Nearing the bottom of the pile is Herman Cain — only 25 percent of the former pizza chain magnate’s donations above $200 have come from women. Both Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul have collected less from women (about 24 percent and 16 percent, respectively). About 33.5 percent and 29.6 percent of Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s donations have come from women, respectively.

Fittingly, the tax proposals released by the leading GOP candidates — Cain, Perry and Romney — disproportionately affect women in the way they raise taxes on lower- and middle-income Americans, eliminate poverty aids and cut child-insurance programs, according to various analyses of the plans and expert input gathered by The American Independent.

Thus far, only Cain and Perry have revealed the most detailed plans, and because women are disproportionately likely to be single parents and to have lower wages, smaller pensions and more medical problems, they are expected to fare worse under these plans than their male counterparts.

The gender-wage gap and its relevancy to tax-policy discussions

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (PDF), in 2010, women who were full-time wage and salary workers earned 81 percent of what men earned (median weekly earnings for women were $669, and $824 for men). The female-to-male earnings ratio has hovered around 80 to 81 percent since 2004, up from 62 percent in 1979.

Last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report (PDF) showing women make up 49 percent of the total workforce but represent 59 percent of low-wage workers -– this despite the fact that more women than men finish high school and earn bachelor’s degrees. And according to a new report (PDF) by the Martin Prosperity Institute, women hold 52.3 percent of “creative class” jobs –- engineers, doctors, lawyers, journalists, teachers, etc. -– but in these jobs, earn an average of $48,007, while men earn an average of $82,009. Controlling for hours worked and education, creative class men out-earn creative class women by 49.2 percent.

According to the 2008-2010 American Community Survey, about 29.2 percent of families whose income in the past 12 months was below the federal poverty level were families headed by single women. It gets worse depending on the presence of young children: 38.1 percent of women-run households with children under 18 were below poverty; 46.1 percent of households with children under 5 were below poverty. In comparison, only 10.5 percent of all American families — and only 5.1 percent of married-couple families — in this survey were making below the poverty level. The aforementioned GAO report found single women with children had an average household income of about $27,000.

Income disparities do not stop at wages, however. Women tend to live longer, they are more likely to outlive their savings and less likely to have significant retirement plans or to have the type of jobs that incur significant pensions. Thus, they disproportionately benefit from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), women represent about 57 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries age 62 and older and about 69 percent of beneficiaries over 85. In 2008, women 65 and older received an average of $11,377, compared with $14,822 for men.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (PDF), about 56 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are women, and women are more likely than men to report having three or more chronic conditions.

How do women fare under ‘9-9-9’?

“The ‘9-9-9 Plan’ is a jobs plan! It is revenue, it does not raise taxes on those in need.” -- from the donation page on Herman Cain’s campaign website (AreFlaten, Flickr)

THE PLAN: ‘9-9-9’

With the nation’s attention focused on Cain’s old sexual harassment charges, scrutiny of Cain’s infamous “9-9-9″ Plan is stalled for the moment. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, Cain’s plan would make those earning under $50,000 pay a few thousand dollars more in taxes, while those making between half a million and $1 million would pay nearly $100,000 less in taxes. According to an analysis by the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice (PDF), if Cain’s plan were to go into effect today, the richest 1 percent of taxpayers would pay $210,000 less in annual taxes, while the poorest 60 percent of taxpayers would pay $2,000 more in annual taxes.

At the same time, Cain’s proposed plan is expected to raise about the same -– or potentially less –- revenue as the current tax system. Still, a recent poll of likely Iowa Caucus-goers conducted last month shows the average American making under $50,000 annually doesn’t understand the plan and believes he or she would fare better under “9-9-9.”

Cain’s plan is actually a complicated three-step process. Replacing the current tax code with a 9-percent business flat tax (or value-added tax), a 9-percent individual flat tax and a 9-percent national sales tax is only the second step in the process. And as the Tax Policy Center summarizes, combined, the three taxes are equivalent to a 25.4-percent national sales tax, with adjustments for dividends paid to tax-exempt entities and charitable contributions.

