Daydreaming About Inequality – A New Income Tax System


This article reflects my personal opinion.

The taxation of income often becomes a controversial issue in election debates (given that those debates actually revolve around factual topics). However, the proposals put forth mostly concern new regulations, new special rules, exceptions and deductions and small rate hikes or cuts and often are nothing more than half-hearted gifts to certain interest groups. In the long run, this leads to a progressively complex tax system that, combined with a similarly proliferating social welfare system, results in a bureaucratic leviathan that can paralyse a society and economy and at the same time fails to mitigate inequality. What if one started from scratch and intended to create an income tax system that is simple while being comprehensive and aims to mitigate growing income inequality and was not afraid of experimenting with somewhat unfamiliar ideas? In this article, I want to briefly explore a little thought experiment and imagine a new income tax system  (I will sometimes use Germany as reference case).

Before diving into the issue of devising a new system, what is the general purpose of an income tax? First, it is supposed to generate revenue to pay for public goods such as security, infrastructure, health care and education. Second, and closely connected, it serves as a tool of redistribution of income to guarantee social cohesion and what is perceived as a more just distribution of outcome and opportunity. In Germany, this is summarised in the “ability-to-pay principle”. Given that we agree with these two purposes, our tax system should thus be able to create sufficient revenues and work to mitigate income inequality and its effects.

As a first step, let us combine labour and inflation-adjusted capital income to a general taxable income (capital gains should be included as well – however, this is a very complex topic that I am not going to delve into in this post). This contrasts with the income tax systems of most countries that have different taxes for labour income and capital income with capital income most commonly taxed at a substantially lower rate (in Germany, capital income taxation is rather complex – simplified, there is a flat capital income tax of 25 percent). However, this very common approach can create incentives to exploit tax arbitrage by shifting labour income to capital income and thus cause inefficiencies. Moreover, the argument that taxation of capital income is “double taxation” and therefore unjust is not very convincing. Labour income is a payment for human capital that also has to be built up with costs. Either in the form of tuition payments and other expenditures (with income that has been taxed before) or as opportunity costs in the form of lost labour income. Furthermore, the individual that earns capital income often times has not accumulated the underlying capital stock but has inherited it – just as your parents are likely to have paid for the accumulation of your human capital. Besides, having just one general type of income helps to keep things simple and avoids leeway for arbitrage and manipulation.

As the core feature of the new income tax system we introduce a progressive tax rate combined with a negative flat tax below a certain income threshold for everyone who has finished his education. This builds on the proposal of a negative income tax brought forward by Milton Friedman in his 1962 book “Capitalism and Freedom” (this does not mean late great mister Friedman would have agreed with our system – he would have probably hated it). Let us establish the negative income threshold at an annual income of € 15,000 and the negative income tax rate at 50 percent. This means that everyone who earns less than € 15,000 has the difference taxed at 50 percent and consequently receives a tax payment. For example, a worker who has a before-tax income of € 9,000 receives a tax payment of € (15,000 – 9,000)*0.5 = 3,000 and hence has an after-tax income of € 12,000. Accordingly, an individual who earns nothing receives € 7,500 and an individual who earns more than € 15,000 receives nothing but has to pay taxes instead. In our new system, everyone who has finished his education or has an income higher than the negative income threshold is obliged to declare his annual income. This translates into a guaranteed minimum income of € 7,500 for everyone who has finished his education. Note that this threshold and the corresponding minimum income serves as an example – it should be set on condition that the economy can afford it, not depend on some arbitrarily defined “subsistence level”.

In this system there will be no explicit social welfare system or long-term-unemployment benefits whatsoever. The modern social welfare system has become a bureaucracy monster that wastes resources and treats its beneficiaries like under-age children and with inherent distrust. Additionally, it has dangerous effects on the functionality of the labour market and its participants’ incentives. While a benefit system might even punish those who go to work by making them inadmissible for benefits, a negative income tax system never removes the incentive to work without the need to establish complicated and exploitable tax-credit systems. An example: Assume that in a system without a highly complex credit program, a jobless individual receives € 7,500 in annual social welfare payments. If he takes on a job that pays € 7,500 annually he will lose the right to receive social welfare and ends up with the same amount of money but has to work 20 hours a week. Consider the same situation with a negative income tax. Now the individual decides between staying at home and receiving € 7,500 in tax payments or starting to work and receiving € 7,500 in wages plus € 3,750 in tax payments and thus € 11,250 in total. In our new system, the individual faces an incentive to work and at the same time does not have to beg for money from the welfare state by means of complex bureaucratic processes and is not indignified by being treated like an untrustworthy blighter. A single negative income tax to replace countless benefit systems with complex enforcement mechanisms makes a mushrooming administrative apparatus obsolete. Note that some government incentive programs, such as child benefits or a slimmed-down pension system, make sense and should still be implemented. Additionally, a short-term unemployment benefit system could be reasonable to consider since it might be beneficial to cushion temporary unemployment shocks.

