March 14, 2018 Addendum: Because of various changes in tax law, an updated version of the flowchart is attached at the end of this column.
Whether I’m criticizing Warren Buffett’s innumeracy or explaining how to identify illegitimate loopholes, I frequently write about the perverse impact of double taxation.
By this, I mean the tendency of politicians to impose multiple layers of taxation on income that is saved and invested. Examples of this self-destructive practice include the death tax, the capital gains tax, and the second layer of tax of dividends.
Double taxation is particularly foolish since every economic theory – including socialism and Marxism – agrees that capital formation is necessary for long-run growth and higher living standards.
Yet even though this is a critically important issue, I’ve never been satisfied with the way I explain the topic. But perhaps this flowchart makes everything easier to understand (click it for better resolution).
There are a lot of boxes, so it’s not a simple flowchart, but the underlying message hopefully is very clear.
1. We earn income.
2. We then pay tax on that income.
3. We then either consume our after-tax income, or we save and invest it.
4. If we consume our after-tax income, the government largely leaves us alone.
5. If we save and invest our after-tax income, the government penalizes us with as many as four layers of taxation.
You don’t have to be a wild-eyed supply-side economist to conclude that this heavy bias against saving and investment is not a good idea for America’s long-run prosperity.
By the way, Hong Kong’s simple and fair flat tax eliminate all those extra layers of taxation.
That’s the benefit of real tax reform such as a flat tax. You get a low tax rate, but you also get rid of double taxation so that the IRS only gets one bit at the apple.
March 14, 2018 version of chart:
For a more detailed analysis of double taxation, click here.
[…] That drains private capital from the economy and is a de facto heavy tax on those who save and invest (triple or quadruple taxation!). […]
[…] That drains private capital from the economy and is a de facto heavy tax on those who save and invest (triple or quadruple taxation!). […]
[…] when top tax rates are low, and there’s even more evidence that workers are hurtwhen there is punitive double taxation on saving and […]
[…] top tax rates are low, and there’s even more evidence that workers are hurt when there is punitive double taxation on saving and […]
[…] last year in Hawaii on the topic of good tax policy, I explained why it is misguided to impose extra layers of tax on saving and […]
[…] eliminating all forms of double taxation should be a top goal if we want fundamental tax […]
[…] It violates the principles of sensible tax policy and it does a lot of damage since people have less incentive to save and invest. It’s unadulterated double taxation. Or, in some cases, triple or quadruple taxation. […]
[…] It violates the principles of sensible tax policy and it does a lot of damage since people have less incentive to save and invest. It’s unadulterated double taxation. Or, in some cases, triple or quadruple taxation. […]
[…] Because of the negative impact on competitiveness, productivity, and worker compensation, it’s a very bad idea to impose double taxation of saving and investment. […]
[…] Because of the negative impact on competitiveness, productivity, and worker compensation, it’s a very bad idea to impose double taxation of saving and investment. […]
[…] Because of the negative impact on competitiveness, productivity, and worker compensation, it’s a very bad idea to impose double taxation of saving and investment. […]
[…] be fair, Stein also proposes some good policies such as AMT repeal and reductions in double taxation, so he’s definitely not in the Obama class-warfare camp. But it’s also fair to say that his […]
[…] be fair, Stein also proposes some good policies such as AMT repeal and reductions in double taxation, so he’s definitely not in the Obama class-warfare camp. But it’s also fair to say that his […]
[…] have pervasive double taxation of income that is saved and invested (see accompanying chart), so the message from Uncle Sam is to immediately consume any after-tax […]
[…] Payroll tax and consumption taxes, by contrast, are thought to be less damaging because they generally don’t have “progressive rates” and they are “neutral,” meaning they rarely involve any double taxation of saving and investment. […]
[…] repeatedly shared a flowchart to illustrate the pervasive double taxation in the current system (my example is for the United […]
[…] also an economist, so I don’t like the tax because it is the most pernicious form of double taxation. The levy not only drains capital from the private sector, it also discourages the building and […]
[…] shared my flowchart showing how the American tax code is biased against income that is saved and invest, which […]
[…] stated, the current tax code (as shown in the chart) has a very harsh bias against income that is saved and […]
[…] stated, the current tax code (as shown in the chart) has a very harsh bias against income that is saved and […]
[…] años, he estado reciclando un gráfico que muestra como maltrataba el código fiscal estadounidense al ahorro y la inversión. Pero ese […]
[…] years, I’ve been recycling a chart showing how the American tax code mistreats saving and investment. But that chart became outdated […]
[…] is saved and invested. It also is an “origin-based” tax because economic activity is taxed (only one time!) where income is earned rather than where income is […]
[…] VAT isn’t theoretically bad. Like the flat tax, it would have one rate. There also would be no double taxation of saving and investment. And it also can be designed to have no […]
[…] isn’t theoretically bad. Like the flat tax, it would have one rate. There also would be no double taxation of saving and investment. And it also can be designed to have no […]
[…] Yet people don’t have to save and invest. They can choose to immediately enjoy their earnings, especially if there are harsh taxes on income that is saved and invested. […]
[…] Yet people don’t have to save and invest. They can choose to immediately enjoy their earnings, especially if there are harsh taxes on income that is saved and invested. […]
[…] how this guy puts […]
[…] So the obvious solution (beyond simply lowering the corporate rate, which should be a given) is to get rid of the double tax on dividends. […]
[…] So the obvious solution (beyond simply lowering the corporate rate, which should be a given) is to get rid of the double tax on dividends. […]
[…] “consumption-base” tax (which is a public finance term for a system that doesn’t disproportionately penalize income that is saved and invested). But it’s important to understand that border adjustability is not necessary to achieve that […]
[…] and invested. It also is an “origin-based” tax because economic activity is taxed (only one time!) where income is earned rather than where income is […]
[…] is very bad tax policy. In a good system, there shouldn’t be any double taxation of income that is saved and invested,especially since that approach means a smaller capital stock […]
[…] is very bad tax policy. In a good system, there shouldn’t be any double taxation of income that is saved and invested, especially since that approach means a smaller capital stock […]
[…] But if you want to know the tax hikes that do the most damage, on a per-dollar raised basis, it’s probably best to focus on levies that boost double taxation of saving and investment. […]
[…] VAT generally will admit that this is true, but then switch the argument and say that there’s pervasive double taxation in the internal revenue code and that this tax bias against saving and investment does far more damage, per dollar collected, […]
Why is it when you make money on an investment you are taxed for every penny you make. But when you lose money on an investment you can only claim a small portion of the loss? So the govt takes everything when you win and then says screw you when you lose. Sounds fair…
[…] In the same vein, the double taxation flowchart. […]
[…] I would have augmented his list with charts on the rising burden of government spending, the tax code’s discrimination against income that is saved and invested, declining labor-force participation, changes in economic freedom, and the ever-expanding […]
[…] I would have augmented his list with charts on the rising burden of government spending, the tax code’s discrimination against income that is saved and invested, declining labor-force participation, changes in economic freedom, and the ever-expanding […]
[…] In the same vein, the double taxation flowchart. […]
Capital Gains isn’t double taxation. It’s the first taxation on the profits.