The first step in Cain’s plan, explained by The Washington Post, would actually be to cut individual and corporate tax rates to a top-25-percent rate, down from the current high of 35 percent. The third step would be to replace all federal taxes with a national sales tax.

Cain claims under “9-9-9,” Americans who fall under the federal government’s poverty level would be exempt from paying the individual income tax; however, he would eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), designed to help the working poor, and the Child Tax Credit (CTC). Additionally, he would eliminate payroll tax deductions for employers (except in unspecified “Opportunity Zones”), which currently serve as a hiring incentive. Helping out the wealthy, Cain would get rid of the estate tax and capital gains taxes. His plan, according to Edward D. Kleinbard of the Gould University of Southern California School of Law, involves a “disguised one-time 9 percent tax on existing wealth.”

More from TaxVox, the Tax Policy Center blog:

A middle income household making between about $64,000 and $110,000 would get hit with an average tax increase of about $4,300, lowering its after-tax income by more than 6 percent and increasing its average federal tax rate (including income, payroll, estate and its share of the corporate income tax) from 18.8 percent to 23.7 percent. … In Cain’s world, a typical household making more than $2.7 million would pay a smaller share of its income in federal taxes than one making less than $18,000. This would give Warren Buffet severe heartburn.

EFFECT ON WOMEN

Cain’s plan would eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is a refundable credit designed to offset federal payroll and income taxes for low- and moderate-income working people.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), this year, working families with children with annual incomes below $36,000 to $49,000 (depending on marital status and dependents) may be eligible for the EITC. Single individuals without children who make less than $13,600 annually and married couples making less than $18,700 annually would qualify for a small EITC. In 2009, the average EITC was $2,770 for a household with children and $259 for a childless household. According to CBPP, families mostly use this tax credit to pay for necessities, home and vehicle repairs and, sometimes, additional education.

Cain would also kill the Child Tax Credit (CTC), which helps working families pay for child care costs.

According to the Urban Institute, high-working, low-income families spend $3,135 annually, or 12 percent of their income. The Institute estimates that 69 percent of children under 5 with low-income working mothers are cared for regularly by someone other than a parent, and 39 percent of these children are in child care for at least 35 hours per week.

“It would be horrifying to lose [the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit],” said Elizabeth Lower-Basch, a senior policy analyst for the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). “That would particularly affect women.

“We have a basically progressive tax code,” she told TAI. “If we go to a flat code, it would significantly hurt low-income workers.”

Joan Entmacher, vice president for Family Economic Security at the National Women’s Law Center, where she works at promoting policies aimed at improving the economic security of low-income women and their families, told TAI that Cain’s tax proposal appears to affect women worse than the other candidates because his plan is “much harder on lower-income Americans” in the way it would raise taxes on low- and middle-income earners.

Under Cain’s plan, millionaires would get a 17.9-percent tax rate, or a 22-percent boost after taxes. But a single mother earning between $20,000 and $30,000? Her tax rate would be 24.9 percent. In other words, a single mom making $25,000 a year will have to give 25 percent of her income, or $6,250, to taxes.

Cain has proposed creating tax benefits to certain geographic areas in what he calls “Opportunity Zones” (PDF), but he has not been specific about where these zones would be or how they would work.

“Overall, you’re going to be better off if you’re making over $1 million in income, better than single mom trying to raise kids on $25,000 per year,” Entmacher said.

Terry O’Neill, an attorney and professor who is the president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), told TAI that Cain is turning his back on women, many whom depend on the tax programs he wants to eliminate.

“When Mr. Cain wants to take away the Earned Income Tax Credit, he is punishing women who sometimes work two jobs full-time, minimum-wage jobs, just to pay for food and rent,” O’Neill said.

Perry’s postcard proposal cuts more than it balances

“American families deserve a system that is low, flat and fair. They should be able to file their taxes on a postcard instead of a massive novel-length document." -- from Governor Rick Perry’s "2020 Vision: Cut, Balance & Grow" (Gage Skidmore, Flickr)

During his speech at the Corner Stone Action Dinner in Manchester, N.H., on Oct. 28, Perry repeatedly waved a blank postcard in explaining his tax and economic-policy plan. Like Cain’s plan, Perry’s plan (PDF) is more complicated than he lets on in speeches. Where they differ is in Perry’s explicit details in how Americans would pay for the substantial tax breaks on the highest earners — by eliminating deductions and cutting specific entitlement programs that especially benefit lower-income earners, and women.

