I periodically cite new academic research about tax policy and economic activity. I sometimes even publicize research from international bureaucracies showing the link between taxes and growth.
I’m not naive enough to think that any particular study will change minds, but when the bulk of the research unambiguously tells us that lower tax rates are better for economic performance, I think (or at least hope) that it may have some impact on government officials.
Which is why I’m particularly interested in some new research by Professor Karel Mertens from Cornell University.
Here are some key findings from Professor Mertens’ study, beginning with some observations on existing research.
To what extent do marginal tax rates matter for individual decisions to work and invest? The answer is essential for public policy and its role in shaping economic growth. The strand of the empirical literature that uses tax return data, surveyed in Saez, Slemrod and Giertz (2012), finds that incomes before taxes react only modestly to marginal tax rates and that the response is mostly situated at the very top of the income distribution.
So what does this mean? A lot depends on how one defines “modestly,” though it’s worth noting that even very small changes in growth – if sustained over time – can have big impacts on prosperity. Which, in turn, has a significant effect on government finances.
And I have no objection to the assertion that upper-income taxpayers are most sensitive to changes in tax rates. After all, people like me who rely on wage and salary income don’t have much opportunity to alter our compensation in response to changes in tax rates.
But upper-income taxpayers get most of their compensation in the form of business profits and investment returns, and this gives them substantial control over the timing, level, and composition of their income. So it’s quite understandable that their taxable income is quite sensitive to changes in tax rates.
That being said, Professor Mertens’ research suggests that conventional analysis has underestimated the impact of tax rates on the general population.
This paper adopts a macro-time series approach that addresses the endogeneity of average marginal tax rates in novel ways and permits insight into dynamics. Based on this approach, I find large income responses to marginal tax rates that extend across the income distribution. …The empirical results in this paper are relevant for several important debates. First, they reinforce the findings by a number of recent macro studies of large effects of aggregate tax changes on real GDP both in the US and internationally. The results imply that raising marginal tax rates to resolve budget deficits comes at a high price and that a proportional across-the-board tax cut provides successful stimulus that does not necessarily lead to greater income concentration at the top.
Interestingly, the first part of the last sentence helps to explain the very poor results of tax-heavy “austerity” packages in places such as Greece, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Portugal.
Politicians in those countries are squeezing the private sector in hopes of minimizing the restraint imposed on bloated public sectors. But that doesn’t generate good results.
The Baltic nations took a much better approach, imposing genuine spending cuts the moment the crisis hit. Now their finances are in stronger shape and they’re enjoying renewed growth.
But I’m digressing. Let’s return to Professor Mertens’ research. He also produced some interesting results about tax rates and high-income taxpayers.
Many of the postwar tax reforms have made particularly large changes in top marginal tax rates. This variation in top statutory rates may be used to estimate the effects of a hypothetical tax reform that only alters marginal tax rates for the top 1%. …The specification…displays the response to a one percent rise in the net-of-tax rate of the top 1% in the income distribution. …The tax cut leads to significant increases in average top 1% incomes, which rise on impact by 0.52 percent and by 0.97 and 1.02 percent in the following two years, after which there is a gradual decline. …the cut in top 1% tax rates leads to a statistically significant increase in real GDP of up to 0.34 percent in the third year. …There are also spillover effects to incomes outside of the top 1%. Average incomes of the bottom 99% rise by 0.15 percent on impact and by up to 0.35 percent in the third year.
So we learn that lower tax rates for the “rich” are good for the economy and also beneficial for the living standards of the general population.
Why, then, would anybody want to impose high tax rates? Here’s a hint from the study.
Despite the spillover effects, a top marginal rate cut unambiguously leads to greater inequality in pre-tax income.
In other words, the rich get richer faster than the non-rich get richer when the top tax rate is reduced. So if you’re driven by class-warfare animus, you may decide that you’re willing to hurt poor and middle-class people in order to prevent upper-income taxpayers from realizing a bigger share of the economy’s increased output.
That doesn’t make much sense. But if you watch this video on class-warfare tax policy, there’s no logical reason to support higher tax rates on more successful taxpayers.
