Hubbry Logo
Hypothecated taxHypothecated taxMain
Open search
Hypothecated tax
Community hub
Hypothecated tax
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Hypothecated tax
Hypothecated tax
Hypothecated 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

The hypothecation of a tax (also known as the ring-fencing or earmarking of a tax) is the dedication of the revenue from a specific tax for a particular expenditure purpose.[1] This approach differs from the classical method according to which all government spending is done from a consolidated fund.

History

[edit]

Hypothecated taxes have a long history. One of the first examples of earmarking was ship money, the tax paid by English seaports used to finance the Royal Navy.[1] Later, in the 20th century, the hypothecated tax began to be discussed by politicians in the United Kingdom. For example, the Vehicle Excise Duty from 1920 when earned revenues were used for the construction and maintenance of the roads,[1] assigning 1p on the income tax directly to education in 1992,[2] or giving £300 million per year from the revenues from taxes on the tobacco industry to help the fight against smoking-related diseases since 1999.[3]

Types of hypothecated tax

[edit]

The hypothecated tax can be divided into three groups based on the main characteristics. The emphasis can be put on the final use of the revenues, on the vastness of the area financed from the money earned or on the type of the tax. Each group then has two subsections. In the first case, we distinguish between strong and weak hypothecation. Strong hypothecation means that the revenues from the tax go only to financing the particular service and the service is financed only through the revenues from this tax. Strong hypothecation is thought to be appropriate for pure public goods where voters must reveal their consumption preferences. If at least one of the two conditions is not met, we say that the hypothecation is weak.[2] This distinction is the most common as many of the arguments for and against hypothecated tax are based on it.[4]

Secondly, differentiation is made between wide and narrow hypothecation. When the tax revenues finance the entire public service such as the health care, it is described as wide hypothecation. Narrow hypothecation means that only a specific area such as nursery education is funded.

The third level of splitting is based on the type of, and the reason for imposing, the tax that is hypothecated.

The most supported type is a combination of strong and narrow hypothecation. In this case, the hypothecation can serve as a beneficial link between demand and supply. An example can be financing the roads in the U.S. by the gasoline tax.

Benefits

[edit]

There are three main ideas of which benefits hypothecation can bring: believing that people will be willing to pay more for better services; demonstrating the real cost of services to people; and supporting democracy.[2] These can be broken down into four main hypothecation-supporting points.

  • Transparency – Hypothecated taxation makes the link between revenues from taxes and government spending more visible and consumers may be better able to decide how much they are willing to pay.
  • Accountability and trust – Hypothecated taxes may help when the government is not trusted. With hypothecation, it will have to follow a plan made in advance and will have no flexibility.
  • Public support – The knowledge that the money paid on taxes will go directly to some needed service (e.g. health care) can help to reduce the dissatisfaction of the population with an increase in taxes.
  • Protecting resources – Earmarking can protect resources for financing services (such as health care) from being spent in other areas.[4]

Criticism

[edit]

The arguments against earmarking come mostly from the traditional way of viewing the taxes where they were confined to compulsory, unrequited payments to the general government as defined by the OECD in 1988. Firstly, public spending should be determined by policies and not by the amount of the revenue raised. With earmarking, inappropriate funding levels may occur as the strong hypothecated tax implies the dependence of spending on the tax revenues and thus on the macroeconomic performance of the country. Secondly, the flexibility of fiscal policy and thus the ability to influence the economic situation is reduced when hypothecation is used.[2]

In 2012, the Mercatus Center pointed out[5] the negative effects that dedicating tax revenues to specific expenditures can have on the policymakers. In their report they stated that hypothecation can be used to mask the increases in total government spending.

Examples

[edit]

The problem of ambiguity of hypothecation occurs in many countries all over the world. As mentioned before, revenues of hypothecated taxes are often used to finance health care or education because in these sectors the aggregate preference can be easily revealed.

One of the most known cases of hypothecation in Europe is the National Insurance contribution in the United Kingdom. Money that is raised goes directly to the National Insurance Fund from which the benefits are paid. This is also an example of the combination of wide and weak earmarking.[2] (In practice, National Insurance today funds general government expenditures, for after accounting for health spending there is a large surplus which is loaned to the Consolidated Fund.)

The health care system is also often supported by taxes on tobacco, as smoking is considered a serious threat. For example, in Egypt, the revenue earned from these taxes is used to help to cover health insurance and provide prevention and rehabilitation for students. Besides the United Kingdom and Egypt, hypothecation helps to finance health care in many countries including Finland, the Republic of Korea, Portugal, Thailand and Belgium.[6] (Hypothecation of tax revenue for health Ole Doetinchem, World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, 51)

An example from a different sector is television licences. People who use television sets to receive broadcast transmissions can be obliged to pay an annual fee (depending on local laws) and the revenues can be used to fund public broadcasting. In the United Kingdom, the funds raised are dedicated to the BBC, but this type of hypothecation is also applied in many European countries.[4]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Hypothecated tax

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Hypothecated tax, also referred to as earmarked taxation, designates revenue from a specific levy for exclusive use on a predetermined public purpose, such as or social programs, in contrast to general taxes that enter a unified for discretionary allocation. This approach seeks to foster greater by visibly tying contributions to outcomes, though enforcement varies and often relies on political convention rather than ironclad legal mandates. Prominent examples include Contributions in the , where proceeds primarily fund state pensions and portions of expenditures, and fuel duties directed toward road maintenance in various jurisdictions. Similarly, excise taxes on or alcohol are frequently allocated to health initiatives, while payroll levies support systems like or retirement funds in multiple countries. These instances illustrate hypothecation's role in sustaining funding for essential services amid fluctuating general revenues, yet they also highlight mismatches where tax yields decline but spending commitments persist, necessitating supplemental appropriations. While proponents argue that hypothecation boosts public support for taxes by clarifying benefits—evidenced in higher acceptance for visible links like road taxes funding highways—critics contend it undermines overall fiscal flexibility, potentially locking inefficient programs in place and complicating responses to economic shifts. Empirical observations reveal that even designated funds are sometimes raided or offset against baseline budgets, diluting the mechanism's transparency and enabling governments to expand spending without proportional tax hikes, as seen in persistent debates over "hypothecation in name only." This tension underscores hypothecation's defining characteristic: a tool for political legitimacy that trades budgetary adaptability for perceived equity, with real-world application often revealing the limits of rigid earmarking in dynamic economies.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition

A hypothecated tax designates revenues from a specific levy exclusively for a predetermined public expenditure or program, preventing their diversion to other budgetary uses. This mechanism contrasts with general taxation, where collected funds enter a unified revenue pool for flexible allocation via annual budgets. In economic terms, hypothecation creates a direct linkage between the tax base and its intended output, often justified as promoting accountability by tying contributions to observable benefits, though it can constrain fiscal flexibility if revenues fluctuate independently of spending needs. The concept originates from the broader financial principle of hypothecation, where assets or income streams are pledged against specific obligations, adapted to to earmark taxes like fuel duties for or payroll contributions for . Full hypothecation requires strict legal or statutory ring-fencing of funds, ensuring one-to-one correspondence between inflows and outflows, whereas partial forms may involve proportional allocations or notional assignments without absolute separation. Empirical assessments indicate that while hypothecation can bolster public support for taxes perceived as "user pays," it risks inefficiency if the earmarked purpose lacks alignment with the taxed activity's externalities or if administrative costs exceed benefits. Proponents argue it mitigates the fiscal illusion in general funds, where taxpayers underappreciate expenditure scales, but critics highlight risks, as governments may offset hypothecated spending by reducing general allocations elsewhere, effectively neutralizing the dedication. Historical implementations, such as the UK's Contributions funding state pensions since 1911, demonstrate persistence despite debates over true segregation, with revenues often exceeding or falling short of designated outlays over time.

