The silly debate about the “Buffett Rule” is really an argument about the extent to which there should be more double taxation of income that is saved and invested.
Politicians conveniently forget that dividends and capital gains get hit by the corporate income tax. And since America now has the developed world’s highest corporate income tax rate, it’s adding insult to injury to tax the income again. Actually, it’s adding injury to injury!
No wonder Ernst and Young found that the United States has a very anti-competitive system for taxing dividends and capital gains. (perhaps it’s time to copy the clever British campaign against punitive double taxation)
If you believe in fairness, the right capital gains tax rate is zero. John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, has a good explanation.
Income tax time is an appropriate moment to go to the heart of President Obama’s complaint about the taxes Warren Buffett and other rich people pay, or don’t pay. What the president is really complaining about is that the tax rate on capital gains is too low. But there is a more basic question to be asked: why tax capital gains at all?
That’s a very good question, because a capital gain isn’t income. It’s an asset that has increased in value. But the tax only applies on the gain if you sell the asset.
But why does an asset, such as shares of stock, rise in value? According to finance research, asset prices rise in value when there’s an expectation that there will be a greater after-tax stream of future income. But that income will be taxed (at least once!) when it materializes, so why tax it before it even happens? John hits the nail on the head.
The companies will realize their actual income and they will pay taxes on it. If the firms return some of this income to investors (stockholders), the investors will pay a tax on their dividend income. If the firms pay interest to bondholders, they will be able to deduct the interest payments from their corporate taxable income, but the bondholders will pay taxes on their interest income. Here is the bottom line: There is no need for the IRS to tax the bets that people make along the way — as stock prices gyrate up and down. Eventually all the income that is actually earned will be taxed when it is realized and those taxes will be paid by the people who actually earned the income.
Amen. John is exactly right. He’s making the same arguments I put forward in my video on capital gains taxation.
By the way, the capital gains tax isn’t indexed for inflation. So if you bought an asset 30 years ago and it’s doubled in value, you’ve actually lost money after adjusting for inflation. Yet the IRS will tax you. Sort of adding injury to injury to injury.
Finally, I like how John closes his column.
…why not avoid all these problems by reforming the entire tax system along the lines of a flat tax? The idea behind a flat tax can be summarized in one sentence: In an ideal system, (a) all income is taxed, (b) only once, (c) when (and only when) it is realized, (d) at one low rate.
In this awful period leading up to tax day, isn’t it nice to at least dream of a tax system that is simple, fair, and non-corrupt?
[…] some of them have introduced state wealth taxes, but others are proposing higher capital gains taxes, some are proposing higher death taxes, and others want to impose mark-to-market taxes which are a […]
[…] Get rid of the capital gains tax […]
[…] More than 10 years ago, I narrated this video explaining why there should be no capital gains tax. […]
[…] but countries such as Belgium, Slovakia, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, and Switzerland wisely have chosen not to impose a capital gains […]
[…] rates, but countries such as Belgium, Slovakia, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, and Switzerland wisely have chosen not to impose a capital gains […]
[…] More than 10 years ago, I narrated this video explaining why there should be no capital gains tax. […]
[…] Lower tax rates on capital gains. […]
[…] Lower tax rates on capital gains. […]
[…] finance theory teaches us that the capital gains tax should not exist. Such a levy exacerbates the bias against saving and investment, which reduces innovation, hinders […]
[…] More than 10 years ago, I narrated this video explaining why there should be no capital gains tax. […]
[…] is why there should be no tax on capital gains, and a few nations sensibly take this […]
[…] finance theory teaches us that the capital gains tax should not exist. Such a levy exacerbates the bias against saving and investment, which reduces innovation, hinders […]
[…] finance theory teaches us that the capital gains tax should not exist. Such a levy exacerbates the bias against saving and investment, which reduces innovation, hinders […]
[…] More than 10 years ago, I narrated this video explaining why there should be no capital gains tax. […]
[…] More than 10 years ago, I narrated this video explaining why there should be no capital gains tax. […]
[…] is why there should be no tax on capital gains, and a few nations sensibly take this […]
[…] is why there should be no tax on capital gains, and a few nations sensibly take this […]
[…] For example, offer to trade a sugar tax for repeal of the death tax. Or suggest a fat tax accompanied by elimination of the capital gains tax. […]