[…] In the same vein, the double taxation flowchart. […]
[…] In the same vein, the double taxation flowchart. […]
I support triple taxation as in taxing all bases: income, wealth and sales, because it enables the lowest rates possible and minimizes tax avoidance. Consider business tax reform that consists of a 4% VAT (the lowest in the world) combined with a low 8% C corporation rate and no payroll taxes. This would help workers with a 7.65% increase in take-home pay, reduce incentives to send jobs overseas, repatriate deferred foreign profits, eliminate incentives for inversion and treat different types of business more fairly. Corporate perfection.
For individuals and pass-through businesses I support the new concept of inverse taxation of wealth and income. Consider tax reform that enables any taxpayer to choose an income rate of 8 to 28 percent paired with a net wealth tax of 2 percent descending to zero. A few rules would target basic family needs while leaving greater choices for the wealthy:
1. Each taxpayer would also be able to save up to $500,000 wealth tax free (for retirement, education or health care).
2. Wealth taxes paid would offset Estate and Gift Taxes (like inexpensive life insurance).
3. All need based programs (food, housing, child care, education, health care (see below), etc.) would be based on a combination of income and family wealth as spending programs at the state and local level and not as part of the national tax code.
4. Health care would be a choice of “pay what you can afford” (with government paying the difference to the provider) or private insurance or Medicare.
5. Essential prescription medication would be free to all (and Big Pharma essentially socialized).
6. The charitable deduction would be permitted only with charities that agreed to provide some transitional jobs.
7. Full and part time transitional jobs at all professional levels with non-profit charities, at a little below private business sector rates, would be guaranteed to all adults.
8. A wide range of online education would be free and sufficient to enable a motivated individual to obtain a higher degree recognized for civil service eligibility.
Reblogged this on budbromley.
[…] In the same vein, the double taxation flowchart. […]
[…] Pervasive double taxation that undermines saving and investment. […]
[…] Pervasive double taxation that undermines saving and […]
[…] Pervasive double taxation that undermines saving and […]
[…] Si nous voulons éviter un désastre économique, il est donc urgent de mettre fin à la guerre menée par les banques centrales et le gouvernement contre les épargnants via la menace de taux d’intérêt négatifs et la triple taxation du capital. […]
[…] No double taxation and expensing of business […]
[…] No double taxation and expensing of business […]
[…] does tax income that is saved and invested (but only one time rather than over and over again, as can happen in the current system), it’s …read […]
[…] does tax income that is saved and invested (but only one time rather than over and over again, as can happen in the current system), it’s puzzling why he says the system is “highly […]
[…] does tax income that is saved and invested (but only one time rather than over and over again, as can happen in the current system), it’s puzzling why he says the system is “highly […]
[…] double taxation of saving and investment – The flat tax gets rid of the tax bias against income that is saved and invested. The capital gains tax, double tax on dividends, and death tax are all abolished. Shifting to a […]
[…] consumption systems, by the way. Income that is saved and invested is taxed. It’s just not taxed over and over again, which can happen with the current […]
[…] Pervasive double taxation that discourages saving and […]
[…] Pervasive double taxation that discourages saving and […]
[…] tried to emphasize this point with a flowchart, and I’ve defended so-called trickle-down economics, which is nothing more than the common-sense […]
[…] there shouldn’t be any double taxation of income that is saved and invested, both the death tax and capital gains tax should be abolished. […]
[…] a form of double taxation with pernicious effects, as the Wall Street Journal explained back in […]
[…] be fair, Stein also proposes some good policies such as AMT repeal and reductions in double taxation, so he’s definitely not in the Obama class-warfare camp. But it’s also fair to say that his […]
[…] additional earnings? Why make the sacrifice to set aside some of your income when the government imposes extra layers of tax on saving and investment? And why allocate your money on the basis of economic efficiency when you […]
[…] I’m a supporter of a single-rate tax regime, especially if there’s no double taxation of income that is saved and invested. […]
[…] 1986 Tax Reform Act that lowered the top tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent (albeit offset by increased double taxation and more punitive depreciation […]
Reblogged this on Bob's Opinion and commented:
An exercise in futility with higher tax on consumer goods it may be a problem for the seniors, but good for the retirement accounts
[…] repeal of a few bad loopholes. But it’s accompanied by some really bad provisions, such as increased double taxation and higher taxes on business […]
[…] Reagan slashed tax rates in the 1980s, the most anti-growth feature of the tax code is probably the pervasive double taxation of income that is saved and invested. Shockingly, the Camp plan worsens the tax treatment of […]
[…] Reagan slashed tax rates in the 1980s, the most anti-growth feature of the tax code is probably the pervasive double taxation of income that is saved and invested. Shockingly, the Camp plan worsens the tax treatment of […]
[…] if you save for retirement and aren’t subject to double taxation, you’re not making a prudent decision with your own money. Instead, you’re the […]
[…] features to the MyRA plan, most notably the fact that money in the accounts would be protected from double taxation. Workers would put after-tax money in the accounts, but there would be no additional layers of tax […]
I agree with “Beamish”:
“……Since no Corporation actually pays an income tax – it is all passed along to the consumers in form of increased prices – would it not make more sense to simply drop the Corporate rate to Zero and make all other income subject to the standard income tax?……”
I have always said that corporate taxes are the ultimate “spite tax”. They are no-one’s personal income until distributed as dividends, at which point they can be taxed as personal income.
