What happened to the global economy and what we can do about it
with 145 comments
By James Kwak
Last week, a professor making more than $250,000 per year (with his wife’s income) put up a blog post (since taken down) criticizing President Obama for wanting to “raise” his taxes.* The post basically said, after all of their basic expenses, “we are just getting by despite seeming to be rich.” If his taxes go up, he says he will have to cut back on spending, which will depress the economy, or perhaps even sell his house or cars, which will depress those asset markets. The problem, he argues, is that the tax “increases” won’t affect the true super-rich, because they use tax dodges to avoid paying taxes; instead, they will just hurt the economy.
This post has been the target of some howitzers on the Internet, mainly focused on the professor’s income and expenses, but I wanted to raise a few more general policy points.
First, it’s just not true that the rich will reduce their spending dollar-for-dollar as their taxes go up. The reason that tax cuts are a lousy form of stimulus applies in reverse: just as extra cash leads to more saving, less cash leads to less saving. And this is especially true for the rich, who have more slack in their budgets. There might be individual rich households that will reduce their spending dollar-for-dollar, but in aggregate it just won’t happen.
Second, there certainly are hard-working, young, dual-income, multiple-child, productive families who have high expenses. It is true that there is no single thing as “the rich.” Different people making $250,000 consume different amounts, and it’s not just a function of personal virtue; it’s also a function of where you live (some of those high salaries come in places with high costs of living) and where you are in your career lifecycle. But the obvious implication of that banal observation is that we should tax wealth, not income, or wealth in addition to income. If the people arguing against “raising” taxes on the rich were arguing for a wealth tax, or at least for a meaningful estate tax, then I would have more sympathy for them. (Or, say, a consumption tax with an exclusion for the first $40,000 of consumption.)**
Third, the “Cayman Islands” argument (that the really rich don’t pay taxes) is mainly false and, to the extent it is true, again yields a different policy conclusion. Warren Buffett, for example, pays an average tax rate of 18%, so the claim that “the super rich don’t pay taxes” is just not true. Now, that is a lower tax rate than many middle-class households, but the reasons for that are well known. Again, we tax income, not wealth; we tax capital gains and dividends at much lower rates than salary (again, thanks to George W. Bush), and the rich get a larger proportion of their income from investments; and the taxes that affect most working people are actually regressive, because of the cap on the payroll tax. So I would have more sympathy for the Cayman Islands argument if its author were also arguing for lifting the cap on the payroll tax and eliminating the tax breaks for capital gains and dividends.
Fourth, if it is true that the rich are feeling squeezed, this actually undermines the main argument against tax “increases”–that higher marginal rates will cause people to work less hard. If households making over $250,000 per year really have no fat in their budgets, then “raising” marginal tax rates will not affect their propensity to work, which is what you want from an economic standpoint.
Fifth, the professor makes the tired old argument that his spending (which goes to local “entrepreneurs”) is better than government spending (“handouts”). In general, I agree that it is better to make our production decisions based on consumers’ preferences rather than congressional votes. But the entrepreneurs-vs.-handouts is a red herring. In the long term, the choice is between consumption by the rich and health care for the elderly (Medicare). You can call this redistribution.*** But given that old people generally need more health care than young people, given that old people generally make less money than young people, and given that health care costs continue to grow faster than inflation, the question is whether we’re willing to let people suffer in their old age simply because they couldn’t save enough money in their lifetimes to pay for their medical emergencies in retirement. (And there will also be people who make lots of money, save lots of it, and still go broke in old age because they lose the medical lottery.) There are people who are willing to come out and say that. But most people opposing tax “increases” are not. Instead, they prefer to malign government spending in general.
In the long term, we have a big fiscal problem. Yes, “raising” taxes will have some impact on the economy. But we have to do something. Since partisan gridlock rules out any significant reform of the tax system (and even rules out sensible compromises like delaying the tax “increases” until the economy recovers), the only available lever to increase government revenue is letting Bush tax cuts expire. It’s a blunt tool, but in the current political climate it’s the only one we’ve got.
* Of course, as we all know, it’s President Bush who is raising his taxes; what’s happening is the Bush tax cuts had sunset provisions so that they could make the true fiscal costs of the tax cuts seem artificially small, and those sunset provisions are about to kick in.
** The other implication is that if you’re young and have a high salary but high expenses, you should just borrow more money; you’re really just borrowing from your future self, because someday the house will be paid off, the kids will be done with college, and you’ll be making even more money since you’ll have more seniority and experience.
