Blum and Kalven at 50: Progressive Taxation, “Globalization,” and the New Millennium

Abstract

Almost 50 years ago, Walter Blum and Harry Kalven described the case for progressive taxation as "stubborn but uneasy." This article considers the extent to which that conclusion remains valid five decades later. I argue that the case for progressivity is today even more uneasy than in Blum and Kalven's time, as a result of three principal developments: a more conservative political environment, which is generally hostile to redistributive measures; the femininization and minoritization of poverty, which make it easier to rationalize inequality and tend to divide the constituencies in favor of progressive measures; and the globalization of economic life, which suggests that a progressive rate structure may cause the country to lose business to other nations. These developments challenge both the philosophical underpinnings of progressive taxation, which is based on liberal assumptions that are now severely contested, and its political support, which flowed from a Cold War consensus that now no longer exists. Globalization is particularly significant, for it suggests a practical as well as a theoretical limit on progressive taxation, and raises the specter that progressivity may be swimming against the historical tide.
These same developments also present an opportunity. If supporters of progressivity can confront the changes described above and if they can adjust their arguments to the realities of the Twenty-First Century, then the case for progressivity may yet prove stronger than in Blum and Kalven's era. However, to accomplish this progressivity supporters must change both their rhetoric and research agenda.
On a rhetorical level, scholars must make a more candid and forceful case for progressivity as a means of redistribution, emphasizing the unfairness of today's "winner-take-all" society and the role of irrelevant factors such as race, gender, and immigrant status in pretax income distributions. These arguments suggest that, far from being inconsistent with a dynamic, merit-based society, progressive taxation may be necessary in order to preserve it. Progressive taxation should be especially attractive to those who object to affirmative action and similar race-conscious programs but support redistribution based on economic or financial status.