Distinctions from General Taxation

Hypothecated taxes differ from general taxation primarily in the legal or policy-mandated linkage between revenue collection and specific expenditure categories, whereas general taxation revenues are deposited into a for discretionary legislative allocation across multiple priorities. In general taxation systems, such as those funding most U.S. federal or state budgets, proceeds from , , or taxes support broad governmental functions without predefined spending restrictions, allowing flexibility to address varying fiscal needs like defense, , or debt service. By contrast, hypothecation enforces a "ring-fencing" mechanism, where revenues—like those from fuel excises dedicated to highway —are statutorily isolated from the general pool, theoretically preventing diversion to unrelated areas. This earmarking introduces fiscal rigidity absent in general taxation, as hypothecated funds cannot be reallocated without amending enabling legislation, which raises barriers to spending shifts during economic downturns or policy changes. Empirical evidence from U.S. states shows that dedicated taxes often expand overall government size without proportionally reducing general-fund expenditures, as earmarks create parallel budgets that compete for resources rather than substituting for them. General taxation, conversely, promotes budgetary trade-offs, where legislatures must prioritize competing claims, fostering accountability through periodic appropriations processes. Hypothecation can enhance perceived transparency by visibly connecting taxpayer contributions to outcomes, such as National Insurance contributions in the UK funding state pensions and healthcare, but it risks "hysteresis" where initial earmarks entrench spending even as needs evolve. Economically, hypothecated taxes approximate user-fee principles when aligned with beneficiaries, like road toll equivalents via levies, potentially improving efficiency by internalizing costs; general taxation lacks this direct , relying on broader redistribution. However, mismatches arise if volatility—e.g., from fluctuating consumption—diverges from fixed spending demands, necessitating general-fund bailouts that undermine the distinction, as seen in capped social systems supplemented by non-earmarked taxes. Political economy analyses indicate hypothecation may boost public support for taxes by promising dedicated benefits, yet it can distort priorities, insulating favored programs from cuts while general taxation exposes all to scrutiny. Degrees of hypothecation vary: "strong" forms impose strict legal prohibitions on diversion, while "weak" variants rely on political convention, blurring lines with general practices.

Degrees of Hypothecation

Hypothecation of es varies in degree based on the strictness of the link between specific revenues and designated expenditures, ranging from rigid, enforceable allocations to more symbolic or partial assignments. hypothecation occurs when revenues from a particular are exclusively and legally dedicated to a specific purpose, often with the yield calibrated to match the expenditure requirements precisely, functioning akin to a user fee rather than general taxation. In such cases, the earmarking is binding, limiting fiscal flexibility but enhancing transparency and voter by ensuring direct of funds. Weak hypothecation, by contrast, involves a looser association where tax proceeds are notionally attributed to a purpose but commingled with general revenues, allowing governments to reallocate funds without legal constraint, though public may still tie the tax to the stated goal symbolically. This form predominates in practice, as seen in scenarios where only a portion of revenues—such as an incremental rate increase—is earmarked, or where the designation serves primarily to garner political support rather than enforce spending discipline. Weak variants can further subdivide into narrow (targeting precise, limited expenditures) and wide (applying to broader programs), but both lack the enforceability of strong hypothecation, potentially leading to fiscal where taxpayers overestimate the direct benefit of their payments. Partial or intermediate degrees bridge these extremes, as in arrangements where a fixed proportion of a tax's yield funds the designated use while the remainder enters the general pool, or where hypothecation applies conditionally based on revenue thresholds. For instance, some jurisdictions hypothecate a specific levy increment (e.g., an additional 1% on ) toward a service without isolating the base , blending elements of both strong and weak forms to balance rigidity with budgetary adaptability. These gradations reflect trade-offs in policy design: stronger forms mitigate risks of diversion but constrain responses to changing needs, while weaker ones preserve macroeconomic control at the cost of reduced public trust in the revenue-expenditure nexus.

Historical Evolution

Ancient and Early Modern Origins

In , direct taxation on citizens was rare outside of emergencies, but the eisphora, a levy on property wealth imposed irregularly from the late BCE onward, was explicitly dedicated to financing military expeditions and defense, such as during the (431–404 BCE). This form of hypothecation arose from administrative necessity and the democratic assembly's oversight, ensuring funds did not enter a general but targeted existential threats, with assessments based on declared assets and rates varying by conflict scale, sometimes reaching 1–2% of property value. In imperial Rome, from the late Republic through the Principate (c. 1st century BCE to 3rd century CE), virtually all taxation operated under hypothecation due to decentralized collection and expenditure controls, with revenues like the portoria (customs duties at 2–5% on goods) earmarked for infrastructure such as harbor maintenance and road repairs under provincial governors. Land taxes (tributum soli) from provinces were similarly ring-fenced for legions stationed in those regions, reflecting a system where tax farmers (publicani) bid for collection rights tied to specific fiscal obligations rather than a unified budget, minimizing embezzlement risks in an era without modern accounting. This practice persisted amid fiscal pressures, such as Augustus's reforms around 27 BCE, which stabilized revenues for military pay totaling about 450 million sesterces annually by the 1st century CE. Medieval European rulers extended hypothecation through feudal levies, where taxes like (shield money, introduced in under Henry II in 1162) substituted with cash payments explicitly for royal armies or , generating sums like £2,000 for campaigns in the . In , aides (aid taxes on sales) from the 13th century were pledged to monarchs for specific wars, such as Philip IV's levies funding conflicts with , yielding revenues equivalent to 1–2% of national GDP equivalents. By the (c. 1500–1800), hypothecation evolved with centralized states, as in where post-1660 excise duties on commodities like (yielding £500,000 annually by 1689) were initially allocated to naval rebuilding after the Dutch Wars, reflecting parliamentary demands for transparency amid rising debt from conflicts like the (1688–1697). Continental examples included Spanish alcabala sales taxes (10% rate from 1342, formalized under the Habsburgs) hypothecated for military garrisons in the , funding expenditures exceeding 10 million ducats yearly by the , though often diverted, highlighting enforcement challenges. These practices underscored hypothecation's role in securing consent for extraordinary levies while constraining sovereign discretion, a pattern rooted in pre-modern fiscal fragmentation rather than comprehensive budgeting.