*** Most people think that a progressive tax system is redistributive. I’m not sure. The issue is who you think benefits more from government spending–the rich or the poor. The conventional answer is that the poor do, because they get “handouts.” But imagine a world without government. Who would lose more? Assuredly the rich, who would no longer have the armed forces, the police, and the courts (and the FDIC) to protect their property. I guess you could have a private security market, but how could you maintain, say, a financial system where most of your wealth is bits on a computer somewhere without a government to back it up? Share this: StumbleUpon Digg Reddit
Written by James Kwak
September 24, 2010 at 9:59 am
Posted in Commentary
Tagged with taxes
Please explain how you know what taxes Buffet pays.
jake chase
September 24, 2010 at 10:26 am
see the link…
rjs
September 24, 2010 at 11:16 am
Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities Speech Raises at Least $1 Million for Clinton Campaign
TOOLBOX Resize Print E-mail COMMENT 51 Comments | View All » COMMENTS ARE CLOSED
Your browser’s settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem. Discussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who’s Blogging» Links to this article
By Tomoeh Murakami Tse Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, June 27, 2007
NEW YORK, June 26 — Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.
Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.
Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. “I don’t have a tax shelter,” he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who “clean our offices” are taxed, to loud applause.
A populist tone permeated the 70-minute talk with the billionaire investor and philanthropist in Manhattan on Tuesday night. The talk, given to about 600 Wall Street bankers and money managers, raised at least $1 million for Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Associated Press reported.
Anonymous
September 26, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Re: @ Anonymous____”so shallow are his words – they dredge up the very makeup of a dark heart – cringing in despair – such folly too bequeath on the gullible public – such profanity and utter nonsense from this narcistic faux`naif non`sequitur”
earle,florida
September 26, 2010 at 6:45 pm
I believe taxes should be raised on those making over $250K, let me state that to begin with. But I also see where some of these people are coming from, especially those right at the edge of that tax bracket.
First of all, there is simple ignorance. There are people out there who make $250,000 – 300,000 a year in income and assume their taxes will go up. What they don’t understand is the tax system that allows for certain deductions – even for those in brackets that hight – and deductions for retirement plan contributions etc. so most people who look at their “salary” and assume they are in that bracket will actually be in a lower bracket of taxable income and not be affected at all.
However, there are people like me. I’m not complaining – my family doesn’t really suffer, however a few years ago I was making about 20% more money. My lifestyle reflected my income, I wasn’t living hand to mouth but I wasn’t stowing away that full 20% either, only about 7% (I have children, they are expensive). So while I’m not suffering and I don’t want sympathy, things are harder than they used to be. We are not going on a vacation this year, we have much more “intense” discussions about what we are or are not going to spend money on since there is very little flexibility in our fixed expenses because we couldn’t possibly sell out house and downsize since it’s underwater (even though we put down more than 20% when we purchased it with a regular conventional 30 year mortgage.) In fact we can’t even refi and lower expenses because of the equity erosion. In the meantime, my health insurance costs have increased about 50% over the last three years so there’s another $7,000 less take home pay.
Once again, I’m not asking for sympathy nor should these others get it – but people don’t like to cut back on anything. So those that are making $250K a year in sales, or what have you, that were making $300K a year three years ago have had to cut back on their lifestyles and they don’t feel rich because they are actually poorer than they used to be. Combine this with just outright lying from Fox News and other outlits plus once again that ignorance about how the tax system works and you see where the misplaced anger comes from.
MK
September 24, 2010 at 10:54 am
People are also vastly overestimating their tax increases. The proposal is about letting the 33/35% rates go up to 36/40%. The top rate kicks in at $373k for married-filing-joint. If you’re making $300k, you’ll see an additional 3% tax on $50k – $1500. This amounts to a total tax rate change of 0.5%.
winstongator
September 24, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I would like to be one more voice to add the following: if you’re in that $250k+ range, PAY FOR AN ACCOUNTANT. They will, in all likelihood, save you FAR more than they cost for their expertise. You will very likely come out ahead (unless you are an accountant yourself) of where you would have been without them.
3-D
September 24, 2010 at 8:15 pm
…and you don’t think that the super-rich should pay a bit more so that folks like you — that is, who are in your same situation partly because the super-rich who were at the controls of the housing-market debacle and the other parts of the ongoing scandal and who are protected, sheltered, undictable apparently, and who don’t give a damn about anything but themselves and are laughing as all of us out here in the same boat as you — …you don’t think you should get a break on your taxes?
Read Full Article »