Hubbry Logo
Direct taxDirect taxMain
Open search
Direct tax
Community hub
Direct tax
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Direct tax
Direct tax
Direct tax
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Taxation
An aspect of fiscal policy
Policies
Economics
General Theory
Distribution of Tax
Collection
Noncompliance
Legal tax avoidance
Illegal tax evasion
Locations
Major examples
Types
International
Trade
Research
Academic
Advocacy groups
Religious
By country
All Countries
Individual Countries

Although the actual definitions vary between jurisdictions, in general, a direct tax is a tax imposed upon a person or property as distinct from a tax imposed upon a transaction, which is described as an indirect tax. There is a distinction between direct and indirect taxes depending on whether the tax payer is the actual taxpayer or if the amount of tax is supported by a third party, usually a client. The term may be used in economic and political analyses, and may have legal implications in some jurisdictions. In the United States of America, the term has special constitutional significance because of two provisions in the U.S. Constitution that any direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population.[1][2] It is also significant in the European Union, where direct taxation remains the sole responsibility of member states.[3]

General meaning

[edit]

In general, a direct tax is one imposed upon an individual person (juristic or natural) or property (i.e. real and personal property, livestock, crops, wages, etc.) as distinct from a tax imposed upon a transaction. In this sense, indirect taxes such as a sales tax or a value added tax (VAT) are imposed only if and when a taxable transaction occurs. People have the freedom to engage in or refrain from such transactions; whereas a direct tax (in the general sense) is imposed upon a person, typically in an unconditional manner, such as a poll-tax or head-tax, which is imposed on the basis of the person's very life or existence, or a property tax which is imposed upon the owner by virtue of ownership, rather than commercial use. Some commentators have argued that the distinction rests on whether the burden of taxation can be shifted from one legal person to another.[4][5]

Direct taxes are thought to be borne and paid by the same person. The person who pays the amount of direct tax does not recover all or part of the tax elsewhere. It is in this sense that direct taxation is opposed to indirect taxation. It is the notion of fiscal incidence which allows to analyse who ultimately, weights the burden of a tax, that determines whether the tax is direct or indirect. Direct taxation is generally declarative (established either by the person concerned or by a third party).

The unconditional, inexorable aspect of the direct tax was a paramount concern of people in the 18th century seeking to escape tyrannical forms of government and to safeguard individual liberty.

In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith was the first to extensively discuss in English the distinction between direct and indirect taxation by those names, as in the following passage[a]:

It is thus that a tax upon the necessaries of life operates exactly in the same manner as a direct tax upon the wages of labour. ... if he is a manufacturer, will charge upon the price of his goods this rise of wages, together with a profit; so that the final payment of the tax, together with this overcharge, will fall upon the consumer.[6]: 333 

Justice William Paterson quotes Smith approvingly,[7]: 180-181 (seriatim op.)  noting that indirect taxes are “circuitous modes of reaching the revenue of individuals,”[7]: 180  which implies that direct taxes are those which are not circuitous.[b]

The Pennsylvania Minority, a group of delegates to the 1787 U.S. Constitutional Convention who dissented from the document sent to the states for ratification, objected over this kind of taxation, and explained:

The power of direct taxation applies to every individual ... it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments. ... The power of direct taxation will further apply to every individual ... however oppressive, the people will have but this alternative, either to pay the tax, or let their property be taken for all resistance will be vain.[8]

Examples of direct taxes

[edit]

Direct taxation can apply on income or on wealth (property tax; estate tax or wealth tax). Here below a few examples of direct taxes existing in the United States (though not all of these meet the US constitutional definition of a direct tax, as stated below):[9]

  • Income tax: it is the most important direct tax in many developed countries. It is based on incomes of taxpayers. A certain amount of money is taken from the wage of the individuals. When this type of tax is applied to corporations and firms, it is called corporate income tax.
  • Transfer taxes: the most frequent form of transfer taxes is the estate tax. Such a tax is levied on the taxable portion of the property of a deceased individual. A gift tax is also another form of transfer taxes when a certain amount is collected from people who are transferring properties to another individual.
  • Entitlement tax or payroll taxes: this type of direct tax serves to finance social security and health services. The entitlement tax is collected through payroll deductions. Their importance increases with the rise of the development of the welfare state during the twentieth century.
  • Property tax: property tax is charged on properties such as land and buildings.
  • Capital gains tax: this tax is collected when an individual earns gains from the sale of capital, for example when an individual sells stocks, real estate, or a business. The tax is computed by determining the difference between the acquisition amount and the selling amount.

Effects of direct taxation and comparison of indirect taxation

[edit]

Direct taxation has a few advantages and also some inconveniences in comparison of indirect taxes. It promotes equality and equity because direct taxes are based on ability to pay of the taxpayer and in the case of a progressive tax structure, every person is taxed differently depending on their income. Another advantage of direct taxation is that the government and the taxpayer know the amount they will receive and they pay, even before the collection of the tax. Direct taxation and in particular income tax act as automatic stabilizers. Some direct taxes are easy to collect for the government and the fiscal administration because they are collected at the source. Yet, tax collection can be expensive depending on the efficiency of the fiscal administration. Running the tax collection office has some administrative costs (keeping the records of incomes of the population for example), in particular when different tax rates are applied. Moreover, direct taxes can be evaded (tax evasion affects mainly direct taxes) whereas indirect taxes cannot be evaded (when the taxed transaction occurs, it is not possible to avoid the burden of the tax).[9]

Direct taxes decrease the savings and earnings of individuals and firms. Indirect taxation however make goods and services more expensive (the burden of the tax is reflected in the prices). Contrary to indirect taxation which leads to inflation (increasing of the prices), direct taxes can help to reduce inflation.

There is no consensus among the academic literature to designate if direct taxation is more efficient or not. Earlier works based on static models favour direct taxation whereas the recent literature, based on neoclassical growth models, shows that indirect taxation is more efficient. The conclusions of these debates are that the answers are mostly conjectural, depending on the economic structure.[10]

Direct taxes and progressivity

[edit]

Contrary to indirect taxes such as value-added taxes, direct taxes can be adjusted to the ability to pay of the taxpayer according to their status (income, age...). So, direct taxes can be progressive (the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases), proportional (the tax rate is fixed, it does not change when the taxable base amount increases or decreases) or regressive (the tax rate decreases as the taxable amount increases) according to their structure.[4] It differs from indirect taxes which are generally regressive because everyone pays the same amount regardless of ability to pay (meaning the burden of the tax is greater for the poorer than for the richer).

Moreover, direct taxation are transfers which can have a redistributive preoccupation (combined with the will of increasing tax revenue).[11] Indeed, taxation is a main tool of the redistributive function of the government identified by Richard Musgrave in his The Theory of Public Finance (1959). A progressive direct taxation could participate in the reduction of inequalities and correcting difference in living standards among the population.[11]

Another effect of a progressive direct taxation is that such tax structure act as automatic stabilizers when prices are stable. Indeed, when incomes (in the example of a progressive income tax) decrease, as a result of recession, the average tax rate is reduced – individuals have to face lower tax rates because their earnings and their incomes have been reduced. And similarly, when incomes are increasing, the average tax rate increases also.[12] This mechanism of progressive taxation participates to the stabilization of the economy, another function of the government in the works of Musgrave (stabilization branch of the government which prevents major fluctuations in real GDP). When incomes fall, tax revenues fall too (and in the case of progressive taxation, even tax rates drop also) reducing tax burden on taxpayers.