Additionally, the fact that everyone has to declare his general annual income without exception works as a control mechanism and data generator in regards to income inequality and social justice issues. It is comparatively easy to implement since a country like Germany already has a comprehensive tax agency in place.

Above the threshold of € 15,000, the marginal tax rate linearly increases from 20 percent to as high as 75 percent at € 300,000 (Note that I have not calculated how the tax system should be calibrated in order to generate about the same revenues as it does at the moment, which it likely should – understand these values as an example). This might seem exorbitantly high to some. Two points should be made: First, if we compare this new system to the current system in Germany, where the top marginal income tax rate is 45 percent, everyone who earns less than € 233,000 from labour would be better off. Second, this would not be unprecedentedly high rates. In the United States, for example, the top marginal income tax rate has been well above 80 percent throughout the 40s and 50s and did not go below 70 percent from 1936 until 1980 (sidenote: do Trump fans consider this the time “America” was “great”?). This time span includes some of the most productive years in US history and does not seem to have suffered from dwindling high-skilled labour. Our new tax system does neither have a middle class hump as most modern tax systems do nor does it favour capital income. Consequently, the middle class would be relieved, effective income inequality could be mitigated and the growing problem of concentrated capital accumulation might be alleviated.

Marginal income tax rate compared to the current German labour income tax system (in € thousand and percent)

Our new income tax system will know no exceptions or deductions. Despite all the most well-meaning efforts to consider every eventuality, a tax system can never be “just” (because an income distribution can never be just). However, every attempt to make it thus causes more complexity, costs and inefficiency and might cause negative external effects. For example, consider the commuting tax benefit in Germany that allows for tax deductions of the costs of travelling to work. This incentivises inefficient job allocation and probably causes increased greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, a tax system with countless special rules is prone to manipulation and predominantly benefits those who have access to good tax law advice.

Finally, all the thresholds in our tax system will be anchored at the lagged median income. For example, assume that the median income in 2015 was € 20,000 and in 2016 is € 22,000 and hence rises by 10 percent. Then, in 2017 the negative income threshold would rise from € 15,000 to € 16 500 and the top income tax threshold from € 300,000 to € 330,000. This mechanism serves two purposes: First, it works as an automatic inequality counter measure. If the mean income drifts off far from the median income, the high-income earners will be taxed relatively higher. Second, it eliminates the problem of bracket creep, the process where incomes are pushed into higher tax brackets by inflation. In Germany, this is called “cold progression” and causes political upset seemingly every other year.

Net income and income tax rates compared to the current German labour income tax system (in € thousand)

What problems could our new tax system cause (abstracting from the issue that thousands of tax experts and social welfare bureaucrats would probably lose their job over night)? First, taxing capital income at the same rate as labour income might cause highly mobile capital to flow out of the economy. This concern is justified and has been supported by a wide array of economic research. However, two points are worth noting: First, capital income in our system is taxed on an inflation-adjusted base, meaning that no tax is paid on capital income that simply covers inflation. Second, foreign capital investments are mostly not subject to domestic capital income taxes and hence should no be deterred by them. In a perfect world, tax rates around the globe should be the same and loophole-free. Nevertheless, in the imperfect world we live in, a high capital income tax, if designed correctly, does not necessarily hinder economic activity. The second problem that our tax system might cause is that its negative income tax can work as a subsidy for low-income labour and thus cause cost-shifting from firms to the taxpayer. Consequently, our system should be combined with a minimum wage (that exempts everyone who is not eligible for the negative income tax, most prominently students). Third, one might be concerned that high top income tax rates might cause the highest-skilled workers to either reduce their economic output or flee the country. Considering economic evidence and looking at historical developments, this does not appear to be a fundamental problem however.