19th and 20th Century Developments

In the late 19th century, the concept of hypothecated taxation advanced through the establishment of contributory systems, beginning with Germany's Act of 1883 under Chancellor . This legislation mandated payroll contributions split between workers (two-thirds) and employers (one-third), totaling approximately 1.5% of wages, explicitly dedicated to funding sickness benefits administered by decentralized sickness funds (Krankenkassen).31280-1/fulltext) Subsequent laws in 1884 for and 1889 for invalidity and old-age pensions extended this model, hypothecating employer-heavy contributions (up to 100% in some cases) for specific worker protections, marking an early large-scale application of earmarked levies to mitigate industrial risks without relying on general taxation. This Bismarckian approach influenced European developments into the early 20th century, notably the United Kingdom's Act of 1911, which imposed compulsory contributions—4 pence weekly from employed workers, 3 pence from employers, and 2 pence from the state—for approximately 2.25 million industrial workers covering and, optionally, for about 1.25 million in select trades. Funds were ring-fenced into approved societies or insurance committees to pay medical benefits and unemployment dole, representing a partial hypothecation that blended contributory elements with state subsidies to address poverty amid rapid . By 1913, coverage expanded, though administrative fragmentation limited strict earmarking as surpluses occasionally supported broader welfare. Parallel to , infrastructure-focused hypothecation gained traction in the early , exemplified by the introduction of motor fuel taxes tied to road funding. enacted the first gasoline tax on February 25, 1919, at 1 cent per gallon, with revenues constitutionally dedicated to highway construction and maintenance amid booming automobile use that strained existing dirt roads. By 1929, all U.S. states had adopted similar levies, often hypothecated via trust funds; for instance, federal involvement began with the 1932 Revenue Act imposing a 1-cent-per-gallon tax, later augmented for the [Interstate Highway System](/page/Interstate Highway_System) under the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, where 100% of gas tax proceeds funded roads until diversions emerged post-1980s. In , analogous vehicle and fuel duties, such as the UK's Road Fund established by the 1909 (bolstered by license fees), hypothecated revenues for road improvements until general treasury integration in 1937. Mid-20th-century expansions included the U.S. of 1935, which instituted a 1% on wages up to $3,000 (matched by employers), hypothecated into the Old-Age Reserve Account for pensions starting in 1940, covering 60% of the workforce by 1937 and embodying contributory earmarking to counter Great Depression-era destitution. These mechanisms proliferated globally, with Japan's post-1945 fuel taxes dedicated to highways mirroring U.S. models, though empirical audits later revealed frequent "diversions" where earmarked funds subsidized non-specified uses, undermining strict hypothecation. Overall, the period shifted hypothecation from ad hoc 18th-century precedents toward systematic application in welfare and transport, driven by industrialization and motoring, yet prone to fiscal leakage as governments prioritized flexibility over rigid dedication.

Post-1945 Expansion and Challenges

Following , the establishment of expansive welfare states across Europe and drove the proliferation of hypothecated payroll taxes dedicated to programs. In the , contributions, formalized under the National Insurance Act 1946 and operationalized from 1948, were structured as earmarked levies to fund contributory benefits including pensions, unemployment support, and elements of the newly created , reflecting the Beveridge Report's vision of universal coverage financed through dedicated worker and employer payments. These contributions, initially set at rates like 4s. 11d. per week for employees earning over £450 annually, expanded rapidly to underpin post-war reconstruction and social security commitments. In the United States, the Social Security system's es, already dedicated to Old-Age and Survivors trust funds since 1937, underwent post-1945 expansions that reinforced hypothecation. The Social Security Amendments of 1950 extended coverage to an additional 10 million workers, including farmers and domestic employees, while raising benefit levels and increasing the combined employer-employee from 2% to 2.5% on up to $3,600, with revenues strictly allocated to program outlays. Further growth came with the 1956 addition of and the 1965 Medicare enactment, which imposed a separate 0.35% insurance payroll tax on up to $6,600, hypothecated for elderly health coverage via the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. hypothecation also advanced, as the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act created the , earmarking gasoline excise taxes—raised from 2 to 3 cents per gallon in 1959—for interstate construction, channeling over $25 billion by 1970 toward 41,000 miles of highways. Despite these developments, hypothecated taxes encountered persistent challenges related to enforcement, fiscal integration, and long-term sustainability. Governments frequently undermined strict earmarking by treating dedicated revenues as fungible; in the U.S., Social Security surpluses since the 1983 reforms have been invested exclusively in non-marketable securities, amounting to over $2.8 trillion in intragovernmental debt by 2023, which critics argue masks underlying deficits by borrowing from future beneficiaries rather than enforcing isolation from general spending. Payroll tax rates escalated to address benefit growth and demographics, reaching 12.4% combined for Social Security by 1990 (up from 6% in 1970), yet projections indicate trust fund depletion by 2035 without reforms, highlighting pay-as-you-go vulnerabilities amid aging populations. In the UK, National Insurance's hypothecation proved nominal, as contributions flow into consolidated funds without legal barriers to reallocation, enabling governments to prioritize spending elsewhere and fostering accusations of fiscal where voters perceive contributions as insured entitlements rather than es. This flexibility deficit restricts policy adjustments to revenue volatility—such as fluctuating consumption affecting es—or evolving needs, potentially encouraging inefficient over-investment in earmarked areas while constraining overall budgetary discipline. Empirical patterns show hypothecated systems correlating with higher total burdens, as dedicated levies evade general scrutiny, though they enhance public acceptance for specific programs like or pensions.

Classification of Hypothecated Taxes

Infrastructure and User-Fee Types

Hypothecated taxes dedicated to infrastructure typically involve excise levies on fuels or vehicles, with revenues earmarked for constructing, maintaining, and expanding transportation networks such as roads and highways. These taxes align payer contributions with usage intensity, as fuel consumption correlates with road wear and traffic volume. In the United States, federal excise taxes on gasoline (18.4 cents per gallon) and diesel (24.4 cents per gallon), enacted through the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 and amended by subsequent revenue acts, flow directly into the Highway Trust Fund's highway account, which has financed over 600,000 miles of interstate highways since inception. State-level motor fuel taxes, averaging 32.6 cents per gallon for gasoline in 2023 across jurisdictions, are similarly earmarked for transportation, constituting approximately 26% of state highway expenditures in 2021. Internationally, analogous mechanisms persist, though hypothecation purity varies due to fiscal diversions. In the , vehicle excise duty and fuel duties have historically supported road programs, with portions ring-fenced under the Transport Act 1980 before partial integration into general funds; by 2021, fuel duty revenues exceeded £25 billion annually, a fraction of which sustains local via devolved formulas. Japan's post-war system initially hypothecated taxes for national expressways, funding over 7,600 kilometers by the , but shifted to general revenue amid concerns in the 2000s. Such earmarking promotes targeted investment but faces erosion, as evidenced by the U.S. Highway Trust Fund's repeated bailouts from general revenues totaling $285 billion since 2008 to avert . User-fee types of hypothecated taxes extend this principle by structuring levies to approximate direct compensation for service consumption, minimizing cross-subsidization from non-users. These include per-mile or distance-based charges, such as Oregon's 2018 pilot program taxing heavy-duty vehicles at rates up to 20 cents per mile via readings, with revenues hypothecated for road preservation to replace declining yields amid . Congestion pricing schemes, like Singapore's introduced in 1998, impose variable tolls (up to SGD 6 per crossing in peak zones) hypothecated for public transit enhancements, reducing peak traffic by 45% while generating SGD 80 million annually for infrastructure. Unlike flat taxes, these user-fee proxies enforce pricing, incentivizing efficient usage; however, administrative costs and evasion risks, as seen in truck mileage tax compliance rates below 90% in , challenge scalability.