U.S. constitutional law

[edit]

In the United States, the term “direct tax” has acquired specific meaning under constitutional law: a direct tax includes taxes on property[13]: 618  by reason of ownership[14][15] (such as an ordinary real estate property tax imposed on the person owning the property as of January 1 of each year) as well as capitations.[7]: 175 (Chase, J.) [7]: 183 (Iredell, J.)  Income taxes on income from personal services such as wages are indirect taxes in this sense.[16][17]: 15 [18][c] The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has stated: “Only three taxes are definitely known to be direct: (1) a capitation [...], (2) a tax upon real property, and (3) a tax upon personal property.”[19] In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court held that the ObamaCare penalty imposed upon individuals for failure to possess health insurance, though a tax for constitutional purposes,[20]: 570  is not a direct tax, reasoning that the tax is neither a tax on property, nor a capitation in that “it is triggered by specific circumstances” rather than levied “‘without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.’”[20]: 571 

In the United States, the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population.[1][2] After the 1895 Pollock ruling that taxes on income from property should be treated as direct taxes,[13]: 634  this provision made it difficult for Congress to impose a national income tax that applied to all forms of income until the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. Since then, Federal income taxes have been subject to the rule of uniformity but not the rule of apportionment.[17]: 18  Before then, the principal sources of revenue for the federal government were excise taxes and customs duties. Their importance thus decreased during the twentieth century and the main federal government's resources have become individual income taxes and payroll taxes.[12] Other evolutions were observed at the local and state level with a decrease of importance of property taxes whereas income and sale taxes became more important.[12]

In the context of income taxes on wages, salaries and other forms of compensation for personal services, see, e.g., United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 90-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,166 (3d Cir. 1990) (tax evasion conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; taxpayer's argument—that because of the Sixteenth Amendment, wages were not taxable—was rejected by the Court; taxpayer's argument that an income tax on wages is required to be apportioned by population also rejected); Perkins v. Commissioner, 746 F.2d 1187, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9898 (6th Cir. 1984) (26 U.S.C. § 61 ruled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to be “in full accordance with Congressional authority under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution to impose taxes on income without apportionment among the states”; taxpayer's argument that wages paid for labor are non-taxable was rejected by the Court, and ruled frivolous).

Direct taxation in India

[edit]

Direct tax is a form of collecting taxes applicable on the general public by the means of their personal income and wealth generated and collected through formal channels and worthy government credentials such as Permanent account number and bank account details.

Section 2(c) of the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 of India defines "direct tax" as follows:

″(1) any duty leviable (or) tax chargeable under-
(i) the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (34 of 1953.);
(ii) the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957.);
(iii) the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 (29 of 1957.);
(iv) the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (18 of 1958.);
(v) the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961.)
(vi) the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 (14 of 1963.); and
(2) any other duty or tax which, having regard to its nature or incidence, may be declared by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be a direct tax.″ [21][22]

Direct taxation in other countries

[edit]
General government revenue, in % of GDP, from direct taxes. For this data, the variance of GDP per capita with purchasing power parity (PPP) is explained in 43% by tax revenue.

Tax policy in the European Union (EU) consists of two components: direct taxation, which remains the sole responsibility of member states, and indirect taxation, which affects free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services. With regard to European Union direct taxes, Member States have taken measures to prevent tax avoidance and double taxation. EU direct taxation covers, regarding companies, the following policies: the common consolidated corporate tax base, the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different member states (to avoid withholding tax when the dividend qualifies for application of the EC Parent-Subsidiary Directive,[23] the financial transaction tax, interest and royalty payments made between associated companies and elimination of double taxation if the payment qualifies for application of the EC Interest and Royalties Directive.[24] Regarding direct taxation for individuals, the policies cover taxation of savings income, dividend taxation of individuals and tackling tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Direct tax

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A direct tax is a levy imposed by a government directly on the income, profits, wealth, or property of individuals or organizations, which the taxpayer pays without shifting the burden to another party. Unlike indirect taxes such as value-added or sales taxes, which are collected from intermediaries and embedded in the price of goods or services, direct taxes target the earner or owner explicitly. Common examples include personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, estate taxes, and property taxes, which form a significant portion of revenue in modern economies. Historically, direct taxes faced constitutional constraints in federations like the , where early interpretations required apportionment among states for taxes on persons or to prevent regional inequities, leading to debates resolved by the Sixteenth in 1913 authorizing unapportioned taxes. This shift enabled expansive use of progressive direct taxation for funding public goods and redistribution, though origins trace to ancient systems like Roman wealth-based levies. Direct taxes influence economic behavior by altering marginal incentives: higher rates on labor reduce work effort and hours supplied, while taxes on capital discourage and , often correlating with slower long-term growth in empirical analyses across countries. Studies indicate that reliance on direct taxes, particularly at elevated progressive rates, can impede GDP expansion compared to lighter burdens or alternatives like consumption taxes, though they enable targeted . Controversies persist over their progressivity, which aims to equalize burdens but may exacerbate inefficiencies if rates exceed revenue-maximizing levels, as observed in labor supply distortions.

Definition and Fundamentals

Conceptual Definition

A direct tax is a levy imposed by a entity on the , , or person of a , where both the legal incidence—who is statutorily required to remit payment—and the economic incidence—who ultimately bears the reduced or —coincide on the same individual or entity, precluding substantial shifting to third parties via mechanisms or contractual adjustments. This definition prioritizes the causal reality of burden distribution over formal legal designation, as economic theory demonstrates that taxes labeled "direct" can exhibit partial shifting under certain elasticities of , while some "indirect" levies may bind inescapably to the initial payer. Verifiability of incidence thus hinges on empirical of behavioral responses, such as rigidity or asset inelasticity, rather than administrative convenience alone. John Stuart Mill, in his Principles of Political Economy (1848), articulated direct taxes as those "paid by the person on whom it is legally imposed," emphasizing their transparency and resistance to evasion compared to indirect forms embedded in transactions. Adam Smith, in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), similarly contrasted taxes on rents, profits, or capitation with those on consumables, arguing that the former fall directly on the contributor without intermediary absorption, aligning incidence with the taxed party's capacity to bear it. These classifications underscore a first-principles approach: direct taxes enforce accountability by linking payment to verifiable personal attributes like headcount or ownership, minimizing opportunities for diffusion through market channels. Archetypal direct taxes include poll or head taxes, which exact a uniform sum per liable individual irrespective of economic activity, ensuring non-shiftable incidence on the assessee. Such instruments, historically employed for their simplicity in assessment, have become uncommon in contemporary fiscal systems due to challenges in equitable enforcement amid heterogeneous populations.