Re-invested (undistributed) corporate profits are really the only source of growth long term. Taxing these profits when they are not distributed, is a tax on economic growth itself. The ultimate pointless and destructive tax. This is why cuts in the rate of corporate tax are always such an economic stimulus. There is no optimum rate for them – they should not exist. The people who devised and implemented them were spite-blinded fools.
[…] I more upset about the pervasive double taxation of income that is saved and […]
[…] and create more jobs. This is because the numbers show that the internal revenue code results in punitive double taxation of income that is saved and […]
[…] and create more jobs. This is because the numbers show that the internal revenue code results in punitive double taxation of income that is saved and […]
[…] plan would increase the double taxation of dividends and capital gains. The U.S. already has a very anti-competitive system and this would […]
[…] We now have a top tax rate of 39.6 percent, and it’s actually much higher than that when you include the impact of other taxes, as well as the pervasive double taxation of saving and investment. […]
Abolish the IRS they are more evil than hilter and the Nazi party
[…] We now have a top tax rate of 39.6 percent, and it’s actually much higher than that when you include the impact of other taxes, as well as the pervasive double taxation of saving and investment. […]
[…] We now have a top tax rate of 39.6 percent, and it’s actually much higher than that when you include the impact of other taxes, as well as the pervasive double taxation of saving and investment. […]
[…] But the more serious point is that the death tax shouldn’t exist at all, as I’ve explained for USA Today. And in this CNBC debate, I argue that it is an immoral form of double taxation. […]
[…] The right approach is to have a “consumption tax base,” which simply is another way of saying that income shouldn’t be taxed more than one time (as shown in this flowchart). […]
[…] main gripe is that they start with the assumption that there should be more double taxation of income that is saved and invested, which is contrary to the principles of neutrality in pro-growth plans such as the flat tax and […]
[…] But the more serious point is that the death tax shouldn’t exist at all, as I’ve explained for USA Today. And in this CNBC debate, I argue that it is an immoral form of double taxation. […]
[…] whether the specific “tax avoiding scheme” used by Carr is good tax policy (protecting against double taxation, for instance) or bad policy (such as a loophole that creates favoritism for a specific behavior), […]
[…] In reality, I don’t think any of our bank accounts should be taxable (whether they’re in Geneva, Switzerland or Geneva, Illinois) for the simple reason that there shouldn’t be any double taxation of income that is saved and invested. […]
[…] In reality, I don’t think any of our bank accounts should be taxable (whether they’re in Geneva, Switzerland or Geneva, Illinois) for the simple reason that there shouldn’t be any double taxation of income that is saved and invested. […]
[…] a big fan of the flat tax as a way of neutering the punitive and convoluted internal revenue code in […]
[…] illustrated by this chart, the tax code is very biased against saving and […]
[…] If you’re a public finance economist, you think any form of death tax is a very perverse form of double taxation and you like just about anything that reduces this onerous penalty on saving and […]
[…] illustrated by this chart, the tax code is very biased against saving and […]
[…] you’re a public finance economist, you think any form of death tax is a very perverse form of double taxation and you like just about anything that reduces this onerous penalty on saving and […]
[…] be fair, Stein also proposes some good policies such as AMT repeal and reductions in double taxation, so he’s definitely not in the Obama class-warfare camp. But it’s also fair to say that his […]
[…] be fair, Stein also proposes some good policies such as AMT repeal and reductions in double taxation, so he’s definitely not in the Obama class-warfare camp. But it’s also fair to say that […]
[…] revenue code and replace it with a simple and fair flat tax – meaning one low rate, no double taxation, and no […]
[…] plan would increase the double taxation of dividends and capital gains. The U.S. already has a very anti-competitive system and this would […]
[…] when you add up the various forms of double taxation in the internal revenue code (particularly the death tax), it makes little sense for families with […]
[…] when you add up the various forms of double taxation in the internal revenue code (particularly the death tax), it makes little sense for families with […]
[…] don’t understand the difference between a tax loophole such as ethanol and a tax penalty such as double taxation, so their version of tax reform could make bad policies even […]
[…] understand the difference between a tax loophole such as ethanol and a tax penalty such as double taxation, so their version of tax reform could make bad policies even […]
[…] why there shouldn’t be double taxation of income that is saved and invested, and it’s also why there shouldn’t be loopholes that favor some forms of economic […]
[…] disaster of Obamacare and that it also exacerbates the tax code’s punitive bias by increasing double taxation of income that is saved and […]
[…] tax base as a benchmark, and that approach assumes bad policies such as the double taxation of income that is saved and invested. If you want to get deep in the weeds of tax policy, I shared late last year some good analysis on […]
[…] why there shouldn’t be double taxation of income that is saved and invested, and it’s also why there shouldn’t be loopholes that favor some forms of economic […]
[…] second chart shows how the internal revenue code treats income that is consumed compared to how it penalizes income that is saved and invested. Simply stated, the current system is very biased against capital formation because of the combined […]
[…] second chart shows how the internal revenue code treats income that is consumed compared to how it penalizes income that is saved and invested. Simply stated, the current system is very biased against capital formation because of the combined […]
[…] It doesn’t appear that this plan will get the necessary support from the Tories, but it’s remarkable that it has been proposed. Like the death tax, the wealth tax is a turbo-charged form of double taxation. […]
[…] Not bold tax reform like a flat tax, but top tax rates would be reduced to 25 percent and many forms of double taxation like the death tax and capital gains tax presumably would be reduced or […]
[…] They lower the price of saving and investment relative to consumption. […]