Social Insurance and Entitlement-Funded Taxes

Social and entitlement-funded taxes represent a prominent category of hypothecated levies, where contributions from employees and employers are earmarked primarily to finance specific social welfare programs such as pensions, , unemployment , and healthcare entitlements. These taxes operate on a contributory , linking payments to future benefits and often building dedicated trust funds or accounts to segregate revenues from general budgetary appropriations. Unlike general income es, they are presented as insurance premiums rather than pure taxation, fostering perceptions of direct reciprocity between contributions and entitlements. In the United States, the (FICA) imposes a 12.4% on wages up to $168,600 in 2024, split equally between employers and employees, with 6.2% allocated to the Old-Age, Survivors, and (OASDI) program funding Social Security benefits. An additional 2.9% funds Medicare's Hospital Trust Fund, hypothecated for hospital and related services. Surpluses are invested in special-issue U.S. securities, ostensibly safeguarding funds, though these represent obligations rather than liquid assets, allowing congressional borrowing for non-entitlement purposes. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that while trust funds hold real securities backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. , the system's pay-as-you-go structure means current benefits rely heavily on ongoing contributions rather than accumulated reserves. The United Kingdom's National Insurance Contributions (NIC), introduced in 1911 and expanded post-1948, exemplify European variants, collecting approximately £170 billion in 2022-2023 from employee (8% on earnings above £12,570), employer (13.8%), and self-employed rates, with the bulk directed toward state pensions, the (NHS), and contributory benefits. About 75% of NIC revenues support the NHS and pensions, per government allocations, though legislation permits flexibility for broader social security spending, undermining strict hypothecation. Critics, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies, argue this partial earmarking creates an illusion of dedication, as fiscal pressures have historically diverted funds without equivalent voter backlash. Other jurisdictions, such as and , employ similar payroll-based systems for statutory , where contributions—e.g., 's 18.6% combined rate for pension insurance in 2023—are hypothecated to pay-as-you-go schemes covering old-age, health, and entitlements. These models often feature legal ring-fencing via independent funds, yet face sustainability challenges from aging populations, with ratios of workers to retirees declining from 4:1 in the mid-20th century to around 2:1 in many countries by 2023. Empirical analysis indicates that while hypothecation enhances perceived legitimacy and compliance—evidenced by higher NIC acceptance in the UK compared to —weak enforcement allows governments to treat revenues as fungible, potentially eroding fiscal discipline over time.

Behavioral or Sin Taxes

Behavioral or sin taxes constitute a category of hypothecated excises levied on goods and activities deemed harmful to individual or societal welfare, such as products, alcoholic beverages, and increasingly sugar-sweetened beverages. These taxes aim to internalize externalities by discouraging consumption while earmarking revenues for targeted interventions, including campaigns, treatment programs, and research to mitigate associated costs like prevalence and healthcare burdens. Unlike general taxes, hypothecation in this context ties the fiscal instrument directly to the harm it addresses, potentially enhancing perceived legitimacy and behavioral impact. Prominent examples include tobacco surcharges in Thailand, where a 2% levy on tobacco and alcohol products implemented in 2001 funds the Thai Health Promotion Foundation for initiatives targeting tobacco control, alcohol risk reduction, and broader health promotion. This has generated approximately US$125 million in 2014 alone, contributing to a decline in smoking prevalence from 25.47% in 2001 to 20.7% in 2009, with projected savings of 319,456 lives by 2026. In the Philippines, excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol under Republic Act 10351 (2012) allocate over 85% of incremental revenues—reaching US$1.01 billion for health in 2014—to universal healthcare coverage, medical assistance, and awareness programs, correlating with a drop in smoking rates from 31% in 2008 to 25.4% in 2013. Similarly, Panama's selective consumption tax on tobacco, raised to 100% of retail price by 2009 via Act No. 69, earmarks funds for tobacco control measures under the WHO's MPOWER framework, cancer treatment, and anti-smuggling efforts, yielding US$59.4 million from 2009 to 2014 and reducing adult smoking prevalence from 9.4% in 2007 to 6.4% in 2013. In Victoria, , a 5% tobacco levy introduced in 1987 established VicHealth, channeling over AUS$20 million annually until 1997 toward anti- campaigns, health promotion research, and smoke-free policies, though national reforms later diluted strict hypothecation. U.S. states provide varied subnational models, such as California's Proposition 99 (), which imposes a 25-cent-per-pack surcharge dedicated to , tobacco-use prevention, and , generating billions for these purposes while funding programs that have measurably lowered youth rates. Other jurisdictions, including Egypt's 10-piastre-per-pack tax subsidizing student health insurance and Vietnam's 1-2% factory price levy supporting cessation services and awareness, illustrate global adoption, often yielding revenues in the tens of millions annually for preventive and rehabilitative care. Empirical evidence indicates these hypothecated sin taxes modestly reduce targeted consumption—typically by 4-10% per 10% price increase for —while bolstering public support when revenues are visibly linked to benefits, as opposed to general funds. However, long-term hypothecation faces risks of , as seen in Australia's partial shift to pooled funding, and outcomes depend on enforcement, with revenues sometimes insufficient to fully offset health externalities amid or substitution effects.

Theoretical Analysis

Claimed Advantages

Proponents of hypothecated taxes assert that they promote fiscal transparency by establishing a direct, visible connection between specific revenues and their intended expenditures, enabling taxpayers to more clearly perceive how their payments fund particular public goods or services. This linkage is claimed to heighten public awareness of the true costs of government programs, fostering informed and reducing perceptions of opaque or arbitrary fiscal decision-making. Another frequently cited benefit is improved taxpayer compliance and voluntary adherence, as earmarking aligns tax burdens with tangible benefits or valued outcomes, such as dedicating revenues to initiatives or that directly serve contributors' interests. Studies on health-related earmarked taxes, for instance, indicate that hypothecation can bolster public support by framing revenues as investments in societal priorities like disease prevention, potentially mitigating resistance to rate increases. Hypothecation is also said to enhance governmental and fiscal discipline, constraining policymakers' ability to divert funds across budgets and thereby discouraging profligate spending or pork-barrel allocations. By legally or conventionally ring-fencing revenues, it theoretically imposes self-binding rules that prioritize long-term over short-term political expediency, as observed in cases where earmarked systems correlate with more stable for designated sectors.