Distinction from Indirect Taxes

Direct taxes are levied directly on individuals or entities based on their , profits, or , with the legal incidence fixed on the who bears the burden without the to shift it to others. In contrast, indirect taxes, such as value-added taxes (VAT) or sales taxes, are imposed on transactions involving , allowing the initial payer—typically a —to pass the forward through higher prices to consumers or other parties in the . This pass-through mechanism in indirect taxes creates economic distortions where the actual burden depends on market dynamics rather than statutory assignment, avoiding the direct visibility of who pays but embedding compliance within routine commerce. The incidence of indirect taxes hinges on the relative price elasticities of : when is less elastic than supply, consumers absorb a larger share of the through elevated prices, whereas inelastic supply shifts more burden to producers. , by design, preclude such shifting, as the liability adheres to the assessed taxpayer—such as through progressive brackets—ensuring the payer's incentives remain unaltered by intermediary repricing but exposing them to personal behavioral adjustments like reduced labor supply. This fixed liability fosters causal clarity in direct taxation, where policy intent directly maps to payer obligations, unlike the diffused outcomes in indirect systems influenced by elasticities that can obscure accountability. Administratively, direct taxes necessitate individualized assessment, return filing, and mechanisms like withholding or audits to verify and compliance, which demand higher administrative capacity but enable tailored progressivity. Indirect taxes, integrated into point-of-sale or supply-chain collections, streamline by leveraging transaction records, reducing the need for personal declarations and yielding lower evasion rates since evasion requires coordinated underreporting across intermediaries. However, direct taxes face elevated evasion risks in environments with weak institutional trust, as taxpayers may underreport earnings more readily than businesses concealing embedded transaction taxes, amplifying compliance costs for governments reliant on . Direct taxes permit observable progressivity, where higher earners face escalating rates traceable to explicit legislative brackets, aligning with ability-to-pay principles. Indirect taxes exhibit regressive tendencies, as uniform rates on consumption disproportionately burden lower- households who allocate a greater share of to taxable , rendering their distributional effects less amenable to calibration without exemptions that complicate administration. This in systems highlights -driven equity, while indirect regressivity underscores reliance on consumption patterns over individualized assessments.

Historical Evolution

Origins in Ancient and Pre-Modern Societies

In , direct taxation emerged as early as the third millennium BCE, primarily in the form of land taxes assessed on agricultural yields following the annual s. Pharaohs levied these taxes , typically as a portion of harvests—often around one-fifth to one-third depending on fertility and levels—to sustain the state's administrative apparatus, including corvée labor for monumental projects and military campaigns. This system centralized revenue extraction, enabling pharaonic authority to maintain armies without immediate reliance on currency debasement, though it imposed coercive burdens on peasant households vulnerable to variability. The introduced tributum, a direct levy on property and later , to finance military expeditions, with assessments based on declared wealth and applied mainly to citizens during wartime. Under (r. 27 BCE–14 CE), the tributum capitis was formalized as a on provincial subjects, fixed at rates like one per adult male, generating stable funds for legions and imperial while sparing Italian citizens to curb domestic unrest. Plebeian resistance to these levies, evident in early secessions (e.g., 494 BCE) over enslavement tied to and tax obligations, highlighted their coercive nature and prompted patrician concessions like , underscoring how direct taxes fueled expansion but risked social upheaval when unequally distributed. In pre-modern societies, direct taxes adapted to imperial and feudal structures. Medieval Europe's feudal system relied on land levies such as —commutations of obligations into cash payments from vassals' estates—to equip armies for and dynastic wars, often assessed ad hoc at rates like two shillings per knight's fee. The Islamic caliphates, from the CE, imposed as a on non-Muslim dhimmis (protected subjects), scaled by (e.g., 48, 24, or 12 dirhams annually for wealthy, middle, or poor adult males), to fund conquests and administration while incentivizing conversion to avoid payment. In , property assessments under dynasties like the Han (206 BCE–220 CE) formed the core of taxes, with cadastral surveys determining yields and levies (typically 1/15th of harvest) to support centralized bureaucracies and border defenses, contrasting decentralized tolls in less unified realms. These mechanisms provided rulers with non-inflationary revenue for military needs, bypassing seigniorage's risks of currency dilution, though frequent revolts—such as Roman provincial uprisings or Chinese peasant rebellions—revealed enforcement's reliance on force.

Emergence in the Modern Era

The transition to systematic direct taxes in the modern era coincided with the demands of industrialization and expanding state functions, as governments sought revenue sources more stable and verifiable than mercantilist reliance on customs duties and excises, which fluctuated with trade and were vulnerable to smuggling. In Britain, the window tax of 1696—levied at two shillings on houses with up to ten windows and higher rates thereafter—served as an early proxy for wealth assessment, generating revenue for William III's wars without broad income enumeration, but its unpopularity and evasion led to reforms and eventual repeal in 1851 amid complaints of arbitrary enforcement and health impacts from bricked-up windows. Similarly, under the U.S. Articles of Confederation (1781–1789), the national government's inability to impose direct taxes on individuals—limited to state requisitions that often went unpaid—resulted in chronic revenue shortfalls, with federal interest obligations alone reaching $1.6 million by the mid-1780s and contributing to fiscal collapse that underscored the need for centralized taxing authority. French revolutionaries in the 1790s pursued direct contributions as a cornerstone of fiscal reform, abolishing regressive indirect taxes like the and introducing three categories—land (contribution foncière), (contribution mobilière), and windows/doors (contribution des portes et fenêtres)—to distribute burdens equitably based on ability to pay, though implementation faltered due to incomplete cadastral surveys and resistance from rural areas. These efforts reflected rising administrative capacity enabled by Enlightenment-era , allowing tentative shifts from feudal levies to enumerated assessments tied to productive assets. In , the 1891 income tax reform marked a pivotal experiment, broadening the base to include wages, capital, and incomes in a progressive structure that supplemented earlier class taxes, facilitating state financing for military and infrastructural expansion amid rapid industrialization without resorting to inflationary debasement. Empirically, the adoption of such direct levies paralleled state growth, as verifiable and assessments provided elastic revenue streams—rising with economic output—contrasting the inelasticity of indirect taxes; for instance, Prussian direct tax yields supported fiscal stability during the 1890s industrialization surge, avoiding the currency manipulations common in pre-modern regimes. This causal mechanism incentivized administrative investment in censuses and registries, enabling governments to fund canals, railways, and armies essential to modern economies while minimizing reliance on volatile revenues.