[…] assumes that there should be double taxation of income that is saved and invested (as shown by this startling chart). Another way of saying this is that the Haig-Simons approach assumes the government should tax […]
[…] They lower the price of saving and investment relative to consumption. […]
[…] rate, I should have explained that government policies undermine savings, both because of the tax code’s pro-consumption bias and because reasons to save are diminished thanks to government-provided subsidies for things such […]
[…] I want to get rid of the double taxation of dividends andcapital gains in part because these reforms will boost business […]
[…] – All major tax reform plans, such as the flat tax and national sales tax, get rid of the tax bias against income that is saved and invested. The capital gains tax, double tax on dividends, and death tax are all abolished. Shifting to a […]
[…] a big fan of the flat tax as a way of neutering the punitive and convoluted internal revenue code in […]
[…] a big fan of the flat tax as a way of neutering the punitive and convoluted internal revenue code in […]
[…] It doesn’t appear that this plan will get the necessary support from the Tories, but it’s remarkable that it has been proposed. Like the death tax, the wealth tax is a turbo-charged form of double taxation. […]
[…] But the more serious point is that the death tax shouldn’t exist at all, as I’ve explained for USA Today. And in this CNBC debate, I argue that it is an immoral form of double taxation. […]
[…] The right approach is to have a “consumption tax base,” which simply is another way of saying that income shouldn’t be taxed more than one time (as shown in this flowchart). […]
[…] Yet the United States imposes very harsh tax burdens on capital formation, largely thanks to multiple layers of tax on income that is saved and invested. […]
[…] The right approach is to have a “consumption tax base,” which simply is another way of saying that income shouldn’t be taxed more than one time (as shown in this flowchart). […]
[…] I want to get rid of the double taxation of dividends and capital gains in part because these reforms will boost business […]
[…] I want to get rid of the double taxation of dividends and capital gains in part because these reforms will boost business […]
[…] is that there no longer should be any double taxation of income that is saved and invested. As you can see in this chart, people who live for today and immediately consume their after-tax income are basically spared any […]
[…] but the negative impact of taxation can be reduced by lowering marginal tax rate(s), eliminating double taxation of saving and investment, and getting rid of loopholes that encourage people to make decisions for tax reasons even if they […]
[…] – All major tax reform plans, such as the flat tax and national sales tax, get rid of the tax bias against income that is saved and invested. The capital gains tax, double tax on dividends, and death tax are all abolished. Shifting to a […]
[…] you don’t want double taxation, the capital gains tax rate in Jersey is zero. That’s a lot better than the United Kingdom […]
[…] that wonderful? We’d be taxed when we earn our income (often more than one time), and then taxed again when we spend our income. Just like […]
[…] The high cost of the death tax – I don’t like double taxation, but the death tax is usually triple taxation and that makes a bad tax even worse. Especially since […]
[…] The high cost of the death tax – I don’t like double taxation, but the death tax is usually triple taxation and that makes a bad tax even worse. Especially since […]
[…] The high cost of the death tax – I don’t like double taxation, but the death tax is usually triple taxation and that makes a bad tax even worse. Especially since […]
[…] The high cost of the death tax – I don’t like double taxation, but the death tax is usually triple taxation and that makes a bad tax even worse. Especially since […]
[…] the Bowles-Simpson plan is a bad place to start, largely because it dramatically increases the double-tax burden on income that is saved and invested and it fails to include real entitlement […]
[…] Explaining the Perverse Impact of Double Taxation with a Chart […]
[…] explained, this would be a terrible idea. It means a big tax hike, including an increase in the double taxation of income that is saved and invested. It also relies on gimmicks rather than real entitlement […]
[…] explained, this would be a terrible idea. It means a big tax hike, including an increase in the double taxation of income that is saved and invested. It also relies on gimmicks rather than real entitlement […]
[…] this would be a terrible idea. It means a big tax hike with, particularly an increase in the double taxation of income that is saved and invested. It also relies on gimmicks rather than real entitlement […]
[…] why there shouldn’t be double taxation of income that is saved and invested, and it’s also why there shouldn’t be loopholes that favor some forms of economic […]
[…] why there shouldn’t be double taxation of income that is saved and invested, and it’s also why there shouldn’t be loopholes that favor some forms of economic […]
[…] It’s also remarkable that Hollande wants to dramatically increase tax rates on capital gains, dividends, and interest. These are all examples of double taxation. […]
[…] Since capital formation is critical for long-run growth, don’t double-tax income that is saved and invested. […]
Eric A, I have no idea how I got on this International blog or whatever it’s called? I can’t even read half the comments that have those […] in them!? Then again, I block a lot of “scripts” too!? Might be the reason why?
Anyhow Eric, stick to your guns. Your logic is very sound. I’m an ol’ guy that’s retired. I appreciate the max tax of 15% on long term cap gains and corp dividend distributions etc. I’ve also enjoyed a mortg interest deduction too. All said however, it’s time to stop all that nonsense. There’s no reason I should have gotten all those benies! Other than inheritance income, and municipal bond type interest; all other income is just “ordinary income”!!! This earned and unearned stuff is just a ruse. Of course you don’t want to overtax the affluent, but we’re suppose to have a progressive tax system. Taxing at 31% or 32% max is not overbearing.
(lol) The theory of “double taxation” goes way back, probably before you were born. DT only applies to corp dividends; not to capital gains, carried interest, or gains on the sale of real estate. Don’t let all these alleged wonks buffalo you. They’re actually starting to teach this nonsense in business schools. A cap gain is the product of a trading exchange. A corporation doesn’t pay taxes on your cap gains!
Like I recommended sometime back, why not eliminate tax on corporations altogether? Set all tax on corps at 3%! Then just tax all “individuals” at a standard “progressive rate”?!