THE PLAN: ‘Cut, Balance & Grow’

Taxpayers would be able to choose whether to file their taxes under the current tax code or under a new 20-percent “flat tax.” What Perry has not emphasized is that taxpayers will have to spend time — and potentially money — calculating which plan benefits them more.

Like Cain, Perry has countered claims his plan will result in disproportionately higher taxes for lower- and middle-income families. As an example, Perry points to the provision in his 20-percent flat-tax plan, where families will be eligible for “generous” exemptions of $12,500.

In his proposal, Perry takes a dig at Cain’s proposal to introduce a federal sales tax and a business value-added tax, which he calls “highly regressive,” and uses the working poor to make his case:

When added to existing federal income taxes and state and local income sales taxes, a national sales tax would be highly regressive. Low-income families spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on food and gas than do those with considerable wealth. For example, a household earning $25,000 each year would spend roughly 40% of its income on food, utilities, and health care, while a household earning $130,000 each year would pay less than 15% of its income on those three items.

But because Perry would eliminate the EITC, lower- and middle-income earners would still pay more under his plan than they do now. Using calculations made by the Tax Policy Center, The New York Times estimates single parents with two children making $9,700 annually would pay no income taxes under Perry’s plan but would not receive the $4,885 tax credit they receive under current tax law.

Perry, like Cain, would eliminate the capital gains tax.

EFFECT ON WOMEN

To pay for the plan, Perry has suggested cuts in education and nutritional programs for poor children. He has offered various suggestions for reforming Medicare, which include gradually raising the age of Medicare eligibility, alongside a gradual retirement-age increase under Social Security; paying Medicare benefits on a sliding scale based on income; or by creating bundled premium support payments that would go directly to the individual. He has also proposed block-granting Medicaid payments.

Entmacher told TAI that under Perry’s plan, taxes would go up for the working poor and what she calls the “true middle class” — households making no more than $75,000 per year.

“The Perry plan is particularly hard on single heads of households,” Entmacher said. “They do worse than the working poor.”

The others

As for the remaining GOP candidates in the pack, the one expected to win the nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has a vague plan. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) have stated support for a flat tax, and all the candidates support eliminating the estate tax.

Romney’s main tax proposal is to end taxes on interest and dividend income for people who earn less than $200,000 a year, but otherwise keep the existing tax system in place. Romney does not support a flat tax or a national sales tax, stating they would largely hurt the middle class. He supports extending most, if not all, of the Bush-era tax cuts.

All of the experts TAI spoke with agreed the tax code needs reforming. With GOP candidates vying for shorter rules in the name of simplicity, Lower-Basch thinks what the tax code actually needs is more tiers and brackets to be more fair, reasoning that households making $250,000 a year should not be taxed the same as those making $1 or $2 million a year.

The economist who first theorized that high taxes reduce government revenue at some level is Arthur Laffer, and the point at which higher taxes mean less government revenue is where the so-called Laffer curve “bends.” The theory of the curve underpins some Republicans’ arguments about taxes: Higher taxes discourage people from striving to earn more, so tax cuts pay for themselves, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argues. (Notably, this is wrong at the United States’ level of taxation, meaning the United States is on the left-hand side of the Laffer curve.)

Nobody really knows where the Laffer curve bends — but Dylan Matthews thought to ask a number of tax policy experts, economists and politicians. It is a great post and worth reading in full. But here are some particularly good responses.

Bruce Bartlett, columnist, Forbes.com; former adviser to Reagan and Bush I:

“I would hate to venture a specific number…. I would, however, say that I think the top rate could be quite a bit higher than it is without significantly impairing incentives or leading to excessive amounts of tax avoidance. I think 50 percent is an important threshold and I would be very reluctant to go higher even if it raised net revenue…. Anthony Atkinson, probably the leading public finance economist in England, estimates (PDF) that the top rate could go as high as 63% to 83% before it became counterproductive in terms of revenue…The European Central Bank…finds that only two European countries are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve. All other countries could raise substantial additional revenue by raising tax rates.”