Key Criticisms

One primary criticism of hypothecated taxes is their imposition of budget rigidity, which constrains governments' ability to reallocate resources in response to changing economic conditions or priorities. By earmarking revenues for specific uses, such taxes bypass standard budgetary processes, limiting flexibility during fiscal crises or shifts in public needs, as observed in cases like Indonesia's subnational earmarks that increased spending inflexibility. This rigidity can prevent countercyclical fiscal adjustments, exacerbating economic downturns by forcing expenditures irrespective of broader priorities. Critics also highlight the fungibility of earmarked funds, where dedicated revenues often displace general budget allocations rather than augmenting net spending on the intended purpose. Empirical evidence indicates that lawmakers may redirect displaced general funds elsewhere, resulting in no overall increase for the targeted area, as seen in health earmarks in countries like Gabon, Ghana, and Estonia. This substitution effect undermines the perceived benefit of hypothecation, potentially leading to lower per capita spending in the designated sector compared to non-earmarked systems. A further objection concerns the mismatch between revenue volatility and spending requirements, tying expenditures to fluctuating tax yields rather than assessed needs. For instance, revenues from volatile sources like tobacco or sin taxes may produce surpluses in booms—risking wasteful spending—or shortfalls in downturns, failing to align with stable health or infrastructure demands. This disconnect can distort efficient resource allocation, as tax proceeds bear "no relationship" to optimal spending levels. Hypothecation is argued to erode central budgetary oversight, exempting earmarked funds from finance ministry review and weakening overall fiscal discipline. Ministries of finance typically oppose it for undermining their mandate to prioritize across sectors, potentially favoring special interests over holistic policy. Additionally, it may introduce economic distortions, such as fragmented funding systems or heightened inequality from payroll-based health levies, without commensurate benefits.

First-Principles Evaluation

Hypothecation addresses core challenges in by attempting to forge a direct nexus between payments and specific public outputs, approximating the wherein contributors fund discernible services akin to market transactions. This linkage can reduce in , as taxpayers perceive greater reciprocity, potentially lowering resistance to levies when benefits are traceable, such as fuel excises financing highway maintenance. Yet, under dynamics, this specificity concentrates benefits on program advocates while diffusing costs, rendering earmarks politically durable and resistant to elimination even when inefficient, as evidenced by state-level patterns where hypothecated revenues exhibit heightened persistence compared to general funds. Such entrenchment stems from by beneficiaries, who defend allocations irrespective of broader opportunity costs, thereby perpetuating expenditures that may diverge from aggregate welfare maximization. From efficiency standpoints, hypothecation deviates from Ramsey-optimal taxation, which prescribes minimizing distortions via broad-based levies, by imposing rigid earmarks that constrain reallocation amid evolving needs, such as shifting priorities from to defense. Where the tax base mirrors usage—as in user fees for toll-like services—it enhances allocative precision by internalizing externalities; however, for non-excludable , it risks overinvestment in earmarked domains, as revenue inflows invite scope expansion without marginal benefit scrutiny, fostering waste absent market signals. Administrative overheads compound this, with segregated tracking elevating compliance burdens over unified budgeting. Causally, hypothecation mitigates some fiscal illusion by clarifying links but fails to curb expenditure bias rooted in politicians' reelection incentives, who may inflate earmarked es or blend general funds to mask dilutions, undermining the mechanism's integrity over cycles. Absent ironclad enforcement—rare in —it fragments the , exacerbating agency problems by empowering spending silos rather than enforcing overall prudence, ultimately yielding second-best outcomes inferior to competitive private provision or transparent general taxation with strong institutional checks.

Empirical Assessment

Evidence on Fiscal Discipline

Empirical analyses of dedicated tax revenues in U.S. states reveal that hypothecation tends to expand total without proportionally increasing expenditures in the designated categories, thereby undermining fiscal restraint. A study examining data from 49 states over three years found that earmarking general revenue for raised overall state spending by $0.55 per dollar dedicated, while producing no significant boost to education outlays; similarly, dedicating corporate proceeds to education decreased targeted spending by $2.72 per dollar while elevating non-education expenditures comparably. These patterns support the that governments leverage the perceived constraints of earmarking to mask broader fiscal expansion, consistent with models of revenue where dedicated funds supplant rather than supplement general allocations. Cross-national evidence reinforces this lack of disciplinary effect. In countries, earmarked taxes for failed to elevate health spending and, in some instances, correlated with declines, as governments offset hypothecated inflows by curtailing baseline health budgets or redirecting priorities elsewhere. For health-specific hypothecation, such as Australia's 1987 Victorian levy initially earmarked for , revenues proved fungible over time: the dedicated stream funded targeted initiatives yielding over AUS$20 million annually until 1997, but subsequent policy shifts integrated it into general taxation, allowing offsets against non-earmarked health funds and eroding strict linkages. The mechanism—where earmarked revenues enable reductions in general-purpose funding for the same purpose—consistently dilutes hypothecation's potential to enforce discipline, as public funds remain interchangeable in practice. Empirical tests across contexts, including state-level lotteries and intergovernmental transfers, confirm that such dedications rarely increment targeted outlays net of offsets, instead facilitating overall ary growth by obscuring the scale of expansions from taxpayers and legislators. This dynamic contravenes claims of restraint, as hypothecation exempts portions of revenue from holistic budget scrutiny, potentially insulating spending from economic downturns or competing priorities while permitting unchecked proliferation in aggregate terms.

Impacts on Taxpayer Behavior and Compliance

Hypothecated taxes influence behavior by increasing perceived legitimacy and direct benefits, often leading to greater of tax burdens. Experimental from a conjoint analysis of 542 German taxpayers in 2008–2009 demonstrated that earmarking revenues for raised the part-worth utility of contributions by 11.6% compared to non-earmarked scenarios, with 73.8% of participants deviating from net income maximization to favor labeled or earmarked options. This heightened implies reduced incentives for evasion, as taxpayers weigh visible societal returns against personal costs. Compliance rates improve when hypothecation enhances tax morale through transparency. A 2024 study on Italian car ownership taxes, earmarked for , used multilevel on 1.485 million taxpayer records from in 2014 and found a significant negative between earmarking visibility (e.g., municipal investments) and evasion, with a of -0.031 (p<0.01). Overall evasion stood at 19.6% (EUR 98.6 million of EUR 502 million due), concentrated among younger, foreign, and low-income groups, but institutional factors tied to earmarking mitigated rates, suggesting perceived benefits foster voluntary payment. Broader behavioral effects include elevated willingness to support tax hikes for designated uses, as hypothecation counters in general allocation. Laboratory experiments eliciting preferences over spending—mirroring hypothecation's agency—show increased compliance, with participants reporting higher intrinsic motivation when taxes link to preferred outcomes. However, effects depend on credible of earmarking; weak links may erode gains, as compliance hinges on sustained visibility rather than mere labeling.