Just randomly picking AT&T for an example, okay?: To avoid taxes ATT does all kinds of offshoring, and then corp opulence, and then lobbying for loop holes, etc etc. When they do pay taxes, it ain’t the shareholders or execs that pay that tax!!! It’s the average customer in the form of a higher bill. All these shareholders whining about double tax is just silly. They don’t pay on “the first pass”!
In summary, America just needs to quit taxing corporations, (3%), and then treat almost all income as “ordinary”, and then tax according to marginal agreed upon tax brackets. All these guys couldn’t cry about being double taxed anymore!?
Again Eric, I’m an ol’ guy. I won’t vote in November, cause I don’t like either man. Unless you younger folk wake up, you’re going to be in for a long row to hoe! My advice, be flexible, but if they can’t explain it in plain logic, then don’t fall for none of it!
Simply put, I don’t understand why it’s a big deal that the government taxes us on capital gains. We’re taking a risk with our money and making supplemental income. Shouldn’t that be taxed as normal income? That doesn’t seem like double taxation, that seems like single taxation. You gained more income, and you need to pay tax on it. End.
[…] Yet the United States imposes very harsh tax burdens on capital formation, largely thanks to multiple layers of tax on income that is saved and invested. […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] argument – is that any capital gains tax is illegitimate because it is double taxation. I think this flowchart is very helpful for those who want to understand the issue, but the WSJ’s explanation is very good as well. Third, since the U.S. also taxes […]
[…] perspective (like the flat tax and national sales tax, it’s a single-rate system with no double taxation of income that is saved and invested), but instead because I don’t trust […]
[…] plan would increase the double taxation of dividends and capital gains. The U.S. already has a very anti-competitive system and this would […]
[…] – is that any capital gains tax is illegitimate because it is double taxation. I think this flowchart is very helpful for those who want to understand the issue, but the WSJ’s explanation is very good as well. Third, since the U.S. also taxes […]
[…] an ideal world, there would be no double taxation and no government would try to tax any interest, dividends, or capital gains that our hypothetical […]
[…] an ideal world, there would be no double taxation and no government would try to tax any interest, dividends, or capital gains that our hypothetical […]
[…] already has pervasive double taxation, as illustrated by this flowchart, and this post shows that Obama’s policies would make a bad situation even […]
[…] They lower the price of saving and investment relative to consumption. […]
[…] They lower the price of saving and investment relative to consumption. […]
[…] It doesn’t appear that this plan will get the necessary support from the Tories, but it’s remarkable that it has been proposed. Like the death tax, the wealth tax is a turbo-charged form of double taxation. […]
[…] to jail for something that shouldn’t be illegal (and if we had a flat tax, there would be no double taxation of saving and investment, so it wouldn’t matter for tax purposes if your bank account was in Georgetown, Kentucky, or […]
Dan, why not just quit taxing Class C Corps, by setting their tax down to 4%??! Then reduce the max “individual bracket” down to 31%?!!
Then get rid of all individual “preferential treatment of investment income”?! Like someone wrote in, income is income!
Now of course, inheritance income and municipal bond interest shouldn’t be taxed at all.
Additionally, people with an existing mortgage interest deduction, (MID), should be grandfathered, but all new mortgages shouldn’t have MID’s! Also, if the day ever returns where you profit from the sale of your personal residence; why can’t you pay tax at your bracket? None of this stuff makes any sense to me!?
Under true capitalism, why would a private home, that’s lived in, appreciate in value??? But for rare circumstances, that don’t make any logical sense. That’s all just artificial manipulation by the realtor lobby and Congress, and this delusion of some ‘American Dream’. Americans have been duped since the late 60’s. A private residence, under true capitalism, is rarely an appreciating asset!
If we essentially quit taxing corporations, guys like you couldn’t cry and whine about this “double taxation”, anymore, right?. Not only that, most corporate tax is paid by the average customer or consumer of the corp, not the shareholders or exec’s!
Here’s more benefits to quitting the tax of corps: Corps won’t need so many lobbyists, tax accountants, tax lawyers, etc. Why would you need them? Additionally, with essentially no corp tax, corporations wouldn’t need all that ridiculous opulence, of sport stadium box suites, vacation junkets, and lavish dining! With no taxation, corps would just compete for profits, and they’d declare large quarterly dividends! All this current corp opulence BS would greatly subside.
With no corp taxes, (4%), we’d repatriate all that offshore money. There’d be jobs and higher wages. Prices would come down too!
The only people that would feel the effects of not taxing corps, would be the affluent 2% individual. Dan, you’d only have to pay a max of 31%!!! What are you whining about?
If you want to move to the south of France, well then move! That’s if you can get your wife and kids to join you! (heehee)
[…] – All major tax reform plans, such as the flat tax and national sales tax, get rid of the tax bias against income that is saved and invested. The capital gains tax, double tax on dividends, and death tax are all abolished. Shifting to a […]
[…] – All major tax reform plans, such as the flat tax and national sales tax, get rid of the tax bias against income that is saved and invested. The capital gains tax, double tax on dividends, and death tax are all abolished. Shifting to a […]
[…] Yet the United States imposes very harsh tax burdens on capital formation, largely thanks to multiple layers of tax on income that is saved and invested. […]
[…] Yet the United States imposes very harsh tax burdens on capital formation, largely thanks to multiple layers of tax on income that is saved and invested. […]
[…] Yet the United States imposes very harsh tax burdens on capital formation, largely thanks to multiple layers of tax on income that is saved and invested. […]
[…] I gave lots of speeches, and I pontificated about lower marginal tax rates and getting rid of double taxation. I quickly learned, though, that people were most excited about getting rid of the corruption in […]
[…] One of my big points was that the United States already has a self-destructive set of tax laws for investment. As such, it would be very foolish to increase the double taxation of income that is saved and invested. […]
[…] Or look at this chart showing the extensive double taxation in our tax code, as well as these international comparisons of how America over-taxes dividends and […]
[…] the specific “tax avoiding scheme” used by Carr is good tax policy (protecting against double taxation, for instance) or bad policy (such as a loophole that creates favoritism for a specific behavior), […]
[…] better tax policy. Simply stated, politicians are much more likely to reduce or eliminate double taxation if they feel such taxes can’t be enforced and simply put a country in a much less competitive […]
Sorry, I just noticed a math error in my initial comment. I was referring to post inflation growth in Hong Kong compared with probably pre-inflation numbers for China (sorry about that), but it doesn’t change the fact that even post inflation performance in China is way ahead of post inflation growth in Hong Kong.