Key Developments in the 19th and 20th Centuries

In Britain, was first introduced in 1799 by as a temporary wartime measure to finance the , imposing a levy on incomes above £60 at rates up to 10 percent; it was abolished in 1816 amid public opposition following the war's end. Reintroduced in 1842 by to address fiscal deficits from reduced tariffs, the tax was set at a flat rate of 7 pence in the pound (about 3 percent) on incomes over £150 and became a permanent fixture, marking the shift toward direct taxation as a core revenue source in modern states. This permanence reflected causal pressures from industrial growth and declining indirect revenues, enabling sustained government spending without proportional reliance on regressive excises. In the United States, the Supreme Court's 1895 decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. invalidated the Income Tax Act of 1894, ruling that taxes on income from property constituted direct taxes requiring apportionment among states by population under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, thus blocking unapportioned federal income levies. This prompted the ratification of the 16th Amendment on February 3, 1913, which explicitly authorized Congress to impose taxes on incomes "from whatever source derived" without apportionment, fundamentally enabling the expansion of federal direct taxation and shifting fiscal capacity toward progressive structures amid demands for funding infrastructure and social programs. World War I catalyzed widespread income tax expansions for war financing; in the U.S., the War Revenue Act of 1917 raised top individual rates from 15 percent to 67 percent and corporate rates to 50 percent, while broadening the base to include more middle-income earners, increasing federal tax revenue from $809 million in 1917 to $3.6 billion by 1918. European nations followed suit, with Britain doubling rates to 30 percent by 1918 and introducing excess profits taxes, as total war demands outstripped indirect revenues and borrowing limits, embedding direct taxes deeper into peacetime systems during the interwar period through retained high rates and administrative refinements. World War II further entrenched direct taxes globally via massive base-broadening; the U.S. Revenue Act of 1942 lowered exemptions to $624 annually, imposed a 5 percent "Victory Tax" on all wages, and introduced payroll withholding, transforming from a "class tax" on the wealthy (covering 5 percent of pre-war) to a "mass tax" affecting 75 percent of workers and raising federal revenues from under 5 percent of GDP before 1941 to over 20 percent by 1945. Similar escalations occurred elsewhere, with direct es funding Allied and Axis efforts through rate hikes and new levies, as causal imperatives of total mobilization prioritized administrative efficiency over evasion risks inherent in indirect alternatives. Post-1945, direct tax revenues in developed nations rose markedly as shares of GDP—from around 5 percent in early 20th-century and the U.S. to over 20 percent by the —driven by expansions and reconstruction needs, with taxes supplanting tariffs and excises as primary sources. The (OECD), established in 1961, promoted model bilateral tax treaties to mitigate on direct flows, fostering harmonization that stabilized cross-border investment while accommodating rising domestic direct tax burdens amid globalization's early pressures.

Forms and Implementation

Primary Examples

Personal income taxes are levied directly on individuals' earnings, including wages, salaries, business income, and other sources, with liability determined by after deductions and exemptions. These taxes often employ withholding at source, where employers deduct estimated tax amounts from paychecks and remit them to the taxing authority, a mechanism formalized in the United States through the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 to facilitate quarterly collections aligned with current-year liabilities. Corporate income taxes are imposed on the net profits of business entities, calculated as minus allowable expenses, , and other deductions, with rates applied to the resulting . This is paid directly by the to the and cannot be shifted to consumers or other parties. Property taxes constitute ad valorem assessments on the ownership of , vehicles, or other tangible assets, based on their appraised , typically administered at local levels. Millage rates determine the levy, expressed as a per thousand dollars of assessed value—for instance, a 20-mill rate equates to $20 tax per $1,000 of value. Capital gains taxes target profits from disposing of capital assets like securities or , computed as the difference between sale proceeds and the asset's adjusted basis, often distinguished by holding periods for short-term (ordinary income rates) versus long-term gains. Estate and taxes apply to wealth transfers at death: estate taxes on the gross value of the decedent's holdings before distribution, and taxes on amounts received by heirs, both borne directly by the estate or beneficiaries rather than shifted elsewhere. Wealth taxes levy annual charges on an individual's net worth, encompassing global assets such as real estate, financial holdings, and business interests minus debts, with thresholds triggering liability—for example, France's Impôt de Solidarité sur la Fortune (ISF) applied progressive rates up to 1.5% on fortunes exceeding €1.3 million until its repeal in 2017.

Variations by Jurisdiction

In federal systems such as the United States, direct taxation on income features a layered structure where federal authorities impose a national income tax alongside state-level levies that vary significantly by jurisdiction, with rates ranging from 0% in states like Texas and Florida to over 10% in California and New York as of 2023. This dual system results in combined effective top marginal rates often exceeding 50% when including local surcharges, influenced by deductions and credits that narrow the taxable base. In contrast, unitary systems like India's centralize personal income taxation under the Income Tax Act of 1961, which consolidates levy, collection, and administration at the national level without subnational income taxes, applying progressive slabs up to 30% plus surcharges for high earners, though states handle other direct taxes such as property assessments. Within the , direct taxes remain a matter of national sovereignty, precluding uniform rates or bases, but member states must align with EU fundamental freedoms as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which in 2023 rulings emphasized compliance in cross-border scenarios, such as annulling selective aid decisions in intra-group financing cases while upholding anti-avoidance measures. This leads to diverse implementations, with top marginal tax rates averaging around 42.8% across European countries in 2025, modulated by exemptions that reduce effective burdens— for instance, broad deductions for family allowances in Nordic states versus narrower bases in . In non- contexts like , direct taxation emphasizes corporate income and individual income taxes with progressive rates up to 45%, but property-related levies remain limited to pilots in cities like (0.4-0.6% on assessed values) and deed taxes (3-5%), avoiding nationwide recurrent property taxes due to land ownership structures, thereby concentrating revenue elsewhere and minimizing broad-base direct levies on immovable assets. Cross-jurisdictional differences in base breadth arise from exemptions and thresholds, which causally lower effective rates below statutory levels; data indicate top marginal tax rates averaged 42.5% in 2022, with exemptions for capital gains or specific incomes widening disparities, such as deferred taxation in the versus immediate inclusion in , impacting behavioral incentives like investment relocation. These structural variations underscore how federal layering amplifies complexity and potential , while centralized or sovereignty-preserved models prioritize uniformity but risk evasion through jurisdictional arbitrage, as evidenced by CJEU interventions curbing discriminatory practices without imposing harmonized rates.

Economic Implications

Effects on Incentives and Behavior

High marginal tax rates on reduce the after-tax reward for additional work effort, leading individuals to supply less labor or exert lower intensity in productive activities. Empirical estimates of the labor supply elasticity with respect to net-of-tax wages typically range from -0.1 to -0.5 across demographics, with stronger responses among secondary earners and high- individuals who can more easily adjust hours, defer , or engage in . For instance, life-cycle models calibrated to U.S. data show that cuts in marginal rates increase long-run through heightened labor productivity and entrepreneurial activity. In the United States, top marginal rates of 70% prevailing from 1964 to 1981 prompted behavioral shifts, including recharacterization of income as capital gains or sheltered forms to exploit lower effective rates, rather than sharp declines in reported labor supply among top earners. These dynamics align with principles, where rates exceeding revenue-maximizing levels erode incentives to generate , as evidenced by behavioral responses to historical U.S. tax reforms showing diminished high-end earnings generation under elevated brackets. Such distortions extend to high earners' location decisions, with elevated rates correlating to increased intentions or relocation to lower-tax jurisdictions, though pre-1980s U.S. mobility constraints muted overt brain drain. Direct taxation of capital , compounded by —corporate profits taxed at the firm level and again as dividends or realized gains—lowers net returns, deterring savings and . Theoretical models demonstrate that such levies distort intertemporal allocation, reducing capital stock accumulation as households substitute toward current consumption. Empirical analyses confirm that higher capital taxes correlate with subdued levels, as firms and individuals shift toward less taxed assets or defer realizations. Compliance requirements for direct taxes, involving meticulous record-keeping, audits, and filings, impose fixed costs that disproportionately burden small entities. Studies indicate that these costs consume a larger share of for small businesses—up to 67% higher relative to larger firms—due to limited resources for and legal expertise, thereby discouraging new ventures and advantaging incumbents with in compliance. In the U.S., aggregate business compliance expenditures exceed $126 billion annually, with smaller firms facing elevated per-employee burdens that can exceed 5% of gross receipts.