Case-Specific Outcomes and Diversions

In the United States, the (HTF), established by the and funded primarily through federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel (currently 18.4 cents and 24.4 cents per gallon, respectively), exemplifies challenges in maintaining hypothecation. Intended to finance highway construction and maintenance, approximately 30% of HTF expenditures have been diverted to non-highway uses, including mass transit programs via the Mass Transit Account. The fund has faced chronic shortfalls due to stagnant revenues amid rising costs and improved vehicle efficiency, leading to risks; since 2008, has authorized over $288 billion in transfers from general revenues to avert default, effectively undermining the earmarking by subsidizing shortfalls with non-dedicated funds. Empirical assessments of dedicated revenues across U.S. states reveal widespread , where earmarked taxes fail to incrementally boost targeted spending. A analysis of state-level data found that in the majority of cases, dedicating revenues does not increase expenditures on intended purposes, as politicians offset inflows by reducing general fund allocations to those areas, treating revenues as interchangeable. Similarly, taxes, often hypothecated for transportation , have seen diversions to unrelated priorities in various states, such as through "back-door" mechanisms reallocating surplus to non-highway needs, contributing to spending volatility rather than stability. In the , Contributions (NICs), introduced in 1911 and expanded under the 1946 National Insurance Act, are nominally hypothecated to fund contributory benefits like state pensions and portions of (NHS) operations, generating £178 billion in 2022–2023. However, this linkage is largely illusory, as NIC revenues enter the without strict ring-fencing, allowing governments to borrow against or reallocate them amid deficits; for instance, the fund has operated at a structural shortfall since the , with NHS funding increasingly reliant on general taxation rather than dedicated NICs. Critics argue this symbolic hypothecation fosters public misconceptions of direct funding ties, enabling tax hikes without corresponding accountability for earmarked uses. Internationally, cases like Louisiana's 2003 transportation trust fund, initially capitalized at $1 billion from general revenues and fuel taxes for , illustrate diversion risks, where legislative changes redirected portions to non-transport priorities, yielding unintended fiscal imbalances. Broader evidence from health-related hypothecation, such as tobacco or alcohol excises in various jurisdictions, confirms : inflows from dedicated levies often prompt offsets in baseline health budgets, failing to net-increase sector spending and sometimes exacerbating revenue volatility when behavioral shifts reduce tax bases. These outcomes underscore a where political incentives prioritize flexibility over , leading to de facto diversions despite statutory intentions.

Prominent Examples

United Kingdom

In the , hypothecated taxes—those earmarked for specific expenditures—have historically played a limited role in the tax system, with successive governments resisting widespread adoption to preserve flexibility in allocating general revenues. The policy dates back to early 20th-century examples, such as the Vehicle Excise Duty introduced in 1920, initially hypothecated to the Road Fund for road maintenance and construction until hypothecation ended in 1937, after which funds entered general revenue. Post-1937, Vehicle Excise Duty revenues have not been ring-fenced, though a 2015 pledge by the committed English receipts to road improvements, a commitment later undermined by a £2 billion Treasury reallocation in 2021, highlighting challenges in maintaining earmarking amid fiscal pressures. National Insurance Contributions (NICs), introduced in 1911 and expanded under the 1946 National Insurance Act, represent the most prominent instance of partial hypothecation, with revenues notionally allocated to social security benefits, state pensions, and the (NHS). In practice, this constitutes "soft" hypothecation: while approximately 20% of NICs (£21 billion in 2014–15) supported NHS spending, the bulk funds pensions and benefits, and total NIC receipts do not strictly determine NHS allocations, allowing discretion during economic downturns such as the 2008–2009 recession, when NHS funding rose despite falling contributions. Public perception often overstates direct linkage, with surveys indicating many taxpayers believe NICs exclusively fund the NHS, a misconception exploited in policy debates but refuted by fiscal analyses showing integrated general taxation dynamics. Other examples include the Soft Drinks Industry Levy, enacted in 2018 and hypothecated to fund sports and programs in schools, raising £340 million annually by 2023 toward reduction goals. The Horse Race Betting Levy, statutory since 1963, directs betting revenues to prize money and industry improvement, while the fee, collected under the BBC's , funds exclusively, though classified as a rather than a . Critics argue these mechanisms reduce fiscal discipline by insulating spending from overall scrutiny, potentially encouraging inefficiency—such as in funding where hypothecation historically failed to match maintenance needs—and limiting responses to shifting priorities, as evidenced by proposals for NHS-specific hypothecation in 2018, which experts deemed unsustainable without addressing demographic cost pressures. Empirical reviews, including international comparisons, find no clear evidence that hypothecation improves outcomes over general funding, with UK cases underscoring risks of revenue volatility and political diversion.

United States

In the , hypothecated taxes, often termed earmarked taxes, direct specific revenue streams into dedicated trust funds or programs rather than the general treasury, with prominent examples including es under the (FICA) and excise taxes on fuels. FICA imposes a 6.2 percent on both employers and employees for Old-Age, Survivors, and (OASDI), capped at $176,100 in earnings for 2025, funding the Social Security trust funds, while an additional 1.45 percent each supports Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund for Part A hospital benefits. These taxes, enacted in 1935 for Social Security and expanded in 1965 for Medicare, aim to link contributions directly to future benefits, creating separate accounting for inflows and outflows. The (HTF), established by the and restructured in 1959, exemplifies resource-specific earmarking, with revenues primarily from federal excise taxes of 18.4 cents per gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents on diesel fuel, alongside smaller levies on tires and heavy vehicles. These funds support federal highway construction, maintenance, and mass transit grants, totaling about $50 billion annually in recent authorizations under laws like the of 2021. Similarly, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund receives aviation-related excises, such as ticket fees and fuel taxes, financing and airport improvements. Despite the intent of fiscal ring-fencing, these mechanisms have faced solvency challenges, undermining claims of enhanced discipline. The Social Security trust funds, projected to deplete combined reserves by 2035, would then cover only 83 percent of scheduled benefits absent reforms, driven by demographic shifts like retiring outpacing new workers and fixed benefit formulas exceeding revenue growth. Medicare's HI Trust Fund faces exhaustion by 2036, with an 11 percent benefit cut looming, as payroll taxes cover only Part A while Parts B and D rely on general revenues and premiums. The HTF has required over $300 billion in general fund transfers since 2008 to avoid insolvency, as static tax rates eroded by and rising adoption failed to match escalating spending on broader demands. Earmarking constitutes roughly 40-50 percent of federal revenues historically, per Government Accountability Office analysis, yet trust fund assets—held as special-issue Treasury securities—represent intergovernmental IOUs redeemable from general taxation, blurring separation and enabling surplus lending to offset deficits elsewhere. Critics argue this structure fosters illusory accountability, as can authorize expenditures exceeding dedicated inflows without voter-visible trade-offs, evidenced by repeated bailouts rather than rate adjustments or spending restraint. Proponents counter that visible links boost public support for and entitlements, though empirical shortfalls suggest limited causal impact on long-term sustainability without complementary controls.

