The 70% Solution

Bradford Plumer Project Syndicate November 30, 2011

larger | smaller

comments: 4

The 70% Solution

BERKELEY "“ Via a circuitous Internet chain "“ Paul Krugman of Princeton University quoting Mark Thoma of the University of Oregon reading the Journal of Economic Perspectives "“ I got a copy of an article written by Emmanuel Saez, whose office is 50 feet from mine, on the same corridor, and the Nobel laureate economist Peter Diamond. Saez and Diamond argue that the right marginal tax rate for North Atlantic societies to impose on their richest citizens is 70%.

It is an arresting assertion, given the tax-cut mania that has prevailed in these societies for the past 30 years, but Diamond and Saez's logic is clear. The superrich command and control so many resources that they are effectively satiated: increasing or decreasing how much wealth they have has no effect on their happiness. So, no matter how large a weight we place on their happiness relative to the happiness of others "“ whether we regard them as praiseworthy captains of industry who merit their high positions, or as parasitic thieves "“ we simply cannot do anything to affect it by raising or lowering their tax rates.

The unavoidable implication of this argument is that when we calculate what the tax rate for the superrich will be, we should not consider the effect of changing their tax rate on their happiness, for we know that it is zero. Rather, the key question must be the effect of changing their tax rate on the well-being of the rest of us.

From this simple chain of logic follows the conclusion that we have a moral obligation to tax our superrich at the peak of the Laffer Curve: to tax them so heavily that we raise the most possible money from them "“ to the point beyond which their diversion of energy and enterprise into tax avoidance and sheltering would mean that any extra taxes would not raise but reduce revenue.

The utilitarian economic logic is clear. Yet more than half of us are likely to reject the conclusion reached by Diamond and Saez. We feel that there is something wrong with taxing our superrich until the pips squeak so much that further taxation reduces the number of pips. And we feel this for two reasons, both of them set out more than two centuries ago by Adam Smith "“ not in his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, but in his far less discussed book The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

The first reason applies to the idle rich. According to Smith,

"A stranger to human nature, who saw the indifference of men about the misery of their inferiors, and the regret and indignation which they feel for the misfortunes and sufferings of those above them, would be apt to imagine, that pain must be more agonizing, and the convulsions of death more terrible to persons of higher rank, than to those of meaner stations..."

We feel this, Smith believes, because we naturally sympathize with others (if he were writing today, he would surely invoke "mirror neurons"). And the more pleasant our thoughts about individuals or groups are, the more we tend to sympathize with them. The fact that the lifestyles of the rich and famous "seem almost the abstract idea of a perfect and happy state" leads us to "pity"¦that anything should spoil and corrupt so agreeable a situation! We could even wish them immortal..."

The second reason applies to the hard-working rich, the type of person who

"devotes himself forever to the pursuit of wealth and greatness....With the most unrelenting industry he labors night and day....serves those whom he hates, and is obsequious to those whom he despises....[I]n the last dregs of life, his body wasted with toil and diseases, his mind galled and ruffled by the memory of a thousand injuries and disappointments....he begins at last to find that wealth and greatness are mere trinkets of frivolous utility....Power and riches....keep off the summer shower, not the winter storm, but leave him always as much, and sometimes more exposed than before, to anxiety, to fear, and to sorrow; to diseases, to danger, and to death..."

In short, on the one hand, we don't wish to disrupt the perfect felicity of the lifestyles of the rich and famous; on the other hand, we don't wish to add to the burdens of those who have spent their most precious possession "“ their time and energy "“ pursuing baubles. These two arguments are not consistent, but that does not matter. They both have a purchase on our thinking.

Unlike today's public-finance economists, Smith understood that we are not rational utilitarian calculators. Indeed, that is why we have collectively done a very bad job so far in dealing with the enormous rise in inequality between the industrial middle class and the plutocratic superrich that we have witnessed in the last generation.

J. Bradford DeLong, a former assistant secretary of the US Treasury, is Professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a research associate at the National Bureau for Economic Research.

You might also like to read more from J. Bradford DeLong or return to our home page.

Share Tweet

Reprinting material from this website without written consent from Project Syndicate is a violation of international copyright law. To secure permission, please contact distribution@project-syndicate.org. var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1292502431965';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'rec'; var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/delong120/English'; if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); } print recommend Send link clip secure rights COMMENTS

You must be logged in to post or reply to a comment. Please log in or sign up for a free account.

COMMENTS

You must be logged in to post or reply to a comment. Please log in or sign up for a free account.

Username Password New registration Forgotten password phys_phys 04:44 30 Nov 11

But are we allowed to decide for the rich how much money they need and what will they do with them? At best, taking someone's property against his/her will is simple robbery... at worst it defines the difference between a democratic society that protects teh rights of an individual and a totalitarian one.