Comparison to Indirect Taxes

Direct taxes differ from indirect taxes primarily in the certainty of economic incidence, as the burden of direct levies—such as or taxes—falls inescapably on the designated , who cannot legally shift it without evasion. In contrast, indirect taxes like (VAT) or sales taxes impose a statutory liability on intermediaries, but the economic burden is often forwarded to final consumers through higher prices, rendering the incidence more elastic and dependent on market elasticities. This shifting mechanism contributes to the regressive nature of many indirect taxes, as lower-income households devote a greater proportion of their to consumption of taxed , resulting in a higher effective relative to income compared to higher earners. From first principles, both tax types generate deadweight losses by altering incentives and relative prices, prompting behavioral substitutions that reduce overall ; the magnitude depends on the taxed margin's elasticity, with direct taxes potentially distorting labor supply or savings more broadly, while indirect taxes target specific consumption bundles, often yielding narrower but still significant costs. Direct taxes promote greater fiscal transparency, as taxpayers directly observe deductions from wages or assets, fostering political and restraint on rate increases, whereas indirect taxes embed costs in product prices, obscuring the true levy and potentially enabling less scrutinized expansions. However, direct taxes invite sophisticated evasion tactics, such as concealing in offshore accounts, where an estimated 27% of global offshore financial wealth remained untaxed as of , equating to about 3.2% of world GDP. Indirect taxes, conversely, face evasion in informal cash-based economies through underreporting of transactions, though their broader base across all consumption can mitigate some losses if compliance is high. Empirical fiscal compositions illustrate these dynamics, as seen in the , where VAT reliance—accounting for 15.7% of total government tax revenues and 7.2% of GDP in 2023—complements direct taxes by broadening the revenue base without solely depending on visible levies, though this mix can amplify regressive pressures if not offset by exemptions or rebates. Such reliance shifts some burden to consumption, reducing immediate pressure on direct tax progressivity requirements while highlighting indirect taxes' role in stabilizing revenues amid evasion challenges in direct systems.

Empirical Evidence on Growth Impacts

Meta-analyses of empirical studies on OECD countries demonstrate that higher direct tax burdens, particularly from income taxes, correlate with reduced GDP growth rates, primarily through diminished investment and capital formation. A 2020 meta-analysis synthesizing multiple econometric models found that a 10 percent increase in the overall tax burden is associated with an approximate 0.2 percentage point decline in annual GDP growth, with direct taxes exerting stronger negative effects than indirect ones due to their distortionary impact on labor and savings decisions. This aligns with panel data analyses showing corporate income taxes significantly hampering growth by lowering after-tax returns on investment, as evidenced in cross-country regressions where a one percentage point rise in the corporate tax rate reduces long-term GDP growth by 0.2 to 0.5 percentage points. Comparative evidence highlights direct taxes' adverse macroeconomic effects relative to indirect taxes. In a panel study of 51 countries from 1992 to 2016, direct taxes exhibited a statistically significant negative relationship with , while indirect taxes showed an insignificant but positive association, suggesting indirect levies impose fewer distortions on productive activities. Similarly, structural analyses in developed economies confirm that shifts toward higher direct tax shares in —such as personal and corporate income taxes—correlate with slower growth trajectories compared to reliance on consumption-based indirect taxes, which appear growth-neutral or mildly supportive in models. Case-specific empirics reinforce these patterns, including the "tax curse" hypothesis for direct taxation. A 2024 study on using time-series data from 1980 to 2022 found direct taxes negatively impact GDP growth, validating the curse effect wherein excessive direct levies stifle expansion without commensurate fiscal benefits, unlike indirect taxes which showed neutral or positive influences. In the United States, historical data from periods of high marginal rates (exceeding 70 percent prior to 1981) link elevated direct taxation to suppressed aggregate hours worked and , with post-reform reductions in rates associated with subsequent growth accelerations in macroeconomic models controlling for confounding factors. These findings, drawn from peer-reviewed econometric work, underscore causal channels where direct taxes reduce growth by altering incentives at the margin, though estimates vary by institutional context and enforcement quality.

Progressivity and Equity Debates

Theoretical Foundations of Progressivity

The ability-to-pay principle underpins progressive direct taxation, asserting that tax burdens should correspond to an individual's financial capacity, with higher earners facing steeper rates to reflect greater resources for bearing costs without undue hardship. This rationale draws from vertical equity, where unequal treatment aligns with unequal circumstances, contrasting horizontal equity's demand that equals pay equally. articulated early foundations in his 1848 , proposing taxes proportioned to as a measure of ability while endorsing graduated scales specifically for luxury expenditures to minimize distortions on necessities, though he emphasized proportionality for core revenues to preserve incentives. A key theoretical justification invokes declining marginal utility of income, positing that each additional dollar yields less satisfaction to the wealthy than to the poor, thus justifying progressive rates to equate across income levels under an equal- variant of ability-to-pay. Early modern adoption appeared in the U.S. , which imposed rates starting at 1% on incomes over $3,000 for singles (about $92,000 in 2023 dollars) and rising to 7% on portions exceeding $500,000, affecting under 1% of households amid exemptions. Proponents claimed such structures would fund public goods while curbing inequality through redistribution, assuming minimal interference with productive behavior. From first principles, however, progressivity's equity claims falter by presuming static utility functions decoupled from causal incentives; higher marginal rates demonstrably alter effort, investment, and risk-taking, as supply-side analysis reveals reduced labor supply and when taxes exceed revenue-maximizing thresholds. Empirical assessments confirm behavioral offsets undermine goals, with progressive hikes prompting evasion, relocation, or diminished work hours that erode tax bases and limit net transfers to the low-income, often yielding smaller inequality compression than static models predict. These dynamics expose tensions with horizontal equity, as observed abilities diverge post-tax due to endogenous responses rather than inherent differences, challenging the principle's verifiability absent controlled incentives.

Progressive Versus Flat Tax Structures

Progressive tax structures impose higher marginal rates on higher income levels, with the United States maintaining a top federal rate of 37% on taxable income exceeding $626,350 for single filers in 2025. This design seeks to achieve vertical equity by aligning tax burdens more closely with ability to pay, as higher earners retain a larger share of after-tax income despite elevated rates. Proponents argue it redistributes resources to mitigate income inequality, though empirical assessments of long-term equity outcomes remain debated due to behavioral responses like reduced labor supply at high marginal rates. In contrast, flat tax systems apply a uniform rate to all above exemptions, as in Estonia's 22% or Russia's 13% rate introduced in 2001. These structures prioritize horizontal equity, treating equal incomes identically, and indicates they enhance compliance and economic incentives by minimizing distortions from rate gradients. For instance, Russia's reform correlated with a nearly 20% rise in revenues as a share of GDP within the first year, attributed to reduced evasion rather than solely growth, as pre-reform GDP expansion was already robust at 10.6% annually. Similarly, flat systems have shown lower administrative complexity, with studies linking them to improved labor participation and savings rates compared to progressive alternatives. Critics of progressive systems highlight their propensity for evasion and avoidance at peak brackets, where higher marginal rates incentivize sheltering income, as evidenced by theoretical models and micro-data showing greater elasticity of taxable income to rate changes in graduated structures. Flat taxes mitigate this by simplifying enforcement, though initial regressivity concerns are often addressed via basic exemptions or credits, preserving progressivity in effective incidence while stabilizing revenues. Empirical cross-country analyses suggest flatter structures correlate with stronger growth responses to tax cuts, as progressivity amplifies deadweight losses on investment and work effort. Hybrid approaches, such as Milton Friedman's negative income tax proposal, combine flat-rate taxation above a threshold with subsidies for low earners, aiming to replace fragmented welfare with a streamlined safety net that preserves work incentives. This framework empirically favors revenue stability over purely progressive designs, as uniform rates reduce base erosion; Russia's post-reform experience, where personal income tax collections rose 26% inflation-adjusted in the implementation year, underscores how flat elements can broaden the tax base without rate hikes. Overall, while progressive taxes claim fairness through redistribution, data on compliance and growth tilt toward flat systems' efficiency in sustaining fiscal capacity amid behavioral adaptations.

