both a leader and laggard in these efforts. The 2017 tax law included provisions to limit profit-shifting, but also reduced corporate rates to compete internationally.
Political Economy of Tax Reform
Tax policy is shaped by powerful interest groups with enormous stakes in the outcomes:
Business groups: Lobby for lower corporate and capital gains rates
Wealthy individuals: Fund think tanks and politicians who support tax cuts
Tax preparation industry: Opposes simplification that would reduce demand for their services
State and local governments: Want to preserve deductions that help their residents
Anti-poverty advocates: Push for refundable credits and progressive taxation
The influence of money in politics means that wealthy interests often have disproportionate influence on tax policy. This helps explain why tax cuts for the rich are often easier to pass than tax increases, even when polls show public support for higher taxes on the wealthy.
Campaign contributions and lobbying spending on tax issues runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. The revolving door between government and private sector means that many tax officials later work for the industries they once regulated.
State and Local Responses
State and local governments have responded to federal tax changes in various ways:
Conformity: Many states automatically adopt federal tax changes, amplifying their effects
Decoupling: Some states maintain their own rules that differ from federal law
Innovation: States experiment with new approaches like earned income tax credits
Competition: States compete for businesses and wealthy residents through tax incentives
The TCJA’s cap on state and local tax deductions has created new tensions in federalism. High-tax states are exploring workarounds while low-tax states benefit from the relative advantage.
Some states are also considering wealth taxes or other progressive measures to offset federal tax cuts for the wealthy. California’s proposed wealth tax would apply to residents even after they move to other states.
What the Future Holds
The 2025 Expiration Crisis
The TCJA’s temporary individual provisions expire after 2025, setting up another massive political battle. Without action, taxes will rise on virtually every American as rates revert to their pre-2017 levels.
The fiscal stakes are enormous. Extending all the individual provisions would cost roughly $3 trillion over 10 years. But allowing them to expire would represent the largest tax increase in American history.
The political dynamics strongly favor extension. Republicans will argue that letting any provisions expire represents a massive tax hike on working families. Democrats will be reluctant to be seen as raising taxes on the middle class.
But the corporate rate cuts are permanent, creating an asymmetric ratchet effect where business taxes stay low while individual taxes face constant pressure to rise.
Several scenarios are possible:
Full extension: Congress extends all individual provisions, adding trillions to the debt
Partial extension: Middle-class provisions are extended while high-earner benefits expire
Replacement: New legislation replaces the TCJA with different approaches
Expiration: All provisions sunset, creating massive tax increases
The outcome will depend heavily on which party controls government after the 2024 elections.
Emerging Policy Debates
Several new ideas are gaining traction in tax policy debates:
Wealth taxes: Annual taxes on large fortunes, designed to address growing wealth concentration
Financial transaction taxes: Small levies on stock and bond trades to raise revenue and reduce speculation
Carbon taxes: Taxes on greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change
Robot taxes: Levies on automation to fund retraining programs for displaced workers
Universal basic income: Direct cash payments to all citizens, potentially funded through higher taxes on capital
These ideas represent potential departures from the current system focused primarily on income taxation.
Technological Challenges
New technologies are creating challenges for traditional tax systems:
Digital economy: Online businesses can operate across borders with minimal physical presence
Cryptocurrency: Digital currencies can facilitate tax evasion and complicate enforcement
Artificial intelligence: Automation may reduce employment and the tax base
Remote work: Workers can live in low-tax states while employed by companies in high-tax states
Gig economy: Independent contractors may underreport income or claim inappropriate deductions
Tax systems designed for industrial economies may need fundamental overhauls to address these challenges.
Global Trends
Several global trends will influence American tax policy:
Aging populations: Older societies need more revenue for healthcare and pensions
Climate change: Environmental challenges may require substantial public investment
Infrastructure needs: Aging infrastructure requires maintenance and modernization
Inequality concerns: Growing wealth concentration is creating political pressure for progressive taxation
Debt burdens: High government debt levels may limit fiscal flexibility
These trends suggest pressure for higher revenues, particularly from wealthy individuals and corporations who have benefited most from recent tax cuts.
Constitutional Constraints
The U.S. Constitution creates unique constraints on federal taxation:
Direct tax clause: May limit the ability to impose wealth taxes
Uniformity requirement: Federal taxes must be geographically uniform
Commerce clause: Limits on state taxation of interstate commerce
Due process: Requirements for fair tax enforcement procedures
These constraints may require constitutional amendments for some proposed reforms, making change more difficult than in other countries.
Long-term Scenarios
Looking ahead, several scenarios are possible for American tax policy:
Status quo: Continued oscillation between tax cuts and modest increases based on political control
Progressive shift: Substantial increases in taxes on high earners and capital income to address inequality
Flat tax: Movement toward simpler, flatter rate structures with fewer deductions
Consumption taxes: Shift toward sales taxes or value-added taxes instead of income taxation
Hybrid approaches: Combination of different tax types to achieve multiple goals
The path chosen will profoundly shape American society for decades to come. The post-war era demonstrated that high taxes on the wealthy are compatible with strong economic growth and shared prosperity. The past 40 years have shown that low taxes on capital and high earners can drive growth but also create historically high levels of inequality.
As policymakers grapple with growing wealth concentration, climate change, aging infrastructure, and other challenges, the tax system will be central to America’s response. The choices made in the coming years will determine whether the country returns to the broadly shared prosperity of the post-war era or continues down the path of growing inequality that began in the 1980s.
The pendulum of tax policy has swung far toward favoring capital over labor, the wealthy over the middle class. Whether it swings back may be the defining political question of the next decade. The stakes couldn’t be higher – the very nature of American society hangs in the balance.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