MarkPitts 05:16 30 Nov 11

Mr. DeLong is incorrect in his math and in his reading of history:

(1) Historically governments have implemented all sorts of “utilitarian” measures against their citizens, but the resulting loss of freedom has more than wiped out any gain for society in general.

(2) If as Mr. DeLong claims “we should not consider the effect of changing their tax rate on their happiness, for we know that it is zero” why not tax the rich at 99.9%? If forfeiting almost all their gains to the government will not affect their happiness, there is no reason they would change their work habits even at a 99.9% tax rate.

When Mr. DeLong speaks of our “moral obligation” to use a small number of citizens as mere instruments for the common good, he reveals that his definition of “moral” is quite different from that of the majority of his fellow citizens.

JakeLopata 05:52 30 Nov 11

I too have read this paper and I also found it very interesting. It reminded me of the top tax rate from 1944 to 1954, which was just above 90%. Sounds crazy to even imagine the top tax rate close to that today, but it happened.

To put the Diamond and Saez argument differently; $1 is worth more to people of lower income, than it is to people of higher income. Matthew Yglesias has a post today about that is a good example of this (although he is posting about something else).

This post made me think about a new approach to "taxing the rich". A "Savings Tax"

grondeau 07:21 30 Nov 11

It is these gut feelings about stealing someone's hard earned winnings that make the inheritance tax so much more compelling than a high income tax. In fact, an effective inheritance tax, that truly started us all out much more as equals would give even more credence to sympathy for the wealthy that "made it." However, being born with a silver spoon in your mouth, with no responsibility to your fellow man, if that's the attitude - then tax them at the rate they can just bare - 70%!

AUTHOR INFO J. Bradford DeLong J. Bradford DeLong, a former assistant secretary of the US Treasury, is Professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a research associate at the National Bureau for Economic Research. MOST READ MOST RECOMMENDED MOST COMMENTED The Globalization of Protest Joseph E. Stiglitz Down with the Eurozone Nouriel Roubini The ECB's Battle against Central Banking J. Bradford DeLong The Neuroeconomics Revolution Robert J. Shiller The Anatomy of Global Economic Uncertainty Mohamed A. El-Erian A New World Architecture George Soros America's Political Class Struggle Jeffrey D. Sachs Did the Poor Cause the Crisis? Simon Johnson No Time for a Trade War Joseph E. Stiglitz The Second Great Contraction Kenneth Rogoff The Neuroeconomics Revolution Robert J. Shiller Should We Ban Cigarettes? Peter Singer Down with the Eurozone Nouriel Roubini The Anatomy of Global Economic Uncertainty Mohamed A. El-Erian The Wages of Economic Ignorance Robert Skidelsky ADVERTISEMENT PROJECT SYNDICATE

Project Syndicate: the world's pre-eminent source of original op-ed commentaries. A unique collaboration of distinguished opinion makers from every corner of the globe, Project Syndicate provides incisive perspectives on our changing world by those who are shaping its politics, economics, science, and culture. Exclusive, trenchant, unparalleled in scope and depth: Project Syndicate is truly A World of Ideas.

Project Syndicate provides the world's foremost newspapers with exclusive commentaries by prominent leaders and opinion makers. It currently offers 54 monthly series and one weekly series of columns on topics ranging from economics to international affairs to science and philosophy.

PROJECT SYNDICATE The Next Financial Order Barry Eichengreen Will the euro or the SDR become the world's major reserve currency, ending the decades-long reign of the dollar? ...read more War and Peace Shlomo Ben-Ami Is an Islamic civil war underway? Can democracy take root in the Middle East? Is the "war on terror" winnable? ...read more Against the Current Robert Skidelsky Are markets moral? What does the East expect from the West? Has globalization killed the idea of equality? ...read more © Project Syndicate 1995 - 2011 How to become a member | Member papers | Support us | About us | Contact us _bizo_data_partner_id = 790 var OBCTm='1292510578203'; var _comscore = _comscore || []; _comscore.push({ c1: "2", c2: "8756795" }); (function() { var s = document.createElement("script"), el = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.async = true; s.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js"; el.parentNode.insertBefore(s, el); })(); _qoptions={ qacct:"p-f8E80KYHdFRZg" }; (function(w, c) { (w[c] = w[c] || []).push(function() { try { w.yaCounter6251587 = new Ya.Metrika({id:6251587, clickmap:true}); } catch(e) { } }); })(window, 'yandex_metrika_callbacks');

You must be logged in to post or reply to a comment. Please log in or sign up for a free account.

Mr. DeLong is incorrect in his math and in his reading of history:

This post made me think about a new approach to "taxing the rich". A "Savings Tax"

Read Full Article »

Comment

Show comments

The 70% Solution

Related Articles