Criticisms of Progressive Direct Taxation

High progressive direct tax rates distort economic incentives by reducing the after-tax returns to effort, risk-taking, and investment, thereby discouraging and . Empirical analyses indicate that elevated marginal rates diminish entrepreneurial entry and activity, as individuals shift toward lower-risk or avoidance strategies rather than starting ventures. For instance, on U.S. data demonstrates that higher marginal rates correlate with reduced and business formation among high earners, with long-term effects on wealth accumulation and innovation output. In the post-World War II era, when U.S. top marginal rates exceeded 90% from 1944 to 1963, effective rates were moderated by deductions and loopholes, but statutory highs still fostered widespread and arguably constrained broader economic dynamism, contributing to slower intergenerational mobility compared to subsequent lower-rate periods. Progressive systems often fail to sustainably reduce income inequality due to significant behavioral responses, including capital flight and income shifting, which offset measured Gini coefficient improvements. In France, the 2012-2014 75% supertax on incomes above €1 million under President Hollande prompted an exodus of over 10,000 high-net-worth individuals, primarily to lower-tax jurisdictions like Belgium, resulting in net revenue losses exceeding the tax's yield through foregone income and other taxes. Similarly, Sweden's high progressive rates and wealth taxes elicit strong elasticities in reporting and relocation behaviors, with studies estimating that such policies reduce reported wealth by 20-30% via avoidance, limiting true redistributive impact despite post-tax Gini figures around 0.27. These responses highlight how progressivity amplifies evasion and emigration, dwarfing static equality gains and perpetuating underlying disparities. From a perspective, steep progressivity facilitates divisive rhetoric framing taxation as class conflict, while overlooking evidence that rate reductions enhance growth without proportional inequality spikes. The 1981-1986 , lowering the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%, correlated with accelerated GDP growth averaging 3.5% annually in the mid-1980s expansion, alongside revenue increases from broadened bases and behavioral boosts, consistent with dynamics where high rates suppress taxable activity. Critics of progressivity, drawing on such empirics, argue it prioritizes symbolic redistribution over verifiable prosperity gains, as flat or lower-rate regimes in comparable economies demonstrate superior incentives for and mobility without inducing fiscal collapse.

United States Constitutional History

The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, originally prohibited from levying capitation or other direct taxes without apportioning them among the states according to the decennial census. This provision reflected the Framers' intent to constrain federal power over property and individuals, reserving direct taxation—typically understood as taxes on land, slaves, or head taxes—to state sovereignty unless apportioned by population to avoid favoring populous states. Prior to the Sixteenth Amendment, such taxes were rare, with relying primarily on indirect excises, duties, and tariffs for revenue. Early Supreme Court interpretation in Hylton v. United States (1796) classified a federal tax on carriages for personal use as an excise rather than a direct tax, exempting it from apportionment since it targeted luxury consumption rather than ownership of real property or persons. The unanimous decision, authored by Justices Paterson, Cushing, and Iredell, emphasized that direct taxes were limited to those incapable of sensible apportionment without injustice, such as land or poll taxes, thereby upholding Congress's broader taxing authority under Article I, Section 8. The Civil War prompted temporary income taxes in 1861 and 1862, upheld as indirect in Springer v. United States (1881), but the 1894 Income Tax Act met resistance. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), a 5-4 majority ruled that taxes on income derived from (rents) and (dividends, interest) constituted direct taxes on the underlying property, requiring and rendering the unapportioned levy unconstitutional. This decision invalidated the flat 2% tax on incomes over $4,000, prompting political backlash and advocacy for reform. Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment on February 3, 1913, by 36 states explicitly empowered Congress "to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." This bypassed Pollock's constraints, enabling the Revenue Act of 1913's graduated income tax starting at 1% on incomes over $3,000 (with surtaxes up to 6% on higher brackets). The amendment's adoption expanded federal fiscal capacity, building on the Bureau of Internal Revenue—established July 1, 1862, to collect Civil War levies—which evolved into the modern Internal Revenue Service administering permanent direct taxation. In Moore v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, upheld the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's one-time repatriation tax on undistributed foreign corporate earnings attributed to U.S. shareholders, as the income had been realized at the corporate level. The ruling reaffirmed longstanding precedent requiring realization—actual receipt or control of gains—for income taxation under the Sixteenth Amendment, rejecting broader claims that unrealized appreciation could be taxed as income and preserving constitutional limits on direct levies absent realization. This decision underscored originalist boundaries, declining to expand "income" beyond realized accretions to wealth.

Developments in Other Countries

In , the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from 1 1962, establishes the comprehensive legal framework for levying and administering direct taxes on income from salaries, business, capital gains, and other sources for individuals, Hindu undivided families, firms, and companies. This act delineates chargeability, exemptions, deductions, and assessment procedures, with progressive slabs historically applied to promote equity while enabling revenue mobilization. In the 2023 Union Budget, amendments to the new default tax regime revised slabs for assessment year 2024-25, setting a nil rate up to ₹3 , 5% on ₹3-7 , 10% on ₹7-10 , 15% on ₹10-12 , and higher rates thereafter, alongside a ₹50,000 and increased rebate limits to ₹7 effectively tax-free, simplifying compliance and reducing effective rates for many taxpayers. Within the , the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has imposed constraints on direct tax harmonization through enforcement of fundamental freedoms, rejecting measures that discriminate or restrict cross-border activities unless justified by overriding and proportionate anti-abuse rules. In its 8 June 2023 ruling in Case C-322/21, the CJEU examined national anti-abuse provisions denying tax deductions for intra-group financing arrangements, affirming that such rules must align with the Parent-Subsidiary Directive's general anti-abuse clause, which targets wholly artificial setups lacking economic substance, while preserving member states' autonomy in direct taxation absent explicit EU competence. These decisions underscore the CJEU's role in curbing abusive reliance on EU law without mandating uniform tax bases or rates. China's 1994 Tax-Sharing Reform, implemented on 1 January 1994, fundamentally reallocated direct tax revenues by classifying enterprise income tax and individual income tax as shared or central taxes, enhancing Beijing's fiscal capacity from 22% of total revenue in 1993 to 55.7% in 1994 through unified administration and collection. This reform centralized control over direct taxes previously fragmented under local governments, introducing a provisional enterprise income tax rate of 33% and laying groundwork for subsequent expansions in taxation, though direct taxes remained secondary to until later decades. Australia incorporated capital gains into its direct tax system via the Income Tax Assessment Act amendments effective 20 September 1985, subjecting realized gains on assets acquired post that date to personal income tax rates, with provisions for indexation of costs to mitigate inflation effects and exemptions for principal residences. The reform addressed revenue erosion from taxpayers converting ordinary income into untaxed capital appreciation, broadening the tax base without a separate capital gains levy, and included roll-over relief for certain involuntary disposals.