Great point on Hong Kong. If we only liberalized like they have, then we too could have their 1%-2% long term growth rate, as opposed to the slovenly 9% growth rate in a mixed economy like China. I can hardly wait.
I would agree that capital formation is necessary for growth. What are the ingredients?
* Idea and impetus for a product or new efficiency (spark).
* Source of funds (fuel)
* Untapped consumer dollars that will provide rate of return (oxygen)
Growth will be heaviest when we supercharge whichever of the three is in short supply. We increase the spark when we have a strong education system and people have a lot of positive role models. We increase the fuel under two conditions. Either there is a large bank of people with money saved or there is money available for lending. Either is sufficient if available at the appropriate risk level. Third, the thing being consumed must tap into an untapped need among people whose wages + asset growth + inflation based growth exceeds their existing expenses. Since wages by definition are less than revenues, asset growth plus money supply inflation among the working class are necessary to avoid price deflation or revenue decrease.
[…] Good tax policy is predicated on the notion that there should not be a bias against income that is saved and invested. This is because double taxation undermines capital formation and thus reduces long-run growth. […]
[…] in mind that Hong Kong and Singapore also avoid double taxation, so there’s nothing remotely close to the punitive tax laws that America has for interest, […]
[…] tried to emphasize this point with a flowchart, and I’ve defended so-called trickle-down economics, which is nothing more than the […]
[…] means they are fiscal safe zones, particularly for people who want to protect their assets from the pervasive double taxation that exists in so many […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] One of my big points was that the United States already has a self-destructive set of tax laws for investment. As such, it would be very foolish to increase the double taxation of income that is saved and invested. […]
[…] One of my big points was that the United States already has a self-destructive set of tax laws for investment. As such, it would be very foolish to increase the double taxation of income that is saved and invested. […]
[…] surprisingly, I testified that the ideal tax system should have the lowest-possible rate, no double taxation of income that is saved and invested, and no corrupt and inefficient loopholes. In other words, a flat […]
[…] and capital gains already are higher than the equivalent rates in Greece. Yet Obama wants to boost double taxation on these forms of retained earnings and distributed […]
[…] which exists when the government cycles some income through the tax code more than one time. As this chart illustrates, this means a much higher tax burden on income that is saved and […]
[…] which exists when the government cycles some income through the tax code more than one time. As this chart illustrates, this means a much higher tax burden on income that is saved and […]
[…] But my job is to do the right thing and bring truth to the economic heathens, so I agreed to participate. And I’m glad I did, because it gave me a chance to try out a new argument that I hope will educate more people about the perverse impact of double taxation. […]
[…] But my job is to do the right thing and bring truth to the economic heathens, so I said yes. And I’m glad I did, because it gave me a chance to try out a new argument that I hope will educate more people about the perverse impact of double taxation. […]
[…] Here’s the double taxation chart. […]
[…] As illustrated by this chart, double taxation is a serious self-inflicted barrier to American growth and competitiveness. Too bad Republicans are too short-sighted to address this issue intelligently. Advertisement GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_bg", "fafcff"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_border", "f0f1f3"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_text", "2a2a2a"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_link", "c0090e"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_url", "808080"); GA_googleAddAttr("LangId", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Autotag", "politics"); GA_googleAddAttr("Autotag", "business"); GA_googleAddAttr("Autotag", "money"); GA_googleFillSlot("wpcom_sharethrough"); Rate this: Share this:EmailPrintFacebookTwitterMoreDiggStumbleUponReddit […]
[…] As illustrated by this chart, double taxation is a serious self-inflicted barrier to American growth and competitiveness. Too bad Republicans are too short-sighted to address this issue intelligently. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
[…] and portfolios are expanding at 15 percent, the tax rate is still 20 percent. And keep in mind all the other layers of tax that would still exist, so the effective marginal tax rate will still be […]
[…] bad taxation law. If a United States had a simple and satisfactory prosaic tax, there would be no double taxation of income that is saved and invested. As such, a IRS wouldn’t have any reason to caring either Americans had bank accounts and/or […]
[…] bad taxation law. If a United States had a simple and satisfactory prosaic tax, there would be no double taxation of income that is saved and invested. As such, a IRS wouldn’t have any reason to caring either Americans had bank accounts and/or […]
[…] bad taxation law. If a United States had a simple and satisfactory prosaic tax, there would be no double taxation of income that is saved and invested. As such, a IRS wouldn’t have any reason to caring either Americans had bank accounts and/or […]
[…] bad taxation law. If a United States had a simple and satisfactory prosaic tax, there would be no double taxation of income that is saved and invested. As such, a IRS wouldn’t have any reason to caring either Americans had bank accounts and/or […]
[…] because of bad tax law. If the United States had a simple and fair flat tax, there would be no double taxation of income that is saved and invested. As such, the IRS wouldn’t have any reason to care whether Americans had bank accounts and/or […]
[…] because of bad tax law. If the United States had a simple and fair flat tax, there would be no double taxation of income that is saved and invested. As such, the IRS wouldn’t have any reason to care whether Americans had bank accounts and/or […]
[…] tax code is punitive and corrupt, but the economic damage caused by a bad revenue system is just part of the […]
The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal”. The Constitution acknowledges this all important tenet by only granting the federal gov’t jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians. Since “all men are created equal” there can be no intrastate commerce jurisdiction and no such thing as a “taxpayer”.