[…] Which is why the right capital gains tax rate is zero. […]
[…] Today, let’s focus on one of the specific tax hikes they want. There is near-unanimity among Democratic presidential candidates for higher tax rates on capital gains. […]
[…] stated, there shouldn’t be an added layer of tax on people who earn money, pay tax on that money, and then buy assets with some of the remaining […]
[…] right policy, needless to say, is for there to be no capital gains tax, […]
[…] real goal should be total repeal of the capital gains […]
[…] For example, offer to trade a sugar tax for repeal of the death tax. Or suggest a fat tax accompanied by elimination of the capital gains tax. […]
[…] The right capital gains tax rate is zero […]
[…] alternative minimum tax (for both households and corporations). And there was an increases in the tax burden on capital gains, as well as a more onerous tax regime for new investment. My assessment is that these bad […]
[…] they succeed, that would be a very bad result for American workers and for American […]
[…] issue of whether there should be increased double taxation of capital gains. Which would be the exact opposite of what should happen if we want America to be more competitive and […]
[…] income tax (I’m jealous). No corporate income tax (I’m jealous). No capital gains tax (I’m jealous). No death tax (I’m […]
[…] in the top tax rate, the imposition of the so-called Buffett Rule, an increase in the tax burden on capital gains (including carried interest), and a more onerous death […]
[…] news about the Swiss tax system. Not only are tax rates on wealth dropping, but there’s no capital gains tax. And there are no taxes on […]
Of course the right Capital Gains tax is 0%. Some people may argue that the elimination of that tax would be a huge handout to the rich. However, such claims lack credibility. Every dollar gets double taxed already.
[…] income tax, by the way, means no income tax. Nothing. No capital gains tax, either. The main source of revenue is a value-added tax, generally about 20 percent, along with a […]
[…] isn’t a “preferential” loophole, but instead is the mitigation of a penalty that shouldn’t exist. Similarly, it’s not a loophole when companies deduct expenses when calculating income. And […]
[…] In one fell swoop, that bold piece of reform also solves many other problems. You don’t have to worry about the tax bias of depreciation. You don’t have to worry about the anti-competitive policy of worldwide taxation. And you wipe out a bunch of corrupt tax preferences. The plan also would create universal savings accounts that would be free of double taxation (a policy that has been very successful in Canada). Jindal’s plan also eliminates the death tax, though there would still be a capital gains tax. […]
[…] #3: Supporters of neutral taxation think capital gains taxes should be abolished because there already is tax on the income generated by assets such as stocks and bonds. So the […]
[…] The plan also would create universal savings accounts that would be free of double taxation (a policy that has been very successful in Canada). Jindal’s plan also eliminates the death tax, though there would still be a capital gains tax. […]
[…] Trump would scale back certain deductions as taxpayers earn more money. He also would increase the capital gains tax burden for partnerships that receive “carried interest.” And he would impose worldwide […]
[…] a good tax system, there’s no double taxation of income that is saved and invested, so the capital gains tax should be abolished. As such, the “preferential” rate in the current system is more accurately characterized as a […]
[…] a good tax system, there’s no double taxation of income that is saved and invested, so the capital gains tax should be abolished. As such, the “preferential” rate in the current system is more accurately […]
[…] reductions in double taxation – The Rubio-Lee plans eliminates the capital gains tax, the double tax on dividends, and the second layer of tax on […]
[…] reductions in double taxation – The Rubio-Lee plans eliminates the capital gains tax, the double tax on dividends, and the second layer of tax on […]
[…] reductions in double taxation – The Rubio-Lee plans eliminates the capital gains tax, the double tax on dividends, and the second layer of tax on […]
[…] reductions in double taxation – The Rubio-Lee plans eliminates the capital gains tax, the double tax on dividends, and the second layer of tax on […]
[…] reductions in double taxation – The Rubio-Lee plans eliminates the capital gains tax, the double tax on dividends, and the second layer of tax on […]
[…] Goodman also has a very cogent explanation of the […]
[…] I also posted some very good analysis from John Goodman about the issue. […]
[…] I also posted some very good analysis from John Goodman about the issue. […]
[…] I also posted some very good analysis from John Goodman about the issue. […]
Great argument. But it would have more weight if all companies actually paid taxes on their income (not like GE)
At a minimum cap gains should be indexed for inflation. Of course we’d have to trust the govt’s calculation of that. But at least the confiscation would be mitigated somewhat. Maybe a good incremental step to take. But hard to do as the populist appeal of “taxing the rich” is tough to beat back, most of the time.