International Cases

In , the (a currently at 10%) serves as a key hypothecated source for social security, with incremental increases explicitly allocated to fund pensions, healthcare, and amid the country's aging population. Introduced at 3% in 1989, the rate rose to 5% in 1997, 8% in 2014, and 10% in 2019, with the stipulating that all additional from hikes be directed solely to social security enhancements rather than general expenditures. This structure aims to ensure stable financing for demographic pressures, though critics argue it burdens consumers without guaranteeing expenditure discipline, as total social security outlays have exceeded projections due to benefit expansions. In several European countries, environmental taxes are hypothecated for ecological purposes, such as the ' water pollution levy, where revenues from charges on industrial effluents are earmarked exclusively for improvement and related infrastructure. Enacted under the 1991 Water Pollution Levy Act, this tax generated approximately €200 million annually as of recent data, funding monitoring, treatment facilities, and subsidies for polluters adopting cleaner technologies, with strict legal ring-fencing preventing diversion to unrelated budgets. Such mechanisms have demonstrably increased targeted investments, though effectiveness varies with enforcement; Dutch assessments show reduced discharges correlating with revenue deployment, albeit amid broader regulatory pressures. Health-related hypothecation appears in diverse contexts, including earmarked tobacco excises in countries like and the , where revenues support universal health coverage and anti-smoking programs. In , a 2010 tobacco tax increase hypothecated funds for the Health Sector Reform Program, raising €100 million by 2015 for hospital upgrades and , per WHO evaluations, though fiscal leakages occurred as general deficits prompted partial reallocations. Similarly, the ' 2012 Sin Tax Reform Law dedicated tobacco and alcohol levies—generating over 80 billion pesos ($1.5 billion) annually by 2020—to health infrastructure and universal coverage, reducing smoking prevalence by 15% in targeted demographics while funding 20 million additional enrollees in public insurance, according to government audits. These cases illustrate hypothecation's potential for behavioral impact but highlight risks of erosion when hypothecated funds fail to scale with rising demands.

Policy Implications and Debates

Role in Modern Fiscal Policy

Hypothecated taxes function in modern fiscal policy as a tool to earmark revenues for predefined expenditures, fostering a perceived direct connection between taxpayer contributions and specific public services, which can enhance compliance and legitimacy for otherwise contentious levies. This approach is particularly evident in funding priorities like healthcare and infrastructure, where governments seek to build support without relying solely on general taxation pools. For instance, in the United Kingdom, National Insurance Contributions are predominantly hypothecated, with roughly 75% allocated to state pensions and 20% to the National Health Service, illustrating how such mechanisms sustain dedicated streams amid broader fiscal pressures. Advocates posit that hypothecation promotes targeted fiscal discipline by insulating funds from reallocation to deficits or competing demands, potentially curbing overspending in non-earmarked areas. Empirical insights from suggest it elevates public acceptability of tax hikes; surveys indicate that earmarking revenues for green initiatives significantly reduces opposition compared to unallocated increases, addressing barriers to reforms like carbon pricing. Similarly, sin taxes on tobacco or sugar, often hypothecated to programs, leverage behavioral incentives while signaling commitment to prevention over crisis response. Critics, including fiscal institutions like the UK's , contend that hypothecation undermines policy agility, as revenue fluctuations—such as National Insurance yields of £96 billion versus £121 billion in National Health Service costs during 2010-11—create mismatches that hinder macroeconomic stabilization or efficient redistribution. Recent implementations, including the 2021 Health and Social Care Levy intended to bolster NHS funding but repealed after generating inadequate sums relative to needs, demonstrate how such es can devolve into symbolic gestures that evade rigorous budgeting scrutiny while protecting select sectors at others' expense. This rigidity contrasts with general principles, which allow adaptive responses to economic cycles, though it persists in niche applications due to political appeal over comprehensive fiscal coherence.

Reform Proposals and Alternatives

Proponents of reforming hypothecated taxes argue for mechanisms to enhance fiscal discipline, such as periodic reviews or sunset provisions to reassess earmarking alignments with evolving priorities, though such measures remain largely theoretical and unadopted in major jurisdictions. Strict hypothecation has been criticized for limiting governmental flexibility in resource allocation during economic shifts, potentially leading to mismatches between dedicated revenues and expenditures, as seen in fluctuations of Contributions tied to health funding in the UK. In practice, reforms often involve softening hypothecation to "notional" links, allowing reallocation under exceptional circumstances while maintaining public perceptions of dedication, thereby balancing transparency with adaptability. A primary alternative to hypothecation is general-fund financing, where revenues enter a consolidated pool for allocation based on comprehensive budgetary trade-offs, promoting explicit prioritization and reducing the risk of siloed inefficiencies. This approach counters hypothecation's tendency to obscure overall tax burdens and encourage unchecked spending in favored areas by subjecting all expenditures to unified scrutiny, though it demands robust oversight to prevent political favoritism. For instance, proposals to fund health services through broad-based increases in income tax or value-added tax, rather than dedicated levies, emphasize long-term stability via cross-party commitments over rigid earmarking. Other alternatives include performance-linked budgeting within general revenues, where funding for specific purposes is contingent on measurable outcomes, or shifting to user fees that directly tie payments to service usage, minimizing distortionary taxation. Empirical assessments suggest general financing fosters greater discipline by avoiding the "spend it or lose it" incentive inherent in earmarked pots, which can inflate expenditures without corresponding efficiency gains. However, successful implementation requires transparent reporting and institutional safeguards against revenue raiding, as historical diversions from dedicated funds like the UK's pre-1936 Fund illustrate the vulnerabilities of hypothecation.

