Comparing the Incidence of Taxes and Social Spending in Brazil and the United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Comparing the Incidence of Taxes and Social Spending in Brazil and the United States Sean Higgins, Nora Lustig, Whitney Ruble, and Timothy Smeeding Abstract We perform the first comprehensive fiscal incidence analyses in Brazil and the US, including direct cash and food transfers, targeted housing and heating subsidies, public spending on education and health, and personal income, payroll, corporate income, property, and expenditure taxes. In both countries, primary spending is close to 40 percent of GDP. The US achieves higher redistribution through direct taxes and transfers, primarily due to underutilization of the personal income tax in Brazil and the fact that Brazil’s highly progressive cash and food transfer programs are small while larger transfer programs are less progressive. However, when health and non-tertiary education spending are added to income using the government cost approach, the two countries achieve similar levels of redistribution. This result may be a reflection of better-off households in Brazil opting out of public services due to quality concerns rather than a result of government effort to make spending more equitable. JEL Codes: D31, H22, I38 Keywords: inequality, fiscal policy, taxation, social spending. Working Paper 360 www.cgdev.org March 2014 Comparing the Incidence of Taxes and Social Spending in Brazil and the United States Sean Higgins Tulane University Nora Lustig Tulane University Center for Global Development Inter-American Dialogue Whitney Ruble Tulane University Timothy Smeeding University of Wisconsin The authors are grateful to Luis Felipe López-Calva for providing very helpful comments as discussant of an earlier version of this paper, to seminar participants for useful comments and suggestions, to Claudiney Pereira for collaboration on the Brazil analysis, to Grant Driessen for collaboration on the US analysis, and to Adam Ratzlaff and David Roberts for research assistance. This paper is part of the Commitment to Equity (CEQ) project. Led by Nora Lustig, CEQ is designed to analyze the impact of taxes and social spending on inequality and poverty, and to provide a roadmap for governments, multilateral institutions, and nongovernmental organizations in their efforts to build more equitable societies (www.commitmenttoequity.org). The paper does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the institutes and universities where the authors are employed or affiliated. Sean Higgins, Nora Lustig, Whitney Ruble, and Timothy Smeeding. 2014. "Comparing the Incidence of Taxes and Social Spending in Brazil and the United States." CGD Working Paper 360. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. http://www.cgdev.org/publication/comparing-incidence-taxes-and-social-spending-brazil- and-united-states-working-paper-360 Center for Global Development The Center for Global Development is an independent, nonprofit policy 2055 L Street NW research organization dedicated to reducing global poverty and inequality Washington, DC 20036 and to making globalization work for the poor. Use and dissemination of this Working Paper is encouraged; however, reproduced copies may not be 202.416.4000 used for commercial purposes. Further usage is permitted under the terms (f) 202.416.4050 of the Creative Commons License. www.cgdev.org The views expressed in CGD Working Papers are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the board of directors or funders of the Center for Global Development. Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Inequality, Social Spending, and Taxation in Brazil and the US .......................................... 5 3. Data, Methodology, and Income Concepts ............................................................................ 8 4. Results ......................................................................................................................................... 13 4.1 Direct cash and food transfers ......................................................................................... 15 4.2 Direct taxes .......................................................................................................................... 20 4.3 Expenditure taxes ............................................................................................................... 22 4.4 Indirect subsidies ................................................................................................................ 24 4.5 Public spending on non-tertiary education and health ................................................. 25 5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 27 References ....................................................................................................................................... 30 Foreword The gap between the richest and poorest people persists. In developing countries in particular, inequality frequently interacts with underdeveloped markets and ineffective governments to slow growth – which in turn slows progress in reducing poverty. In rich countries, inequality erodes the social fabric and breeds anti-social and self-destructive behavior such as crime and drug abuse. One of the most powerful instruments to address inequality at the disposal of the state is fiscal policy. Taxes and transfers can be effective at reducing extreme forms of material deprivation and narrowing the gap between the economic elites and the rest. They can also help equalize opportunities ---through public education, for example—and, thus, increase social mobility and the productive potential of the underprivileged. To assess the extent to which governments are using this powerful instrument, it is important to be able to quantify how inequality and poverty change before and after the “fisc.” With this purpose in mind, Tulane University in partnership with the Inter-American Dialogue launched the Commitment to Equity (CEQ) project whose main tool--the Commitment to Equity Assessment-- was designed to analyze the impact of taxation and social spending on inequality and poverty, and provide a roadmap for governments, multilateral institutions, and nongovernmental organizations in their efforts to build more equitable societies. The article that follows is an application of the CEQ framework to Brazil and the United States. 1 1. Introduction How much do the Western Hemisphere’s two largest economies and most populous countries redistribute through social spending and taxes? Although the United States has an income per capita four times as large as Brazil’s, the countries share similarities that make this comparison interesting. In terms of government size, the two countries are similar, with combined primary spending by federal, state, and local governments close to 40 percent of GDP in both countries.1 The two countries each have high levels of economic inequality relative to their level of development; furthermore, when the US had a GDP per capita similar to Brazil’s today, its level of inequality was similar to that observed in Brazil today (Plotnick et al., 1998). In both countries, one key determinant of income inequality is the unequal distribution of human capital associated with high rates of school incompletion and, to some extent, race (Goldin and Katz, 2008, Ñopo, 2012). Both countries also have high inequality of opportunity (Brunori et al., 2013), low levels of intergenerational mobility (Jäntti et al., 2006, Corak, 2013), and a fairly similar profile with respect to income polarization (Ferreira et al., 2013, figure F5.1C). Although Brazil has higher levels of income inequality and intergenerational earnings and education persistence than the US, these measures are rising in the US (Aaronson and Mazumder, 2008, Kenworthy and Smeeding, forthcoming) and moving in the opposite direction in Brazil (Ferreira et al., 2013, Lustig et al., 2013b). If trends continue, their levels could converge. Based largely on Lustig and Higgins’ (2013) methodology, we perform comprehensive fiscal incidence analyses to measure the impact of public spending and taxation on inequality in the two countries. Our analysis includes direct cash and food transfers, direct personal income, payroll, corporate income, and property taxes, indirect expenditure taxes, indirect subsidies for energy and housing, and spending on government-provided health and non- tertiary education. Our primary data sources are the 2011 Current Population Survey (CPS) for the US and the 2008-2009 Pesquisa de Orçamentos Familiares (POF) for Brazil; these are supplemented by the 2011 American Community Survey (ACS), 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS), and 2007 National Household Education Survey (NHES) in the US, and the 2008 Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios (PNAD) in Brazil. 1 Brazil’s consolidated primary spending (total spending minus interest payments) was 41.4 percent of GDP in 2009 (Ministério da Fazenda, 2010a), while it was 38.6 percent of GDP in the US in 2011 (International Monetary Fund, 2013, table 4a). 2 Our study is the only comprehensive incidence analysis we are aware of for the United States for a relatively recent year. Other available studies for the United States usually omit indirect taxes and public spending on