• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Saverocity
  • Home
  • Contact
  • Support the Site
  • The Free-quent Flyer

Independently Financed

Independently Financed

Why even the perfect income tax can’t substitute for a wealth tax

January 22, 2020 by indyfinance 6 Comments

Become a Patron!

After they finish hemming and hawing about “constitutional” arguments, opponents of proposals for an American tax on very large fortunes typically make one of two arguments:

  • a more-progressive, better-enforced income and estate tax code could achieve the same revenue goals as a wealth tax, or;
  • a value-added tax, like those used to fund European social democratic welfare states, would be a better method of raising the same amount of revenue.

I think the arguments for a wealth tax are fairly intuitive to an ordinary American, but since these opposing arguments are made with such consistency, I also think it’s worth breaking down the problems with each.

A tax on current income can’t fix past errors

One of the most interesting problems in the US income tax code is that no one has any idea what the “correct” income tax brackets and rates are. The brackets in use during the Clinton administration produced two years of budget surpluses, before the original temporary Bush tax cuts, the permanent Obama extension of those cuts for all but the highest earners, and the additional temporary Trump/Ryan cuts went into effect.

But perhaps, as Alan Greenspan argued at the time, the Clinton tax code raised too much revenue, and by paying off and thereby depriving the world of secure US debt, our budget surpluses would eventually strangle the global channels of commerce.

So, what is the “right” income tax code? Is it the permanent Obama tax rates and brackets, which we’ll revert back to in the 2026 tax year? Or is it the Clinton tax rates, which produced a fiscal surplus at the end of the 1990’s before Bush’s cuts and wars devoured the federal budget?

What’s even worse, in addition to gutting federal revenue for a decade, the Trump/Ryan income tax cuts made some modest improvements: raising the standard deduction and capping the state and local tax deductions reduced the number of filers who benefit from itemizing deductions, and over time might even put some downward pressure on home prices.

Simply reverting to the Clinton tax code would reverse that modest progress; the next round of income tax reform, in addition to raising rates, should instead build on those positive changes by eliminating itemized deductions entirely.

The $10 trillion question is, what shall we do about the debt we incurred paying for those tax cuts?

Conservatives are right: it’s a mistake to fill the hole with income taxes

People sometimes get upset around here because of my distaste for conservative politicians, but there’s no partisan content to the observation that people respond to incentives. When you tax income, you discourage income-earning, and when you subsidize income, you encourage income-earning. Once we agree on this simple observation, we can have all the partisan fights we like.

My point here is quite simple: the people paying taxes under the perfect income tax system, whether it is higher, lower, or the same as today’s income tax system, will not be the same people who benefitted from the income tax cuts of yesteryear.

During the 2000’s, a high-earner  saw their top federal income tax rate fall from 39.6% to 35% between 2003 and 2012, rise to 43.4% between 2013 and 2017, and fall again to 40.8% in 2018 and 2019. That means between 2003 and 2019, these policies overall increased the deficit by $410,000 per million taxable dollars in the top tax bracket.

But the people in that top tax bracket, in those years, are now 16 years older. The years when the US Treasury was shoving out $27,000 in free money per million dollars in earnings were likely the highest-earning years of their lives. Now, they’re retired or nearing retirement, easing out of the workforce, perhaps taking on some light consulting gigs, and carefully managing their estate plans and taxes.

It’s absurd to say that a high-earner today, whatever the correct calculation is of their fair contribution to their federal, state, and local governments, should also have to pay the share of wealthy individuals who paid too little for the preceding decades!

A VAT is clumsy, ineffective, and un-American

As I mentioned up top, a value-added tax, which is a complicated form of national sales tax, is one answer to this problem: while people may have squirreled away unfathomable fortunes during the low-tax years, we can get them, or their descendants, to pay their share when they eventually spend it. You may have avoided income taxes on the money you use to buy a yacht, but a 10% VAT lets us reclaim the same money on the back end.

But a value-added tax is a clumsy solution, for two reasons. First, since it’s paid by the poor and wealthy alike, either tax rebates or additional, clumsily-targeted low-income tax cuts are required to make sure it’s the wealthy who end up bearing the burden. Second, and even worse, it makes the mistake of assuming that the value of wealth is in the spending, and however popular this belief is elsewhere, it’s never had any purchase among Americans. The extremely wealthy are incapable of spending even a fraction of their fortunes, but that does not make them poor — on the contrary, it makes them rich.