Unfortunately, politicians generally are motivated by a desire to maximize votes and power, not by what’s logical.
Which is why, when I’m doing educational outreach on Capitol Hill, I often make an extra effort to explain that a bigger economy – enabled by small government and free markets – is the same as a bigger tax base.
That’s far from a pure libertarian argument, to be sure, but it’s not easy when you’re trying to convince the foxes that it doesn’t make long-run sense to deplete the henhouse.
P.S. Notwithstanding all the academic evidence, there’s one group of people in Washington who deliberately assume that tax policy has no impact on economic output.
[…] After all, if higher taxes on tobacco leads to less smoking, surely it is true that higher taxes on employment leads to less work. […]
[…] After all, if higher taxes on tobacco leads to less smoking, surely it is true that higher taxes on employment leads to less work. […]
[…] Higher tax rates on the rich will reduce capital formation. […]
[…] Higher tax rates on the rich will reduce capital formation. […]
[…] Higher tax rates on the rich will reduce capital formation. […]
[…] is mostly because of bad tax policy (high rates, double taxation, FATCA, […]
[…] some empirical evidence. I’ve done that before (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), but it’s always good to expand the […]
[…] First, I almost always use this example when giving speeches about tax policy. Just about everyone in an audience will understand that politicians commonly argue that we need higher tobacco taxes to discourage smoking. I tell them I don’t think it’s government’s job to dictate our private behavior, but I also tell them the politicians are right: The more you tax of something, the less you get of it. I then point out that the same principle applies to taxes on productive behavior such as work, saving, and investment, which is why tax rates should be as low as possible. […]
[…] inefficiencies associated with tax planning are trivial compared to the economic damage caused by higher tax rates, more double taxation, and a bigger burden of government […]
[…] I don’t think it’s their job to tell people how to live their lives, but I agree with their economic analysis. The more you tax something, the less you get of it. […]
[…] simply means that taxes impose costs, and those costs become increasingly apparent as tax rates […]
[…] Higher tax rates on the rich will reduce capital formation. […]
[…] Higher tax rates on the rich will reduce capital formation. […]
[…] This is the core economic reason why even left-leaning international bureaucracies agree that class-warfare taxes are so destructive. When you take a high tax rate and make it even higher, the damage grows exponentially. […]
[…] you can see why I want lower tax rates and less intervention. Simply stated, we’re far more likely to increase – and […]
[…] conclusions, so Professor Petutschnig’s research should be viewed as yet another addition to the powerful body of evidence about the harmful effect of punitive tax […]
[…] if the government reduces the top tax rate or lowers the tax bias against saving and investment, the incentive for additional productive […]
[…] and tax havens promote better policy since they discourage politicians from imposing high tax rates and double […]
[…] competition and tax havens promote better policy since they discourage politicians from imposing high tax rates and double […]
[…] competition and tax havens promote better policy since they discourage politicians from imposing high tax rates and double […]
[…] a simple and fair tax system, we could get rid of high tax rates that penalize productive behavior. We could eliminate the double taxation that discourages saving and investment. And we could wipe […]
[…] argue that we don’t have to worry about punitive marginal tax rates because such policies don’t discourage […]
[…] argue that we don’t have to worry about punitive marginal tax rates because such policies don’t discourage […]
[…] economic damage is not only the result of high tax rates and pervasive double taxation, but also because of loopholes that exist to bribe people into making […]
[…] economic damage is not only the result of high tax rates and pervasive double taxation, but also because of loopholes that exist to bribe people into making […]
[…] it cites research about how high tax rates reduce compliance, the chapter doesn’t push for lower rates. Instead, it endorses more power for national tax authorities. Makes me wonder if the political […]
[…] is it so hard for them to recognize, I endlessly wonder, that when you tax something, you get less of it? And why don’t they realize that when you tax something at high rates, the […]
[…] is it so hard for them to recognize, I endlessly wonder, that when you tax something, you get less of it? And why don’t they realize that when you tax something at high rates, […]
[…] it’s also foolish to punish the people who are pulling the wagon with high tax rates and pervasive double taxation of income that is saved and […]
