Ramesh Ponnuru has, let me note at the outset (though irrelevantly to this post), written a terrific book on abortion and related controversies (over-provocatively titled The Party of Death). Nonetheless, he misunderstands FICA, a misunderstanding that he shares with far too many people who opine about tax policy. He writes,
The income tax has gotten more progressive, but not necessarily the “tax system” generally. Since income taxes are more progressive than payroll taxes, cutting income taxes but not payroll taxes makes the system as a whole less progressive. This observation is usually made by people who aren’t really interested in lightening the load of the payroll tax, but it's still true.
This statement is mostly true about the two small components of payroll taxes, namely, those that fund Medicare and the federal portion of unemployment insurance (“FUTA”). For the big piece, Social Security (“FICA”), it is mostly false.
FICA is not a tax; it is a forced loan to the government. Repayment of the loan comes in the form of a government-promised annuity. The size of the annuity depends upon the amount of the loan. The differences from an ordinary loan stem solely from the government’s ability to dictate the terms without bargaining. Most notably, the larger lenders receive a poorer rate of return than those with lower wages and lower FICA contributions, a state of affairs that wouldn’t arise in transactions entered into freely.
If FICA were a tax and Social Security a mere welfare program, paying the former wouldn’t be a condition for entitlement to the latter, just as paying FUTA isn’t a precondition to receiving unemployment benefits. There is only one respect in which FICA can be viewed as tax-like: To the extent that the lender’s rate of return is less than he could have gotten in the market, the government deprives him of potential earnings without any commensurate quid pro quo. (Yes, I realize that “taxes are the price we pay for civilization”, but I don’t get more or better civilization by paying more tax.)
This implicit tax is steeply progressive, because the Social Security annuity formula is weighted in favor of low wage-earners and benefits paid to low-income retirees are exempt from income tax. Viewed properly, then, Social Security makes the U.S. tax structure proportionately more burdensome as one’s earnings rise up to the FICA wage base ($94,200 in 2006). Added to the income tax, the result is an overall tax structure that Karl Marx could almost admire.
Comments