Conclusion: a wealth tax surgically targets the beneficiaries of our past mistakes

The idea of a wealth tax is the simplest, cleanest expression of the sentiment that something went wrong. Again, this has no partisan content. Both Democrats and Republicans, every time tax reform is enacted, rush to assure us that actually, ultimately, eventually, we’ll raise more revenue, we’ll reduce the deficit, we’ll grow the economy more quickly.

The deficits were real but the growth was fake. And now we’re left with the question: who will make up the difference? Should we all pitch in together with a national sales tax? Should we all tighten our belts and agree to cut Social Security benefits? Should we forego infrastructure spending or disaster recovery?

Or should we ask the beneficiaries of five decades of folly to agree that we simply made a mistake, and that it’s time to make it right?

Become a Patron!

Filed Under: rant, taxes

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Larry Frabitore says

    January 25, 2020 at 9:18 am

    So a person with saver in the title of the website is for stealing money from people savings. Your advice was never that good anyway so goodbye and maybe you should change your website the socialist utopia.com

    Reply
  2. SC Parent says

    January 25, 2020 at 12:10 pm

    Sometimes you provide an interesting perspective or analysis. This is not one of those times. At least you filed this under “rant,” which perhaps excuses the complete lack of intellectual rigor. I’m going to be shaking my head about this post all day.

    Reply
    • indyfinance says

      January 29, 2020 at 2:26 pm

      SC Parent,

      Thanks for reading, I’m glad I gave you something to think about!

      —Indy

      Reply
  3. Fidel says

    January 26, 2020 at 4:50 pm

    I got lost in all of the tenuous conclusions and pseudo-facts in this article so I think I missed a key point: if we implement this, exactly how much wealth should the government permit an individual to keep?

    Reply
  4. Mark says

    February 24, 2020 at 10:09 pm

    Since revenue is up 6 percent since the tax cut and jobs act, maybe you could offer a better resolution to our annual deficit? Mindless left wing senseless is not the answer.

    Reply
    • indyfinance says

      February 26, 2020 at 1:24 pm

      Mark,

      It’s worth thinking about how remarkable a fact that would be, if true. Since GDP only rose by an estimated 2.3% in 2019 and 2.9% in 2018, that would imply over 100% of GDP growth was going into federal revenue.

      Of course, it’s not true. Revenue in 2017 (the last year before TCJA went into effect) was $3.316 trillion, in 2018 was $3.330 trillion, and in 2019 was $3.462 trillion.

      You seem pretty innumerate so I’m not sure what you think you were saying, but that’s a 0.4% increase in 2018 and a 4% increase in 2019, or a cumulative 4.8% over both years ($0.014 trillion in 2018 and $0.146 trillion in 2019, divided by the starting value of $3.316 trillion).

      Again, before making extraordinary claims, it’s worth considering how they could possibly be true. How could a cut in tax rates increase federal revenue by more than GDP? Obviously, it couldn’t, and it didn’t. GDP increased by a cumulative 5.3%, and federal revenue increased by a cumulative 4.8%, exactly as you’d expect when cutting tax rates.

      —Indy

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Two quirks to watch for when reporting 2020 unemployment compensation
  • Minimums, Anchors, and Thresholds
  • What’s the real story behind the zillionaire widow defrauded by her grandsons?
  • MEUC: the unemployment insurance top-up no one is talking about
  • How to apply to, enroll in, and attend college

Recent Comments

  • Thrawn on Distinguishing between falsifiable and non-falsifiable claims
  • FinePrint on Two quirks to watch for when reporting 2020 unemployment compensation
  • Corey on The Robinhood free stock catch (and an easy workaround)
  • ArmyDoc on Minimums, Anchors, and Thresholds
  • Minimums, Anchors, and Thresholds - Independently Financed on The Social Security magic trick

Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017

Categories

  • affordable luxuries
  • better billionaire project
  • book review
  • cheap lessons
  • fire
  • free business idea
  • health insurance
  • higher education
  • investing
  • over there
  • personal finance
  • rant
  • real estate
  • self-employment
  • social security
  • student loans
  • taxes
  • Uncategorized

Newsletter

Copyright © 2021 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

This website uses cookies to personalize content and ads and to analyze traffic. Our ad partners may combine this information with other information you have provided them or that they've collected from your use of their services elsewhere. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.OkNoRead more