In conclusion, our new income tax system combines the mitigation of inequality by means of progressive taxation of labour and capital income with the debureaucratising and incentive-improving effects of a negative income tax. Of course, neither of those two measures nor any other substantial improvement or simplification of the tax system that one might think of is anywhere near to be implemented in Germany or in any other big developed country. However, sometimes it can be soothing to dream big, especially when the current political reality is characterised by the slow deconstruction of a peace-saving continental union and a nightmare disguised as an election that now seems to be about who of the two candidates can sling more mud at his opponent.

I believe this is a highly controversial topic and one’s own economic situation determines not seldom the political standpoint one adopts (maybe even more so when it comes to inheritance taxation). I would be happy to hear your criticism and  suggestions regarding the discussed new income tax system.

Cultural References

Music – Pink Floyd – Money, Johnny Cash – After Taxes, The Beatles – Taxman

Film – The Shawshank Redemption, Wall Street

Written by Jonas


Author: Jonas Send

I share my creative writing - currently working on a novel. I analyse current topics that interest me in opinion pieces and share my research in economic articles.

6 thoughts on “Daydreaming About Inequality – A New Income Tax System”

  1. First of all nice articel.
    It relates to the disccusion, which is traking in place in serveral europen countries, about the unconditional basic income, which i would say is one of the better ideas in nowadays economics. If i’m not mistaken the unconditional basic income was already tested in a city in canada and it had some “surprising” results like people got less ill, teenagers received better eduction and just 1% of the popultion stop to work. So if you consider the benefits the 1% of people which did’t go to work seems like a joke, therfore people have other incensetives then only money to go to work. (

    I mean i get that people gonna scream somthing like they steal our money, but first of all it’s one the media and the ploitics to sell the idea an show the benefits (i’m sure it’s possible to shift the people minds in a direction that they see the benefits). Second of all the people which are normally screaming with the argument but there a lazy people taking benfit of it are mostly the “hardworking” people who benefit from the current system the most.

    Well about the first point with the captial flights i think it’s true that it is an utopia. Nevertheless if there are ways to ristrict it proberly i think the harm for the economy would be short term (over 2 years or something). For sure there might be some rich people, who will leave but the majority gonna stay in germany because of the way how think are handel in germany. They have build their whole life center here and their families are located here as well. It’s not so easy to guve up all an start somewhere new even when you are rich.


    1. So your point is that those who would be worse off by the new income tax will not leave the country simply because it is hard to build up something somewhere else? Sounds like a hold-up to me… When it comes to losing money, I don’t think that people will stick to their country but will rather feel like being robed by Robin Hood. In the case of France and their proud French citizens, one could observe the significant immigration of the wealthy into the UK for example.


      1. I’d like to point out that it’s only those who earn more than a quarter million that really face an incentive to flee the new tax system. I think it can be argued about whether one can even be more productive than that or if higher labour incomes are mostly due to more aggressive compensation bargaining and social norms. In my humble opinion, the ones that actually reach such an exorbitant level of productivity predominantly are the entrepeneurs and creators. And they might just stay in Germany if it offers the best preconditions for developing and running a business (and social stability, an unbureaucratic tax system and a prospering education system might be some of them). In other words, if those who are deterred by the new tax system are mainly the tax lawyers and hedge fund managers, I might as well be able to live with that ;). Of course this is not black and white and a society will always face a trade-off. But I think this is one trade-off a society should be willing to consider.


  2. Seems like a daydream worth thinking of… Yet, the resulting capital flight might be more severe due to the capital import neutrality that states that capital gains should be taxed in the source country (i.e. Germany). On the other hand, in the case of a capital export neutrality, it would also not help if German investment firms would only move across the borders to enjoy a lower tax rate as jobs would only be destroyed inside of the country.
    Putting this particular case aside (and mostly given a capital import neutrality) I don’t think that the investment opportunities might be the biggest problem, but rather the people taxed with a rate above 45% might be.

    Another scenario I could think of, is the belief of people who would benefit from this new income tax system to concentrate on its flaws (given an unconditional minimum income) and thus rejecting it since “lazy” ones would gain something from nothing.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.