Global Policy Shifts Post-2020

Following the , governments worldwide implemented expansive fiscal stimulus measures, elevating public -to-GDP ratios and contributing to subsequent pressures, which in turn prompted policy efforts to bolster direct tax revenues without immediate spending cuts. Empirical analyses indicate that these fiscal deficits, rather than solely monetary factors, were primary drivers of the post-2020 surge in major economies like the , as increased household incomes and business liquidity from tax reductions and transfers fueled amid supply constraints. This environment linked rising —projected to reach 140% of U.S. GDP by late 2024—to direct tax expansions, as nominal revenue gains from helped offset real fiscal strains but highlighted the need for structural adjustments to sustain funding for ongoing expenditures. A pivotal global shift materialized through the /G20 Inclusive Framework on (BEPS) 2.0, where over 140 jurisdictions agreed in October to Pillars 1 and 2, aiming to reallocate taxing rights on multinational enterprises (MNEs) and impose a 15% effective minimum rate on entities with annual s exceeding €750 million. Pillar 2's Global Anti-Base Erosion () rules, released as model legislation in December , target profit-shifting practices, projecting an annual global increase of approximately $150 billion from higher effective direct rates on corporates, particularly in low- digital and intangible sectors. These measures represented a coordinated departure from pre-pandemic , prioritizing stability amid pressures, though implementation has varied, with administrative guidance continuing through 2024 to address transitional qualified status for compliant regimes. Concurrent with these international accords, unindexed brackets in many jurisdictions amplified buoyancy via bracket creep during the 2021-2023 episode, where nominal wage growth pushed taxpayers into higher marginal rates without corresponding gains, effectively raising effective direct burdens. In non-indexed systems prevalent in parts of and certain U.S. states, this fiscal drag generated additional revenues—high initially improving fiscal positions before expenditures adjusted—serving as a passive mechanism to counteract accumulation without overt rate hikes. However, such dynamics have sparked sovereignty tensions, exemplified by U.S. nationalist resistance to the framework, where congressional Republicans and the Trump administration in disavowed prior commitments, arguing the global minimum undermines domestic policy autonomy and competitiveness by enabling foreign top-up taxes on U.S. MNEs.

Specific Changes in 2023-2025

In the United States, the announced inflation adjustments for tax year 2025, increasing the to $15,000 for single filers and married individuals filing separately, $30,000 for married couples filing jointly, and $22,500 for heads of household, reflecting approximately a 2.7% rise from 2024 levels tied to the chained . exemptions also rose to $88,100 for single filers and $137,300 for joint filers, with the phaseout threshold adjusted to $609,350 for singles and $1,218,700 for joint returns, aiming to prevent bracket creep amid persistent . These adjustments maintain the structure of the 2017 (TCJA), many individual provisions of which are set to expire after December 31, 2025, prompting debates in over extensions; proponents argue for permanence to sustain economic incentives, while critics highlight the projected $4.5 trillion revenue loss over a if fully extended without offsets. Federal individual collections reached $2.4 trillion in 2024, comprising 49% of total and marking an increase from prior years despite economic slowdown signals in GDP growth, raising questions about long-term sustainability as collections rely on high-income earners amid debates over TCJA sunsets potentially reversing rates to pre-2018 levels. Globally, the OECD's Tax Policy Reforms 2025 report documented changes in 86 jurisdictions adopting or announcing direct tax measures in 2024, with a focus on implementing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Pillar Two rules establishing a 15% global minimum corporate tax, leading to rate hikes or base-broadening in countries like those in the Inclusive Framework to curb profit shifting and boost revenues. In the European Union, no sweeping direct tax initiatives materialized for 2025, though member states advanced harmonization via directives like DAC8 for enhanced reporting and Pillar Two transposition, with preliminary 2026 revenue projections emphasizing labor tax expansions amid falling overall tax-to-GDP ratios in 2023; empirical data showed direct tax collections rising in line with BEPS enforcement but vulnerable to multinational relocation risks.