“Since our rates are much lower than those it Europe, it suggests that we have a very long way to go before the top rate became counterproductive.”

Greg Mankiw, Robert M. Beren professor of economics, Harvard University; former chairman, Council of Economic Advisors:

“My guess is that that the short-run answer and the long-run answer are quite different. For example, if you raised the top rate from 35 to, say, 60 percent, you might raise revenue in the short run. Over time, however, you would get lower economic growth, so the additional revenues would fall off and eventually decline below what they would have been at the lower rate…. I will pass on offering a specific number, as it would require more time and thought than I can offer just now, but I will opine that I think the long-run answer is actually more important for policy purposes than the short-run answer.”

Edward Lazear, Jack Steele Parker Professor of Human Resources Management and Economics, Stanford University; former chariman, Council of Economic Advisors:

“Sorry, no.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY):His office declined to answer.

The Commerce Department tweaked China recently when it slapped a 99 percent tariff on Chinese-made oil field pipes entering the U.S. The move was but the latest volley in a long-running skirmish over a wide variety of imports. To the extent that most people think of tariffs at all, it’s usually in a context like this. Tariffs are perceived as little more than an obscure negotiating tactic for trade disputes. But thanks to the large number of imported goods Americans consume on a regular basis, tariffs actually play much more of a role in average Americans’ lives — and household budgets — than they may realize.

[Economy1] Most people take for granted that they know how much an item will cost them when they look at the price tag and figure in the amount of their local sales tax. But low-income Americans end up paying extra for necessities like clothes and shoes — victims of an outdated, inefficient tariff system that inadvertently penalizes the poor. Even proponents of reform, though, acknowledge that the byzantine nature of the tariff code and the low priority it’s generally assigned by lawmakers makes the prospect of changing this entrenched system unlikely.

Luxury goods have very low tariffs, while cheap clothes, underwear, shoes and household products have much higher rates, said Edward Gresser, trade policy director at the Democratic Leadership Council. “The people who are paying for the tariff system don’t know they’re paying for it,” he said.

“It’s the dirty secret of the U.S. tariff code,” said Daniel Griswold, trade policy expert at the Cato Institute. “It’s our most regressive tax that the federal government imposes.”

The country’s trade policy is a quilt of special interests, trade group bargaining chips and concessions, some pieces of which date back to an era when the manufacture of household goods was a booming part of the domestic economy.

“[It’s] usually for no good reason other than the political influence of a domestic group or for retribution against some other country that placed a high tariff on one of our exports,” said Barry Bosworth, an economist at the Brookings Institution.

The disparities are staggering. In his research, Gresser found that the tariff rate on a cashmere sweater is 4 percent; the rate for one made of much cheaper acrylic is 32 percent. A silk brassiere has a tariff rate of less than 3 percent, but the rate on a polyester one is slightly less than 17 percent. The tariff rate on a snakeskin handbag is just over 5 percent but climbs to 16 percent for one made of canvas. Similar variations occur when it comes to household goods. Drinking glasses that cost more than $5 each have a tariff of 3 percent, while those that cost less than 30 cents each have a rate of 28.5 percent. A silk pillowcase has a rate of 4.5 percent; this goes up to nearly 15 percent for one made of polyester.

Overall, clothes and shoes contributed nearly $10 billion in tariff revenue in 2009, while higher-cost items including audiovisual equipment, computers and even cars added less than $2 billion. Gresser contends that the $10 billion is disproportionately borne by people who can’t afford to buy luxury goods. What’s more, when customers pay sales tax on these products, that amount is also higher than it would otherwise be thanks to the tariff that drives up the retail price.

In spite of this evidence, Gresser has had an uphill battle gaining support for his cause. Trade groups and politicians don’t want to lower a bar to foreign importers without getting some kind of concession in return. From their perspective, dropping a tariff that adds 32 percent to the price of a cheap men’s shirt amounts to giving away a valuable bargaining chip. Other groups — including, it should be noted, some prominent left-leaning think tanks — say dropping tariffs will cost jobs we can ill afford to lose in this economy.