Great Britain lost the Revolution on the battlefield, but immediately sent in its bankers to destroy American sovereignty. In the War of 1812, Great Britain was impressing our Merchant Marine into service for its Navy. The bankers bankrupted the federal gov’t in 1933 (title 11 USC, “Bankruptcy”, is implemented by title 11 CFR, “Federal elections” – we are only electing a bankruptcy “administration”.
The final nail in American sovereignty was the creation of Social Security. The Form SS-5 that one uses to apply for a S.S.# is actually a federal employment form – you become a “taxpayer”. A “taxpayer” is a member of the Merchant Marine – see 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) for the definition. 26 CFR 2.1-1(b) states that this is the term used for all calculation of taxes. So now all Americans are being impressed into service for Great Britain’s bankers. Go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-7h to see “The Bankers’ Blueprint to Destroy American Sovereignty” with all the statutes and regulations.
[…] tax code is punitive and corrupt, but the economic damage caused by a bad revenue system is just part of the […]
[…] tax code is punitive and corrupt, but the economic damage caused by a bad revenue system is just part of the […]
I could write a small book on your article but basically, you have no idea what you are talking about. For example:
Give me one example of how the capital gains tax is a double tax. You cannot do it.
[…] with me – at least implicitly – about “trickle-down economics” and the deleterious impact of double taxation. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
“1 – the double tax only applies to investment income from C-corps. Investors and owners of LLCs and partnerships can reinvest profits without paying any form of double taxation. ”
Wrong. LLCs and S Corps pay tax on profits, not withdrawals. If you leave the money in the company, it is taxed as income whether you take it out or not. If it’s less than about $105,000, you pay self-employment tax to boot.
[…] in September, I posted a flowchart showing how the current tax system is biased against saving and […]
[…] Back in September, I posted a flowchart showing how the current tax system is biased against saving and […]
[…] in September, I posted a flowchart showing how the current tax system is biased against saving and […]
[…] in September, I posted a flowchart showing how the current tax system is biased against saving and […]
[…] revoke a discriminatory and punitive diagnosis of income that is saved and invested (see this draft to understand given this is a critical problem in a stream taxation code). Since all mercantile theories – even […]
[…] because Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan has low tax rates, it eliminates double taxation, and it wipes out loopholes, and those are three very big and very good […]
[…] world are capital-gains an example of double-taxation? Fortunately, they provide a handy link to a blog that explains the “double […]
This author has no clue how to make a cogent chart… not to mention the false logic behind what he characterizes as double taxation.
There’s nothing inherently wrong about double taxation; it’s just annoying because simpleminded readers and writers get the wrong idea that saving is more expensive than spending. A plumber charges tax to his customer and buys a restaurant meal with the rest. The restauranteur charges tax on his meal and spends the remaining money on a haircut. The hairdresser charges tax on their cut and spends the rest… you see where this is going: the hairdresser’s cut has had tax taken out by the plumber and restauranteur as well, but the double-taxation obsessivists don’t count that as double taxation. Because if they did, then they would realize that all taxes are a form of double taxation and their heads would explode.
Move to Canada…for every $1 you earn pay .50 in taxes.
Get free health care and education!
Haha. That’s pretty good. You make it look like the income is taxed over and over when it’s invested. The last tax isn’t even on the same “individual” who originally earned the money.
Clever enough to fool most people, probably.
If the value of the stock goes down and you sell it for a loss, you get to write it off against your ordinary income. Therefore, the government subsidizes your losses. Hence I see no problem with the government participating in your gains. However, I do not think there needs to be a separate definition for this income. Income is income – it should all be treated the same. And I agree with other posts – corporate income is truly double taxation, and should be lowered to zero. Finally – estate taxes are a problem for me. I think people should be allowed to bequeath a significant amount of wealth tax-free; however, I also think there should be a limit before taxation kicks in and provides incentive for philanthropy. Perpetual inherited advantage builds an entitlement class and can inhibit the social mobility of others.
Oh, and not to mention the step up in basis on stock that people get on death. This can sometimes be a MASSIVE amount in tax savings.
How can you call this a double tax when you are only being taxed on each type of income once. Example:
you earn wages and pay your tax on them.
you use your after tax earning to buy stock. $1000 worth
The stock gains value, Now worth $1500(you dont pay any tax until you cash it in)
You cash in the stock and get $1500
You only pay tax on $500 since you already paid tax on the $1000 previously earned, and to top it all off, you pay capital gains tax on that $500 which in may cases is lower then the tax rate you paid on the initial $1000.
As long as you are smart about your investments, why is this bad? I would rather pay 15% on $1000 and 0% on $500 then 20% on $1500 and loose $150.
Just a thought.
At best, disingenuous spin; at worst, outright distortion and falsehood.
Please define the GAINS portion of capital gains. Investment is taxed in its increase, not the full capital.
A dollar made is a dollar made, whether in a fireman’s salary or a banker’s portfolio. Why should the fireman have his dollar taxed, and not the banker?
Can’t the fireman then invest what’s left of his dollar, too? Why is that dollar less important as investment capital than the bankers dollar?
You would have us create a tax-exempt ‘investor class’ benefiting from the market that flourishes in a stable society created by government and the rule of law, but not contributing to the cost of that stability.
Yes. What’s wrong with our economy is that people are buying consumer products instead of investing.
Everyone I know who is saving for retirement is investing less because s/he figures that the income they receive from speculation (capital gains) or investment (dividends and interest) is going to be taxed.
Seriously?
The chart is cute, but it implies that the same invested dollar gets taxed many many times, which is not even remotely true. Taxes only apply to the new income that flowed to the individual as a result of the investment of that dollar.
You know perfectly well that this is true. Why are you engaging in such deception? Why publish and sign your name to something that shows so little integrity?
Ah right. Self interest. Political ideology.
You exploit the ignorance of wide swaths of the populace to get them to believe that a policy that will harm them is a good idea.
Hey, can I buy you breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day for the next 20 years? Seriously. My treat.
I hope you like McDonalds. Oh, I won’t be eating with you.