[…] it’s also foolish to punish the people who are pulling the wagon with high tax rates and pervasive double taxation of income that is saved and […]
[…] it’s also foolish to punish the people who are pulling the wagon with high tax rates and pervasive double taxation of income that is saved and […]
[…] rate on work and entrepreneurship – The top tax rate is reduced to 33 percent. That’s better than the current top rate of 39.6 percent, but still significantly higher than the 28 percent top rate when Reagan left […]
[…] incentives to work (perfectly captured by this Wizard-of-Id parody). I also fear it would require economically destructive tax rates, either explicitly to fund a basic income for everyone, or implicitly because it would be phased […]
[…] of today’s column. Instead, I want to address the argument that supply-side tax policy (i.e., lower marginal tax rates, less tax bias against saving and investment) is no longer important or […]
[…] ethical argument is about the desire for a fair system that neither punishes people for being productive nor rewards them for being politically powerful. As is etched above the entrance to the Supreme […]
[…] ethical argument is about the desire for a fair system that neither punishes people for being productive nor rewards them for being politically powerful. As is etched above the entrance to the Supreme […]
[…] about the Rand Paul and Ted Cruz tax plans. On paper, both plans are very good, dramatically lowering income tax rates, significantly curtailing double taxation, and also abolishing the corporate income tax. But I […]
[…] The economy performs better without a loophole-riddled tax code– Most people understand that high tax rates are bad for growth because they penalize people for earning income. They also generally understand thatdouble taxation […]
[…] to junk the current tax system and replace it with a simple and fair flat tax, which would mean a low tax rate, no double taxation, and no corrupt and distorting tax […]
[…] The economy performs better without a loophole-riddled tax code – Most people understand that high tax rates are bad for growth because they penalize people for earning income. They also generally understand that double […]
[…] is not the same as smart policy. Promising not to raise top tax rates to 90 percent or above is hardly a sign of moderation from the Vermont […]
[…] a big fan of the flat tax because a low tax rate and no double taxation will result in faster growth and more upward mobility. I also like the flat […]
[…] first instinct, when arguing against higher taxes, is to pontificate about the negative impact of high marginal tax rates and punitive effect of double taxation on saving and […]
[…] tax rates that undermine incentives for work and […]
[…] there’s a lot to like. Thanks to the low tax rate, the government no longer would be imposing harsh penalties on productive behavior. Major forms of double taxation such as the death tax would be abolished, […]
[…] a big fan of the flat tax because a low tax rate and no double taxation will result in faster growth and more upward […]
[…] there’s a lot to like. Thanks to the low tax rate, the government no longer would be imposing harsh penalties on productive behavior. Major forms of double taxation such as the death tax would be abolished, […]
[…] first instinct, when arguing against higher taxes, is to pontificate about the negative impact of high marginal tax rates and punitive effect of double taxation on saving and […]
[…] first instinct, when arguing against higher taxes, is to pontificate about the negative impact of high marginal tax rates and punitive effect of double taxation on saving and […]
[…] first instinct, when arguing against higher taxes, is to pontificate about the negative impact of high marginal tax rates and punitive effect of double taxation on saving and […]
[…] first instinct, when arguing against higher taxes, is to pontificate about the negative impact of high marginal tax rates and punitive effect of double taxation on saving and […]
[…] The Reagan tax rate reductions and tax reform were only possible because of several years of work by supply-side heroes who focused on the disincentive effects of high tax rates. […]
[…] have lots of economic arguments for fundamental tax reform and I can wax poetic about the harm of high tax rates and double taxation of saving and […]
[…] have lots of economic arguments for fundamental tax reform and I can wax poetic about the harm of high tax rates and double taxation of saving and […]
[…] tax rates that undermine incentives for work and […]
[…] I’m mostly in the starve-the-beast camp, though I like the supply-side approach (perfectly captured in this image) because of the recognition of how good tax policy boosts growth. […]
[…] an economist, I don’t want tax increases because the economy will be hurt and workers will […]
[…] an economist, I don’t want tax increases because the economy will be hurt and workers will […]