While apparel and footwear manufacturing has largely moved offshore, there are still a few hundred thousand U.S. workers in those industries, according to Robert Scott, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, who says removing tariffs on cheap clothes and shoes would put these (generally low-income) Americans out of work. He also contends that even the high tariffs aren’t as onerous as they appear.

“If you look at expenditures as a share of total consumer spending for the bottom quintile of Americans, it still ends up being a fairly small number,” only a small fraction of a percentage point more than the average for all Americans, he said. Scott added that the globalization of trade, along with the resulting downward pressure on prices, has hurt low-income Americans more than it has helped them.

Griswold of the Cato Institute says this worry is overblown, sometimes deliberately for political gain. “Less than one-third of one percent of workers make clothing of any kind in the U.S.,” he said. “The self-interest of these producers and trade organizations gets wrapped up in rhetoric about saving jobs, which appeals to public perceptions. It’s much harder to visualize the benefits to families able to buy more affordable shoes.”

For William Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, the argument that lowering or abolishing tariffs on low-cost products will cost jobs speaks more to the need to invest in training programs for low-skilled American workers. “It’s a challenge to protectionists. It does redistribute the pattern of job creation,” he acknowledged. But the genie is already out of the bottle when it comes to globalization, he said, and companies have already moved the bulk of their labor-intensive production offshore. Leaving high tariffs on cheap imported goods isn’t going to stop them from appearing on discount and dollar-store shelves, it’s just going to penalize the consumers who buy them.

“It’s easy to overlook, easy to ignore because people without political voice or power are the most affected,” he said.

From Baker:

The media seem to have largely overlooked the Citigroup tax credit in their discussion of the latest items in President [-elect Barack] Obama’s stimulus proposal. According to the Washington Post, the proposal will allow companies to write off current losses against taxes paid over the last 4-5 years, not just 2 years, as in current law.

There are relatively few companies that could benefit from this tax break since most companies will not have losses so large that they would need more than two years of tax payments to balance them against. But, really big losers, like Robert Rubin’s Citigroup, and other badly failing financial institutions, are losing much more money in 2008 and 2009 than they earned in 2006 and 2007.

And why would such a tax break be part of the stimulus plan? Note that earlier mention of Rubin, Baker says:

Did the political connections of Robert Rubin and others in the financial industry have anything to do with the decision of Obama’s economic team to be so generous to them? I don’t have an answer to that question, but the media should be asking it.

Consider it asked.

“You go to the independent, quote, Tax Policy Center, a group I know very well, and I encourage people to go there. They’ll say, ‘John McCain’s [tax] plan is better for growth.’ What does this economy need? It needs to grow.”

A look at the Tax Policy Center’s analysis (PDF) of the two candidates’ tax plans, last updated Sept. 12, reveals that Hotz-Eakin’s claim appears to rest on this passage:

By many measures, the distribution of income has become much less equal over the past 20 years, and the recent tax cuts have exacerbated that trend. Since 2001, inequality in the distribution of after-tax income has grown faster than inequality in the distribution of pretax income. The Obama proposal tries to buck that trend by making the tax system much more progressive (as detailed in the next section). However, it does so at the cost of higher marginal tax rates and additional complexity.

Many provisions in Obama’s plan share a common shortcoming in their use of phaseouts to limit their benefits and constrain revenue costs. Phaseouts reduce tax benefits over a range of income and thus increase the effective marginal tax rate on taxpayers in that range. To the extent that higher tax rates affect behavior — inducing people to work fewer hours or save and invest less — the phaseouts adversely affect economic activity and growth. Furthermore, phaseouts add significant complexity to the tax code, making it more difficult for taxpayers to determine how much they owe and harder to understand how the tax system works. [Emphasis added]

However, the report’s executive summary (PDF), last updated Sept. 15, suggests neither plan would do much to promote economic growth:

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.

Holtz-Eakin’s claim may be technically true, but according to the Tax Policy Center, it is insignificant.