When I give speeches in favor of tax reform, I argue for policies such as the flat tax on the basis of both ethics and economics.
The 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 Court, the law should treat everyone equally.
The economic argument is about lowering tax rates, eliminating double taxation, and getting rid of distorting tax preferences.
Today, let’s focus on the importance of low tax rates. More specifically, let’s look at why it’s important to have a low marginal tax rate, which is the rate that applies when people earn more income.
Here’s the example I sometimes use in my remarks. Imagine a taxpayer who earns $50,000 and pays $10,000 in tax.
With that information, we know the taxpayer’s average tax rate is 20 percent. But this information tells us nothing about incentives to earn more income because we don’t know the marginal tax rate that would apply if the taxpayer was more productive and earned another $5,000.
Consider these three simple scenarios with wildly different marginal tax rates.
- The tax system imposes a $10,000 annual charge on all taxpayers (sometimes referred to as a “head tax”). Under this system, our taxpayer pays that tax, which means the average tax rate on $50,000 of income is 20 percent. But the marginal tax rate would be zero on the additional $5,000 of income. In this system, the tax system does not discourage additional economic activity.
- The tax system imposes a flat rate of 20 percent on every dollar of income. Under this system, our taxpayer pays that tax on every dollar of income, which means the average tax rate on $50,000 of income is 20 percent. And the marginal tax rate would also be 20 percent on the additional $5,000 of income. In this system, the tax system imposes a modest penalty on additional economic activity.
- The tax system has a $40,000 personal exemption and then a 100 percent tax rate on all income about that level. Under this system, our taxpayer pays $10,000 of tax on $50,000 of income, which means an average tax rate of 20 percent. But the marginal tax rate on another $5,000 of income would be 100 percent. In this system, the tax system would destroy incentives for any additional economic activity.
These examples are very simplified, of course, but they accurately show how systems with identical average tax rates can have very different marginal tax rates. And from an economic perspective, it’s the marginal tax rate that matters.
Remember, economic growth only occurs if people decide to increase the quantity and/or quality of labor and capital they provide to the economy. And those decisions obviously are influenced by marginal tax rates rather than average tax rates.
This is why President Obama’s class-warfare tax policies are so destructive. This is why America’s punitive corporate tax system is so anti-competitive, even if the average tax rate on companies is sometimes relatively low.
And this is why economists seem fixated on lowering top tax rates. It’s not that we lose any sleep about the average tax rate of successful people. We just don’t want to discourage highly productive investors, entrepreneurs, and small business owners from doing things that result in more growth and prosperity for the rest of us.
We’d rather have the benign tax system of Hong Kong instead of the punitive tax system of France. Now let’s look at a real-world (though very unusual) example.
Writing for Forbes, a Certified Public Accountant explains why Cam Newton of the Carolina Panthers is guaranteed to lose the Super Bowl.
Not on the playing field. The defeat will occur when he files his taxes.
Remember when Peyton Manning paid New Jersey nearly $47,000 in taxes two years ago on his Super Bowl earnings of $46,000? …Newton is looking at a tax bill more than twice as much, which will swallow up his entire Super Bowl paycheck, win or lose, thanks to California’s tops-in-the-nation tax rate of 13.3%.
You may be wondering why California is going to pillage Cam Newton since he plays for a team from North Carolina, but there is a legitimate “nexus” for tax since the Super Bowl is being playing in California.
But it’s the level of the tax and marginal impact that matters. More specifically, the tax-addicted California politicians impose taxes on out-of-state athletes based on how many days they spend in the Golden State.
Before we get into the numbers, let’s do a quick review of the jock tax rules… States tax a player based on their calendar-year income. They apply a duty day calculation which takes the ratio of duty days within the state over total duty days for the year.
Now let’s look at the tax implication for Cam Newton.
If the Panthers win the Super Bowl, Newton will earn another $102,000 in playoff bonuses, but if they lose he will only net another $51,000. The Panthers will have about 206 total duty days during 2016, including the playoffs, preseason, regular season and organized team activities (OTAs), which Newton must attend or lose $500,000. Seven of those duty days will be in California for the Super Bowl… To determine what Newton will pay California on his Super Bowl winnings alone, …looking at the seven days Newton will spend in California this week for Super Bowl 50, he will pay the state $101,600 on $102,000 of income should the Panthers be victorious or $101,360 on $51,000 should they lose.
So what’s Cam’s marginal tax rate?
The result: Newton will pay California 99.6% of his Super Bowl earnings if the Panthers win. Losing means his effective tax rate will be a whopping 198.8%. Oh yeah, he will also pay the IRS 40.5% on his earnings.
In other words, Cam Newton will pay a Barack Obama-style flat tax. The rules are very simple. The government simply takes all your money.