What i read throw this post and the comments is the fact that maths are of no concern when it’s a tax question !
Tax is a question of ideology and not of serious maths.
Let me give an example to better illustrate what the author wants done:
Let us say that a rich billionaire leaves a 20 billion dollars in fortune that he earned to his son. That son, according to the author’s viewpoint, doesn’t get taxed because the author doesn’t like the death tax. Let’s say the son then invests his money in stocks and bonds, he doesn’t pay a penny in taxes since the author opposes capital gains. He then starts a company with his huge wealth, that company doesn’t pay a single penny of tax on its profits since the author opposes corporate taxes. Meanwhile, this guy goes on chartered flights on “business trips”, rents hookers for “business meetings” and shows them as expenses in his accounts while his employees continue to pay taxes on all their salaries.
Exciting isn’t it? Hey, once he is done, maybe he can pass this money along to his heir and let him repeat the cycle too…
[…] reduce the discriminatory and punitive treatment of income that is saved and invested (see this chart to understand why this is a serious problem in the current tax code). Since all economic theories – even […]
Does the author assume that we are all fools, or is he just sure that we all hate taxes so much we are willing to believe this fairytale.
As a consumer we pay a sales tax ( it goes to government isn’t it?)
[…] because Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan has low tax rates, it eliminates double taxation, and it wipes out loopholes, and those are three very big and very good […]
[…] because Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan has low tax rates, it eliminates double taxation, and it wipes out loopholes, and those are three very big and very good […]
Sigh. “Death tax” is double taxation. On who, exactly? That’s like saying my employer who pays taxes and pays me after he pays taxes is being double taxed because I have to pay taxes, too. And my poor gardener, that poor dude is party to TRIPLE taxation then it appears.
What a joke. This guy calls himself an economist?
crisap444 reblogged this on The Conservative New Ager and commented: And keep in mind the rich, those who invest, are not paying enough taxes.
[…] Explaining the Perverse Impact of Double Taxation with a Chart […]
And this doesn’t even deal with the sales taxes on the items you buy or the hundred other taxes that come with getting that product to you (or in the case of some products like a phone or a car the new fees and taxes that come with that product).
Dan, Great way of highlighting the many layers of taxes that stifles investments in the US. What caught my eye though is the apparent simplicity of the left side of the chart. It couldn’t possibly be that simple.
When you decide to buy a TV, you’re not just paying for the parts and labor it took to build it. There are many layers of imbedded corporate income and employer taxes and government compliance costs tacked on to the price of that TV by every company that touches it throughout the supply chain. From raw material suppliers, to the contractor that built the factory, to the bank that holds the title, to the utilities that provide the energy, to the manufacturer itself, to the companies that produce the packing materials, to the freight companies that ship it, to the store you bought it from and all the other companies in between, they all bear a tremendous cost in taxes and government compliance in the US. These costs MUST be passed onto the end consumer and they ultimately bear these burdens. The idea of corporate taxes is sort of a myth. In the end the consumer will always pay them.
Oh, wait. Nevermind. The TV was made in China because no manufacturer could afford to build that TV here in the US under all of those imbedded costs. The Flat Tax will not fix that problem. In addition to removing all the layers you highlighted above, we must repeal all corporate and individual income taxes as and move to a national retail sales tax on all goods and services in order to level the playing field with imported goods, which do not have our ever-thickening layer of corporate taxes and government compliance costs. True prosperity for the US would require a tax system more along the lines of the Fair Tax. A bonus would be the liberty that comes from complete transparency and putting the consumer in charge of how much in taxes they are willing to pay. Don’t want to pay taxes? Don’t buy the TV – invest that money. You won’t have to pay taxes when you sell those shares. Cheers!
Hey Dan, Nice overview. (You should be on Kudlow more often instead of Jared “Unibrow” Bernstein, Robert “Econodwarf” Reich or Howard “Governor Aaargh” Dean.)
One area that needs more emphasis is the impact of inflation on tax revenue. Imagine an investor in a tangible asset (real estate, precious metals, etc.), the real value of which stays roughly constant over the long term but whose nominal value in USD terms goes up due to the debasement of the USD. The investor sells the tangible asset, realizes a nominal gain which is taxed at 35% and ends up with only 65% of the original real value.
Inflation and taxation on unindexed nominal gains is one of the most pernicious ways the state impoverishes its citizens. The only just solution is to index the original cost for a real measure of inflation.
Since no Corporation actually pays an income tax – it is all passed along to the consumers in form of increased prices – would it not make more sense to simply drop the Corporate rate to Zero and make all other income subject to the standard income tax?
Until you get to the death tax in that flowchart it is all additional income beyond the initial investment price so it is not a double “personal income tax” since the only double taxation starts at the Corporate level.
Dan: do you really need to twist things as you do?
1 – the double tax only applies to investment income from C-corps. Investors and owners of LLCs and partnerships can reinvest profits without paying any form of double taxation.
2 – while you portray the death tax as being applicable to the person who earned the money, it should more correctly be viewed as a tax on the person receiving the inheritance. The person who leaves an estate (or who gives away more than the gift tax exclusion) is out 100% of the money, regardless of the tax rate.
3 – you fail to note that only the profits from investment income are taxed, the underlying principle is not taxed twice. The investor can always pull his money out and buy the big screen TV
That is a revealing flow chart – simple and understandable. Now do one for where the taxes go – like entitlements to non-citizens, entitlements, defense etc.
We know we get taxed, but what is done with it. Clearly politicians take more money, power and influence at every possible opportunity. There is no downside to “buying” votes. In fact, that is the only, it seems, guideline, for the ssuccessful politician. WE must stop the taxes by stopping the entitlements. The bargaining bullshit has got to stop even though it is human nature. We hhave a good constitution, but supporting it takes a back seat to buying votes, power and influence to complete the circle. Stop the entitlements. Show us the flow chart of where it goes and to whom. If I ever acted this way while in the ARMY, this would be coming from Ft. Leavenworth.