Lessons for Limiting Government Overreach

Hypothecated taxes are often proposed as a mechanism to curb overreach by ring-fencing revenues for designated purposes, theoretically preventing diversion to unrelated expenditures and enforcing fiscal discipline through visible linkages between taxation and spending. However, empirical analyses indicate that such earmarking frequently fails to constrain overall . A study by the examining dedicated tax revenues across U.S. states found that while earmarking has minimal impact on expenditures in the intended category, it significantly increases total by enabling fungible offsets—where earmarked funds free up general revenues for other uses or justify supplementary appropriations. Similarly, cross-national highlights that earmarking masks rather than limits growth, as legislatures retain authority to redirect surpluses or amend designations during fiscal pressures. Historical instances underscore the vulnerability of hypothecation to political diversion, undermining its role as a barrier to overreach. In , earmarked funds were redirected to general priorities amid budget shortfalls, while temporarily froze such revenues to address liquidity crises, illustrating how statutory commitments yield to expediency. Within the U.S., the Federal Highway Trust Fund, funded by gasoline taxes since 1956, has required over $300 billion in general fund transfers since 2008 to avert , as dedicated revenues proved insufficient and opted for bailouts rather than restraint. The , reliant on taxes hypothecated since 1935, has accumulated $2.9 trillion in surpluses by 2023, but these are lent to the general fund via securities, effectively financing deficits elsewhere and projecting by 2035 without broader reforms. These patterns reveal key lessons: statutory hypothecation provides only illusory discipline, as governments exploit and legislative override to expand fiscal footprints, often resulting in higher aggregate taxes and outlays without proportional benefits in targeted areas. To genuinely limit overreach, mechanisms requiring supermajorities for spending increases, constitutional mandates—as implemented in 49 U.S. states—or expenditure caps tied to population and growth prove more robust, as evidenced by states like where TABOR () has restrained per capita spending growth to 4.7% annually from 1993 to 2022, compared to national averages exceeding 5%. Prioritizing general pools under enforceable limits, rather than siloed hypothecation prone to , aligns incentives toward prioritization and accountability, reducing the scope for unchecked bureaucratic or political expansion.

References

  1. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01480/
  2. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/what-are-hypothecated-taxes
  3. https://www.icaew.com/technical/tax/towards-a-better-tax-system/hypothecation-of-taxes
  4. https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/hypothecation-health-taxation-and-hysterisis-25042018
  5. https://www.itaxa.it/blog/en/dizionario/hypothecated-tax/
  6. https://www.smf.co.uk/commentary_podcasts/hypothecated-taxes-are-ubiquitous-unfortunately/
  7. https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/parliamentaryBudgetOffice/2022/2022-07-05_tax-hypothecation_en.pdf
  8. https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/could-earmarking-taxes-help-reduce-federal-deficit
  9. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01480/SN01480.pdf
  10. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/could-earmarking-taxes-help-reduce-the-federal-deficit/
  11. https://www.econlib.org/book-chapters/chapter-ch-6-earmarking-versus-general-fund-financing/
  12. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/1988/018/article-A001-en.xml
  13. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/effects-dedicating-tax-revenues
  14. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/health-financing/technical-briefs-background-papers/whr-2010-background-paper-51.pdf?sfvrsn=6388af1d_3
  15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30025314
  16. https://academic.oup.com/book/36188/chapter/314839940
  17. https://iea.org.uk/publications/an-introduction-to-taxation/
  18. https://www.tax.org.uk/blog-we-assess-the-hyperbole-about-hypothecated-taxes
  19. https://greekreporter.com/2025/08/16/rich-taxes-ancient-greece/
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7149836/
  21. https://schoolshistory.org.uk/topics/british-history/modern-britain/liberal-reforms/national-insurance-act-1911/
  22. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09540962.2020.1862993
  23. https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/general-highway-history/rambler/ask-rambler-when-did-federal-government-begin
  24. https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-history-project/timelines-tax-history-class-tax-mass-tax-during-world-war-ii/2022/09/16/7f3s2
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272705000733
  26. https://assets.kingsfund.org.uk/f/256914/x/e5016393b5/hypothecated_funding_2018.pdf
  27. https://taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/statistics/pdf/ssrate_historical_2.pdf
  28. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R40808/R40808.12.pdf
  29. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/everything-you-need-know-about-national-insurance
  30. https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-state-and-local-motor-fuel-taxes-work
  31. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/decarbonisation-pricing-road-transport.pdf
  32. https://www.ssa.gov/news/en/press/how-is-social-security-financed.html
  33. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/social-security-trust-fund-myth
  34. https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds-0
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9156829/
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10262390/
  37. https://jointlearningnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/WHO-Earmarking-2016.pdf.pdf
  38. https://academic.oup.com/heapol/article/36/5/790/6246142
  39. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-017-4497-z
  40. https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/25/6/1058/2467401
  41. https://www.ohe.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Timmins-Seminar-Briefing-Oct-2018.pdf
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5486958/
  43. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/op/158/op158.pdf
  44. https://rsujournals.rsu.ac.th/index.php/rgrc/article/view/1415
  45. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/415911607500858658/pdf/Health-Earmarks-and-Health-Taxes-What-Do-We-Know.pdf
  46. https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/why-we-don-t-do-hypothecation-of-taxes
  47. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=econ_fac
  48. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2311372
  49. https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/The-Effects-Dedicating-Tax-Revenues-Crowley-Hoffer.pdf
  50. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/305548/1/cesifo1_wp11306.pdf
  51. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40704128
  52. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/514331468149391238/pdf/772610JRN0WBER0Box0377301B00PUBLIC0.pdf
  53. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/49535/1/666315507.pdf
  54. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/12/9/246
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272304958_Eliciting_Taxpayer_Preferences_Increases_Tax_Compliance
  56. https://www.eui.eu/Documents/DepartmentsCentres/SPS/Profiles/Genschel/2015/HappyTaxation-Final-Aug2015.pdf
  57. https://epicforamerica.org/federal-budget/epic-explainer-the-highway-trust-fund/
  58. https://www.heritage.org/transportation/report/congress-undermines-americas-infrastructure-looting-the-highwaytrust-fund
  59. https://t4america.org/2025/05/22/the-highway-trust-fund-isnt-on-life-support-its-been-dead-since-2008/
  60. https://ppc.uiowa.edu/sites/default/files/nguyen_hoang_476_earmarked_revenues_final_combined.pdf
  61. https://www.fastercapital.com/content/Tax-Diversions--Tax-Diversions--How-Earmarking-Redirects-Fiscal-Flows.html
  62. https://publicmatters.org.uk/2018/03/29/the-myths-and-legends-of-hypothecated-national-insurance/
  63. https://moneyweek.com/personal-finance/tax/603610/the-myth-of-hypothecated-taxes
  64. https://itep.org/governing-is-earmarking-the-best-way-to-fund-projects/
  65. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01482/
  66. https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/news/dft/ved-hypothecation-fizzles-2bn-treasury-raid
  67. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldnhssus/151/15115.htm
  68. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/earmarking-tax-pay-nhs-alone-not-healthy-option
  69. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2018/07/tax-funding-of-health-and-social-care-internationally.html
  70. https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-medicare-trust-fund-and-how-it-financed
  71. https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-highway-trust-fund-and-how-it-financed
  72. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/fifahiwy/fifahi05.htm
  73. https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-major-federal-excise-taxes-and-how-much-money-do-they-raise
  74. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
  75. https://www.cms.gov/oact/tr/2025
  76. https://www.gao.gov/products/afmd-90-8fs
  77. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/earmark-excise-tax-revenue/
  78. https://www.mof.go.jp/english/policy/tax_policy/publication/tax012/e_05.pdf
  79. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/global/global-excise-tax-policy-application-trends/
  80. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1623654
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5477308/
  82. https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/dedicating-tax-revenue-constraining-government-or-masking-its-growth
  83. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/109871468764672767/pdf/multi-page.pdf
  84. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.