[…] As a good libertarian, I then point out that government shouldn’t be trying to control our private lives, but my bigger point is that the economic arguments about taxes and smoking are the same as those involving taxes on work, saving, investment. […]
[…] As a good libertarian, I then point out that government shouldn’t be trying to control our private lives, but my bigger point is that the economic arguments about taxes and smoking are the same as those involving taxes on work, saving, investment. […]
[…] it was very important to solve the problem of double taxation and not so important to deal with the problem of a discriminatory and punitive rate structure. Which is sort of like embracing one big part of the flat tax while ignoring the other big […]
[…] stop imposing punitive taxes, particularly on the investors and entrepreneurs that are willing to put capital at risk to create […]
[…] Simply stated, if we’re going to have some sort of broad-based tax, it makes sense to collect revenue in the least-damaging fashion possible. […]
[…] An economist from Cornell found lower tax rates boost GDP. […]
[…] they started pushing for lower marginal tax rates or fundamental tax reform, the polling numbers would probably be […]
[…] of class-warfare policy is a gateway to corruption and is also damaging to growth (see here, here, here, here, and […]
[…] On a separate topic, regular readers know that I’m a fan of lower taxes and a supporter of the Second Amendment. So you would think I’d be delighted if politicians […]
[…] you change relative prices to make productive behavior more rewarding. And this happens when you reduce the tax code’s penalty on work compared to leisure and when you lower the tax on saving and investment compared to […]
[…] In the grand scheme of things, it presumably doesn’t make much difference what days people are born and when they die. But when we apply these lessons to the broader economy, it turns out that taxation has a huge impact on economic opportunity and prosperity. […]
[…] Dan Mitchell discusses academic research on the economic impact of tax cuts for the top 1% : “the cut in top 1% tax rates leads to a […]
The upper income earners, being more reliant on investment income, also see a dramatic reduction in income when markets turn down. When a jurisdiction puts more of their eggs in the basket of the higher income earners, they can find a massive reduction in revenue when markets tank. More of a revenue stream from those who have a predictable stream of salary/wages means less revenue impact from investment market fluctuations.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
The takeaway: lower tax rates for “the rich” — the job creators and business builders– are better for all concerned, rich and not-rich. Too bad empirical results never seem to penetrate the Left’s need to be “fair.”
It is not unreasonable to look at inequality. After all we do judge things on a relative scale. Were that not the case, we would all be happy, living in an age where even the “poor” are wealthier than 99.9% of all humans who ever lived on planet earth.
That being said, the cost/benefit of even minute changes in growth rate are staggering. Had humanity grown a mere tenth of a percent more per year in the past two millennia, we would already be living in a fantastic futuristic world, free of cancer and such ailments and surrounded by things are still unimaginable to us today. Had the world grown a mere tenth of a percent less, we would still be living in the preindustrial age, with an average life expectancy of less than forty, dying of tuberculosis and similar ailments.
The immediate inequality is visible to most people. The “what might have been” under different growth rates is ignored by ninety nine percent of voters.
Huge long term benefits of compounding growth, vs immediate modest benefit of redistribution. We know what wins at the polls. Especially when snake skin economists like Paul Krugman tell you that you can have both high growth and less inequality, if you ever left things to government experts and ignored basic human nature — or successfully managed to change such fundamental nature through leftist preaching: Finally convincing people to leave their families and hobbies every morning to go work inside four walls for the benefit of distant others. The dream lives on, the decline continues.
Since you have covered the effects of higher tax rates on individual incentives, I’ll skip that and go directly to effects on product or service prices.
A FairTax rate of 25% or a Flat Tax of 25% adds 33.3% to the final cost of the product or service over net cost plus net profit. If some portion of the embedded tax cost could be eliminated, prices could be lowered, stimulating economic activity and improving exports. Conversely, if any taxes are raised, whether on labor through payroll taxes or high income individuals or investors, prices will be pushed higher. Maybe because of competitive pressures not high enough to fully pay the additional taxes, but higher; thereby cutting demand and slowing the economy.
Regulations that add costs have a similar impact on prices.