Or, in this case, more than all your money. So it’s akin to a French-style flat tax.
Some of you may be thinking this analysis is unfair because California isn’t imposing a 99.6 percent or 198.8 percent tax on his Super Bowl earnings. Instead, the state is taxing his entire annual income based on the number of days he’s working in the state.
But that’s not the economically relevant issue. What matters if that he’ll be paying about $101,000 of extra tax simply because the game takes place in California.
However, if the Super Bowl was in a city like Dallas and Miami, there would be no additional tax.
The good news, so to speak, is that Cam Newton has a contract that would prevent him from staying home and skipping the game. So he basically doesn’t have the ability to respond to the confiscatory tax rate.
Many successful taxpayers, by contrast, do have flexibility and they are the job creators and investors who help decide whether states grow faster and stagnate. So while California will have the ability to pillage Cam Newton, the state is basically following a suicidal fiscal policy.
Basically the France of America. And that’s the high cost of high marginal tax rates.
[…] I feel sorry for Cam Newton, who paid a marginal tax rate of nearly 200 percent on his bonus for playing in the 2016 Super […]
[…] I feel sorry for Cam Newton, who paid a marginal tax rate of nearly 200 percent on his bonus for playing in the 2016 Super […]
[…] I feel sorry for Cam Newton, who paid a marginal tax rate of nearly 200 percent on his bonus for playing in the 2016 Super […]
[…] I feel sorry for Cam Newton, who paid a marginal tax rate of nearly 200 percent on his bonus for playing in the 2016 Super […]
[…] In 2016, Cam Newton of the Carolina Panthers learned a very painful lesson about marginal tax […]
[…] shared real-life examples of how the American tax system can result in very high marginal tax rates, especially when you […]
[…] shared real-life examples of how the American tax system can result in very high marginal tax rates, especially when you […]
[…] There are several features of President-Elect Trump’s tax plan that are worthy of praise, including death tax repeal, expensing, and lower marginal tax rates on households. […]
[…] If you want a horror story about marginal tax rates, check out what happened to Cam Newton, the quarterback of the Carolina […]
[…] I also have plenty of sympathy for Cam Newton, who paid a tax rate of almost 200 percent on the income he earned for playing in the 2016 Super […]
[…] I also have plenty of sympathy for Cam Newton, who paid a tax rate of almost 200 percent on the income he earned for playing in the 2016 Super […]
[…] quite a marginal tax rate. I suspect even French politicians (as well as Cam Newton) might agree that’s too […]
[…] players are lucky they’re not Cam Newton, who paid a 198.8 percent tax for playing in the 2016 Super […]
[…] discussed the importance of marginal tax rates in 2016, pointing out that Cam Newton of the Carolina Panthers was going to lose the Super Bowl (from a financial […]
[…] not a good idea to impose high tax rates on behaviors that contribute to prosperity, such as work, saving, investment, and […]
[…] as trying to help people understand one or more basic economic concepts (the importance of lower marginal tax rates, for […]
[…] the aggregate tax burden is an important measure, I’ve explained before that it’s also important to focus on marginal tax rates. After all, that’s the variable that determines incentives for productive behavior since it […]
[…] Lower tax rates […]
[…] a reduction in the top rate on households from 39.6 percent to 37 percent. It’s always good to lower marginal tax rates, especially for high […]
[…] my role as trying to help people understand one or more basic economic concepts (the importance of lower marginal tax rates, for […]
[…] my role as trying to help people understand one or more basic economic concepts (the importance of lower marginal tax rates, for […]
[…] a supply-sider (indeed, he’s co-written with Piketty), yet he’s basically agreeing that marginal tax rates have a huge impact on […]
[…] gave my two cents about itemized deductions, I’ll simply observe that the Senate plan is slightly better on individual income tax […]
[…] ideal world, we’re having a substantive debate about corporate tax policy, double taxation, marginal tax rates, and fundamental tax reform (plus spending restraint so big tax cuts are […]
[…] Lower tax rates in order to encourage more productive behavior. […]
[…] easy answer is that we got better tax policy, especially lower marginal tax rates on personal and business income. Those lower rates reduced the “price” of engaging in […]
[…] cuts boost growth when they reduce the marginal tax rate on productive behavior such as work, saving, investment, or entrepreneurship. When that happens, people have an incentive […]
[…] cuts boost growth when they reduce the marginal tax rate on productive behavior such as work, saving, investment, or entrepreneurship. When that happens, people have an incentive […]
[…] editors back then understood the importance of low marginal tax rates and they recognized that double taxation is a bad […]
[…] tax system is bad news for professional sports, with plenty of anecdotal evidence showing that athletes (and even fans) get pillaged by […]
[…] tax system is bad news for professional sports, with plenty of anecdotal evidence showing that athletes (and even fans) get pillaged by […]