References

  1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/directtax.asp
  2. https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/teacher/whys_thm04_les04.jsp
  3. https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/blog/direct-vs-indirect-tax-the-differences/
  4. https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/direct-tax/
  5. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/topics/direct-taxes
  6. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/757
  7. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/historical-highlights-of-the-irs
  8. https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/primers/primer-history-of-taxes/
  9. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/effects-of-income-tax-changes-on-economic-growth/
  10. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7146
  11. https://economicsobservatory.com/which-taxes-are-best-and-worst-for-growth
  12. https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-taxes-affect-economy-long-run
  13. https://www.nber.org/digest/dec04/effects-taxes-labor-income
  14. https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/tax-incidence/
  15. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_incidence.asp
  16. https://illinoistax.org/?p=2888
  17. https://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlP65.html
  18. https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/wealth-of-nations-reading-guide-book-v-chapter-2
  19. https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/head-tax/
  20. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/accounting/direct-taxes/
  21. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C4-1/ALDE_00013592/
  22. https://us.ibfd.org/knowledge-hub/tax-insights/guide-understanding-indirect-and-direct-taxes
  23. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/indirecttax.asp
  24. https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/elasticity-tutorial/price-elasticity-tutorial/a/elasticity-and-tax-incidence
  25. https://www.economicshelp.org/concepts/tax-incidence/
  26. https://www.vertexinc.com/resources/resource-library/understanding-direct-and-indirect-taxes
  27. https://www.fonoa.com/resources/blog/direct-tax-vs-indirect-tax-where-the-difference-lies
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272723000798
  29. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/business-and-management/regressive-taxation
  30. https://almanac.upenn.edu/archive/v48/n28/AncientTaxes.html
  31. https://sites.bu.edu/uea/2023/11/08/beyond-pyramids-and-pharaohs-ancient-egypts-hidden-legacy-of-tax-mastery/
  32. https://www.unrv.com/economy/roman-taxes.php
  33. https://www.britannica.com/topic/jizya
  34. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Terms/liangshuifa.html
  35. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/taxation/overview/taxes18thcentury/
  36. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/constitution-day-tax-policy-constitutional-convention/
  37. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.5-2/ALDE_00000049/
  38. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/making-of-a-fiscalmilitary-state-in-postrevolutionary-france/revolutionary-quest-for-fiscal-stability-17891799/9ED6F43038DC1388F136FBB9985139F9
  39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882547
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014498320300310
  41. https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/119368/version/V1/view/
  42. https://www.lse.ac.uk/Economic-History/Assets/Documents/WorkingPapers/Economic-History/2007/WP99.pdf
  43. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/taxation/keydates/
  44. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/insurance-policyholder-taxation-manual/iptm1300
  45. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/157us429
  46. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/157/429/
  47. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-16/historical-background-on-sixteenth-amendment
  48. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/october-3/war-revenue-act-passed-in-u-s
  49. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/u-s-economy-in-world-war-i/
  50. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/world-war-ii-us-taxation/
  51. https://time.com/4289687/1942-tax-day-history/
  52. https://ourworldindata.org/taxation
  53. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/tax-revenue.html
  54. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1995/1/cj14n3-1.pdf
  55. https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/corporate-income-tax-cit/
  56. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/tax-on-corporate-profits.html
  57. https://dor.georgia.gov/local-government-services/digest-compliance/property-tax-millage-rates
  58. https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-state-and-local-estate-and-inheritance-taxes-work
  59. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estate-tax
  60. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/eu/wealth-tax-impact/
  61. https://cleartax.in/s/income-tax-act-1961
  62. https://www.hdfclife.com/insurance-knowledge-centre/tax-saving-insurance/tax-structure-in-india
  63. https://kpmg.com/xx/en/our-insights/eu-tax/etf-530-the-cjeu-annuls-commission-decision-on-luxembourg-tax-rulings-related-to-intra-group-financing-structures.html
  64. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=288843&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=182021
  65. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/top-personal-income-tax-rates-europe/
  66. https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/peoples-republic-of-china/corporate/other-taxes
  67. https://msadvisory.com/property-tax-in-china/
  68. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-issue-focus/tax-database/tax-database-update-note.pdf
  69. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/chapter/21.html
  70. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/income-tax-and-labour-supply-lets-acknowledge-what-we-dont-know
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3152831/
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304393223001010
  73. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1999/06/1999b_bpea_goolsbee.pdf
  74. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/70-tax-rate-entrepreneurial-income/
  75. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/evidence-on-the-high-income-laffer-curve-from-six-decades-of-tax-reform/
  76. https://www.mercatus.org/economic-insights/expert-commentary/does-70-top-marginal-tax-rate-make-sense
  77. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/higher-tax-rates-can-lead-brain-drain
  78. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course131/taxsavings_new.pdf
  79. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w9651/w9651.pdf
  80. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/b3116098-c577-4e64-8b3f-b95263d38c0e/the-economic-effects-of-capital-gains-taxation-june-1997.pdf
  81. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-SBA-PURL-LPS110901/pdf/GOVPUB-SBA-PURL-LPS110901.pdf
  82. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04kinnta.pdf
  83. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/irs-compliance-complexity-tax-costs/
  84. https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/teacher/whys_thm03_les02.jsp
  85. https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/regressive-tax/
  86. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp
  87. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stantcheva/files/lecture3_1.pdf
  88. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deadweight-loss-of-taxation.asp
  89. https://www.taxobservatory.eu/www-site/uploads/2023/10/global_tax_evasion_report_24.pdf
  90. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/vat/
  91. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Tax_revenue_statistics
  92. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1091142120961775
  93. https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/ijfr/article/download/16112/10800
  94. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/323151/1/1899293558.pdf
  95. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03942-1
  96. https://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/tax-increases-reduce-gdp
  97. https://www.nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Legis-21-1-Article-Pressman-AbilitytoPay.pdf
  98. https://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlP62.html
  99. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=mlr
  100. https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx
  101. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/16th-amendment
  102. https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM
  103. https://docs.iza.org/dp6910.pdf
  104. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/2025-tax-brackets/
  105. https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets
  106. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2022-09/jep.25.4.165.pdf
  107. https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/estonia/individual/taxes-on-personal-income
  108. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2005/wp0516.pdf
  109. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20050314gaddygale.pdf
  110. https://wol.iza.org/articles/flat-rate-tax-systems-and-their-effect-on-the-economy/long
  111. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13719/w13719.pdf
  112. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/dp/dp138.pdf
  113. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/income-taxes-affect-economy/
  114. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/NegativeIncomeTax.html
  115. https://www.propublica.org/article/flat-taxes-are-big-in-the-former-ussr.-have-they-worked
  116. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp06218.pdf
  117. https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/how-set-top-tax-rates-without-deterring-innovation
  118. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5043264
  119. https://www.aei.org/economics/public-economics/why-we-cant-go-back-to-sky-high-1950s-tax-rates/
  120. https://www.northwood.edu/news/the-myth-that-america-prospered-after-wwii-despite-extremely-high-taxes-on-the-rich/
  121. https://www.edwardconard.com/macro-roundup/french-wealth-tax-likely-cost-french-state-2x-revenue-in-terms-of-lost-income-tax/
  122. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax
  123. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/seimAEJ17wealth.pdf
  124. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/BFI_WP_2025-25.pdf
  125. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/modeling-economic-effects-past-tax-bills/
  126. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp
  127. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-9/clause-4/
  128. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-4/overview-of-direct-taxes
  129. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C4-3/ALDE_00013594/
  130. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/171/
  131. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/3us171
  132. https://www.irs.gov/irs-history-timeline
  133. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/158/601/
  134. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27
  135. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-800_jg6o.pdf
  136. https://harvardlawreview.org/?p=16803
  137. https://incometaxindia.gov.in/pages/acts/income-tax-act.aspx
  138. https://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/resources/learning-centre/pay/income-tax-slab-interim-budget
  139. https://kpmg.com/xx/en/our-insights/eu-tax/e-news-179.html
  140. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2645164
  141. https://rhg.com/research/chinas-fiscal-and-tax-reforms-a-critical-move-on-the-chessboard/
  142. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Finance_and_Public_Administration/Completed_inquiries/1999-02/btr/report/c04
  143. https://treasury.gov.au/publication/economic-roundup-winter-2006/a-brief-history-of-australias-tax-system
  144. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/mar/fiscal-origin-covid19-price-surge
  145. https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/2024-12/wp24-22.pdf
  146. https://kpmg.com/us/en/insights-by-topic/beps-pillar-two.html
  147. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/global-minimum-tax/global-anti-base-erosion-model-rules-pillar-two.html
  148. https://kpmg.com/xx/en/our-insights/risk-and-regulation/beps-2-0-pillar-one-and-pillar-two.html
  149. https://www.pse-journal.hr/en/archive/inflation-and-public-finances-an-overview_11169/
  150. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp3136~7e214e2ce2.en.pdf
  151. https://www.proskauertaxtalks.com/2025/01/trump-administration-disavows-the-oecd-global-tax-deal/
  152. https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2025/06/23/rep-hern-op-ed-u-s-tax-sovereignty-under-threat/
  153. https://www.usbank.com/wealth-management/financial-perspectives/financial-planning/tax-brackets.html
  154. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/the-2025-tax-debate-the-big-picture-for-individual-taxes-in-tcja/
  155. https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news/debate-ramps-up-on-tax-cut-permanency/
  156. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/what-kinds-of-revenue-does-the-government-collect/
  157. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61185
  158. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/tax-policy-reforms-2025_de648d27-en.html
  159. https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/economic-analysis/data-taxation-trends_en
  160. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/tax-policy-reforms-2025_de648d27-en/full-report/tax-policy-reforms_c57e058c.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.