creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Michael Barone
Michael Barone
19 Dec 2014
Jeb and Hillary: Dynastic Politics in America?

All of which leaves many people, some of them admirers of one or both potential candidates, queasy. Out of … Read More.

16 Dec 2014
Don't Look for Culture War Arguments in Campaign 2016

In an earlier column, I looked at the role the abortion issue would play in the 2016 election — not … Read More.

12 Dec 2014
What 2014 Means for 2016

The defeat of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu by Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy in last weekend's Louisiana … Read More.

Mr. Obama: Taxing the Rich Won't Increase Revenues

Comment

Did Barack Obama take Tax 1 in law school? I did, and I remember the first day of classes, when mild mannered Professor Boris Bittker asked a simple question, "What is income?"

I was pretty confident I could come up with a quick answer, and so were a lot of other students. By the end of the hour, after Professor Bittker had politely punched huge holes in every student's definition, it was pretty clear that none of us could. Income is a slippery concept — especially slippery when you're trying to tax it.

Which leads me to think that Obama may have avoided Tax 1. Or perhaps he dozed off in class. For in his April 13 speech at George Washington University, the speech to which Standard & Poor's responded by reducing the government's credit rating to "negative," he seemed to think he could get all the money we need to balance the budget from higher taxes on the rich.

That's wrong as a matter of simple arithmetic, as is clear from a chart reproduced on the Wall Street Journal editorial page showing the total amounts of taxable income of each group.

The chart showed that if the government had simply confiscated every dollar from those reporting more than $1 million taxable income in 2008, it would not have gotten the $1.3 trillion needed to close the current federal budget deficit.

What the chart doesn't show, however, is even more important. And that is that when you reduce income tax rates, high earners have more taxable income. When you raise them, they have less.

High earners don't sit around waiting to have their money confiscated any more than chickens sit around and let you pluck out all their feathers. They pursue other options.

This is most obvious when you think about capital gains. The federal government doesn't try to tax capital gains — the increase in values of your stocks or your house — every year (Professor Bittker had us in knots explaining how it might do this). You pay capital gains on a stock or house only in the year you sell it.

What happens if the capital gains tax goes up from 15 percent to 50 percent? People stop selling stocks and hold onto their houses if they possibly can.

And when cap gains rates go down? They're more willing to sell, pay the lower tax and invest in something else.

That's why the government's total revenues from capital gains have tended to rise when the capital gains tax rate is lowered. And why increases in the capital gains tax rate never raises the amount of revenues static models estimate it will.

You get the same effect, to a lesser extent, when you change tax rates on ordinary income. People working for minimum wage don't have many options about how they'll be paid. High earners tend to have more options.

If you go back to the 1970s, when the top rates were 50 percent on salary income and 70 percent on investment income, you'll find that a lot of high earners were getting company cars, company payment of country club dues and big expense accounts.

The reason: They didn't have to declare those things as income and pay taxes on them. But when rates went down, there was no demand for company-paid perks any more.

You would find also, if you spent time with those 1970s high earners, that they spent a lot of time and psychic energy in finding tax shelters — investments that thanks to the intricacies of tax law reduced the amount of taxable income.

After the Ronald Reagan tax cuts, we saw a vast increase in high earners' taxable income. One reason, I suspect, was that they spent less time seeking tax shelters and more time figuring out how to make profitable investments.

There's a reason federal tax revenues since World War II have hovered around 18 or 19 percent of gross domestic product, regardless of tax rates. The reason is that higher rates tend to result in less taxable income. You figure out why in Tax 1.

But perhaps Barack Obama understands this. In 2008, he told ABC's Charlie Gibson that he wanted to raise capital gains rates even if the government got less revenue because of "fairness." Evidently he likes taking people's money away. What he doesn't explain is why this makes anyone better off.

Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM



Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
Taxing rich people (at a higher marginal rate than currently) worked great in the 1990s, and even more so in the 1950s and '60s. I guess you're saying that it's all very well in practice, but won't work in theory.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Steven Doyle
Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:08 AM
"even more important. And that is that when you reduce income tax rates, high earners have more taxable income. When you raise them, they have less"
That statement is totally incorrect, Taxible income is not calculated after a tax rate is applied. if the tax rate is 30% and you have an income of 100 grand, then you would owe 30K. if it was 50%,---50K.
If you change the taxable income level, that would effect the amount of taxes owed. That is not what the article states.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Scott
Sat Apr 23, 2011 12:42 PM
Re: Scott Your comment is what is incorrect. Taxable income is calculated AFTER a year of economic decisions by the taxpayer. Barone correctly points out that when the rates change, so does the behavior of the taxpayer. And high earners have more leverage to readjust their compensation to shield it from taxation--such as the use of a company car, etc. Or they invest in companies that don't issue dividends so that they can choose when to later sell the stock in a time that maximizes their after-tax income (this is the reason the IRS had to implement provisions to prevent "wash-sales").
Comment: #3
Posted by: CynicalSonOfLiberty
Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:13 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Michael Barone
Dec. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Patrick Buchanan
Pat BuchananUpdated 19 Dec 2014
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 19 Dec 2014
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 19 Dec 2014

15 Jul 2010 As Obama Kowtows, Unions Eye the Private Sector

29 Jul 2010 House Democrats Head for a Thumping at the Polls

2 Sep 2014 The President who Is Uninterested in Other People