[…] tax system is bad news for professional sports, with plenty of anecdotal evidence showing that athletes (and even fans) get pillaged by […]
[…] Lower tax rates in order to encourage more productive behavior. […]
[…] is good to have lower tax rates in order to encourage more productive […]
[…] of the discriminatory and punitive “progressive” system that exists today. As such, the penalty on productive behavior would be […]
[…] if we can get the New York Times to admit that these principle also apply to taxes on work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship, that will be a remarkable […]
[…] a good idea to impose high tax rates on things that are unambiguously good for an economy, such as work, saving, investment, and […]
[…] a good idea to impose high tax rates on things that are unambiguously good for an economy, such as work, saving, investment, and […]
[…] start with some sensible observations about why marginal tax rates matter, basically echoing what I wrote after last year’s Super […]
[…] example is Jack Kemp, who did great work as a member of Congress to push a supply-side agenda of low marginal tax rates and less double taxation. Indeed, it’s no exaggeration to say that the Reagan tax cuts were made […]
[…] start with some sensible observations about why marginal tax rates matter, basically echoing what I wrote after last year’s Super […]
[…] start with some sensible observations about why marginal tax rates matter, basically echoing what I wrote after last year’s Super […]
[…] start with some sensible observations about why marginal tax rates matter, basically echoing what I wrote after last year’s Super […]
[…] example is Jack Kemp, who did great work as a member of Congress to push a supply-side agenda of low marginal tax rates and less double taxation. Indeed, it’s no exaggeration to say that the Reagan tax cuts were made […]
[…] example is Jack Kemp, who did great work as a member of Congress to push a supply-side agenda of low marginal tax rates and less double taxation. Indeed, it’s no exaggeration to say that the Reagan tax cuts were […]
[…] part, my support for fundamental reform is driven by my desire for a low rate, for no double taxation, and for the elimination of loopholes. Those are the economic reasons for […]
[…] and therefore discourage – things that everyone presumably agrees are desirable (such as work, saving, investment, and […]
[…] and therefore discourage – things that everyone presumably agrees are desirable (such as work, saving, investment, and […]
[…] I argue for the flat tax, I tend to focus on the economic benefits (low rate, no double taxation, and no loopholes) and the moral benefits (less corruption, more fairness, and […]
[…] There are several features of President-Elect Trump’s tax plan that are worthy of praise, including death tax repeal, expensing, and lower marginal tax rates on households. […]
[…] with Will. I’m definitely not in the all-we-have-to-do-is-cut-taxes camp, but I certainly like lower tax rates and I definitely believe that higher taxes would worsen our long-run fiscal […]
[…] with Will. I’m definitely not in the all-we-have-to-do-is-cut-taxes camp, but I certainly like lower tax rates and I definitely believe that higher taxes would worsen our long-run fiscal […]
[…] There are several features of President-Elect Trump’s tax plan that are worthy of praise, including death tax repeal, expensing, and lower marginal tax rates on households. […]
[…] There are several features of President-Elect Trump’s tax plan that are worthy of praise, including death tax repeal, expensing, and lower marginal tax rates on households. […]
[…] all tax cuts (or tax increases) are created equal. Some changes in tax policy have big effects on incentives to work, save, and invest. Others don’t have much impact on economic activity because the tax system’s penalty on […]
[…] the maximum extent possible, reduce marginal tax rates on productive […]
[…] I pointed out that this didn’t make much sense since it wouldn’t alter the wedge between pre-tax income and post-tax consumption. In other words, the government might not take as much when you earned your income, but it would compensate by taking more when you consumed your income, so there would be no improvement in your living standards and therefore no incentive to be more productive and earn more money. […]
[…] joking. I debate leftists all the time and they will unabashedly argue that it’s okay to have higher tax rates on labor income and more double taxation on capital income because taxpayers supposedly don’t care about […]
[…] is it the loss of economic output caused by high tax rates, distorting preferences, and pervasive double taxation (i.e., policies that reduce our pre-tax […]
[…] is it the loss of economic output caused by high tax rates, distorting preferences, and pervasive double taxation (i.e., policies that reduce our pre-tax […]
[…] lowest possible tax rate – High tax rates on work and entrepreneurship make no sense if the goal is faster growth and more […]
[…] that can be explained with wonky discussions of marginal tax rates orwelfare […]
[…] that can be explained with wonky discussions of marginal tax rates or welfare […]
[…] that can be explained with wonky discussions of marginal tax rates or welfare […]
[…] tax rates are more conducive to work and entrepreneurship than higher tax […]
[…] tax rates are more conducive to work and entrepreneurship than higher tax […]
[…] tax rates are more conducive to work and entrepreneurship than higher tax […]
[…] tax rates are more conducive to work and entrepreneurship than higher tax rates. Reducing the tax bias against capital formation will improve growth by […]
[…] tax rates are more conducive to work and entrepreneurship than higher tax […]
[…] tax rates are more conducive to work and entrepreneurship than higher tax […]
[…] income for everyone, or implicitly because it would be phased out like the EITC and therefore drive a larger wedge between pre-tax income and post-tax consumption for a huge number of […]
[…] High marginal tax rates on productive behavior. […]
[…] High marginal tax rates on productive behavior. […]
[…] I don’t care whether proponents change the name of the VAT, but they are wrong when they say that taxes on consumption are somehow better for growth than taxes on income. Consider two simple scenarios. In the first example, a taxpayer earns $100 but loses $20 to the income tax. In the second example, a taxpayers earns $100, but loses $20 to the VAT. In one case, the taxpayer’s income is taxed when it is earned and in the other case it is taxed when it is spent. But in both cases, there is an identical gap between pre-tax income and post-tax consumption. The economic damage is identical, with the harm rising as the marginal tax rate (either income tax rate or VAT rate) increases. […]
[…] High marginal tax rates on productive behavior. […]
[…] money. Others of us don’t like those higher rates because we don’t resent success and we also worry about the likely impact on incentives to create jobs and […]
[…] Others of us don’t like those higher rates because we don’t resent success and we also worry about the likely impact on incentives to create jobs and […]
[…] I sometimes turn down some income-earning opportunities because the amount of income I would actually receive after paying tax isn’t worth the time and […]
[…] explain, for instance, that the best way to “hurt” tax havens is for onshore countries to have lower tax rates and less double […]
[…] explain, for instance, that the best way to “hurt” tax havens is for onshore countries to have lower tax rates and less double […]
[…] for instance, that the best way to “hurt” tax havens is for onshore countries to have lower tax rates and less double […]
[…] here’s what I recently wrote, specifically addressing the assertion that proponents of good policy simply want to help the […]
[…] it turns out that marginal tax rates are the most important variable, as we learned in our discussion of Cam Newton’s (fiscally) disastrous Super […]
[…] First, a good tax system is impossible in a nation with a big welfare state. If the public sector consumes 50 percent of economic output, that necessarily means very high marginal tax rates. […]
[…] First, a good tax system is impossible in a nation with a big welfare state. If the public sector consumes 50 percent of economic output, that necessarily means very high marginal tax rates. […]
He has to tax that amount. Yes But those aren’t the taxes he has to pay, right?
[…] The Super Bowl and Marginal Tax Rates | International Liberty […]
[…] The super Bowl and Marginal Tax charges global Liberty […]
[…] add insult to injury, Cam Newton will pay a 198.8% tax to California on his bonus for playing in the Super […]
[…] The tremendous Bowl and Marginal Tax rates world Liberty […]
[…] The tremendous Bowl and Marginal Tax charges international Liberty […]
[…] The tremendous Bowl and Marginal Tax rates international Liberty […]
If the tax on everything over $40,000 was 100%, why would anyone earn over $40,000 in the first place? People respond to their environments. But if it was 50%, say, or 20%, there would certainly be an incentive to earn a higher salary, because you would end up keeping more money in that situation than you would if your salary was less than $40,000.
There is a petition in Massachusetts to add an additional 4% to those making more than $1,000,000 annually. This will have a huge impact on a free agent’s decision to play in Boston. Robert Kraft and other team owners will not only be hit personally, but if staying hurts their ability to field a good team, they may well decide to move out of the state.
[…] This is a guest post by Dan Mitchell […]
The fact that Cam Newton cannot escape his contract and skip a game is not any sort of silver lining. Because,
in essence, California will be disincentivising Cam Newton from earning not only his California Super Bowl income but his entire income in all states. Cam Newton will be paying (to California) 7/206 of his income regardless of where he earns it. His games in Dallas, and everywhere else in the world for all of 2016, will be disincentivized by the 7/206 ratio, because of his short presence in California.
This is how a state that is degrading into a pitchfork democracy can drag the rest down. Effects tend to be ignored as long as there is prosperity. But decline inevitably brings discord. As a below world average growth rate starts compounding American prosperity towards the world average, states will begin to quarrel, just like European states have begun to quarrel. Against that force acts a desperate centralized unifying force of bureaucrats (EU and US federal government) who dig in their heels But it cannot last forever. Because subpar growth means decline. Perpetually compounding decline. When growth is subpar nothing is sustainable. It is not a matter of if, but when, you will cry uncle.
[…] winners of Super Bowl 50 today will, not surprisingly, pay a lot of taxes, about which Dan Mitchell […]