If I had to summarize my views on fiscal policy in just two sentences, here’s what I would say.
- Government spending undermines growth by diverting labor and capital from more productive uses to less productive uses.
- Tax rates on productive economic behaviors such as work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship should be as low as possible.
So you can imagine that I’m not overly enthused about Hillary Clinton’s embrace of class-warfare tax policy to finance an ever-growing burden of government spending.
Here’s a story that’s giving me heartburn. The Washington Examiner reports that Hillary is “going where the money is.”
Hillary Clinton promised Tuesday that she would pay for her ambitious White House agenda by hitting up the wealthy. “I’ll tell you how we’re going to pay for it,” she said Tuesday in Pennsylvania, referring specifically to her economic agenda. “We’re going where the money is. We are going after the super wealthy, we are going after corporations, we are going after Wall Street so they pay their fair share.”
So what does it mean for various groups to “pay their fair share”?
Well, since even the IRS has admitted that upper-income taxpayers finance a hugely disproportionate share of the federal government, logic tells us that these supposedly evil rich people should get a tax cut.
But that’s not what Hillary means. She wants voters to adopt and us-vs-them mentality, so she demonizes successful people and implies that their wealth is somehow illegitimate.
In part, she is perpetuating the traditional leftist myth that the economy is a fixed pie and that the rest of us have less because someone like Bill Gates has more.
But I also think she wants to imply that upper-income people somehow don’t deserve their money. Maybe they are a bunch of Paris Hilton types with trust funds, living indolent lives while the rest of us have to work.
That’s never been a compelling argument to me. If Paris Hilton’s family earned money honestly (and already paid tax on the money when it was first earned), it’s their right to give it to their children without all sorts of punitive extra layers of taxation.
But this stereotype isn’t even accurate in the first place. James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute shows that people like the late Steve Jobs are more the norm. In other words, rich people are rich because they are innovating and creating, building new businesses and new products that make the rest of our lives better.
Since innovation, risk-taking, investment, entrepreneurship, and hard work are the keys to long-run growth, it certainly seems that the tax code shouldn’t be punishing those things.
Yet that’s what Hillary has in mind when she demagogues about the “super wealthy.”
Interestingly, another New York Democrat seems to understand the negative relationship between taxes and good outcomes, at least on a selective basis. Larry O’Connor explains.
Without the teeniest sense of irony, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has proposed that America’s Olympic medal winners should not have to pay taxes on the cash prizes they are awarded with their medals. Schumer’s reasoning behind lifting the tax? Because “hard work” and excellence shouldn’t be punished.
The problem, of course, is that Senator Schumer routinely supports higher taxes.
Indeed, the only tax hike he doesn’t favor, to my knowledge, is the Trump-Clinton plan to hike the capital gains tax on “carried interest.” But Schumer’s only good on that issue because of the money he gets from the private-equity folks on Wall Street, not because he actually understands or favors good tax policy.
But Schumer’s make-believe support for lower taxes on Olympic medal winners is good news, if for no other reasons than it gave Mark Perry an excuse to produce another one of his famous Venn diagrams.
Let’s close by contemplating Hillary’s statement that she wants to go “where the money is.”
That statement rang a bell. Someone else said almost the exact same thing.
And then I remembered. It was an infamous bank robber named Willie Sutton, who is widely reported to have said he robbed banks because “That’s where the money is.”
Needless to say, I don’t want to imply that there’s some moral equivalence between Hillary Clinton and Willie Sutton. Perish the thought!
After all, I’m sure Willie Sutton never expected gratitude from his victims.
P.S. In my role as the Don Quixote of fiscal policy, I have helpfully shared evidence with Mrs. Clinton about the consequences of higher tax burdens in both Europe and various American states.
[…] Mark Perry is also famous for his Venn diagrams that expose hypocrisy (see here, here, here, here, and here). He even motivated me to create my own […]
[…] more important, is that he’s not Hillary Clinton. In other words, we’re not getting the bad tax policies that might have occurred in a Clinton […]
[…] Institute’s Mark Perry, in part because of his very clever hypocrisy-exposing Venn Diagrams (taxation and incentives, the War on Drugs, minimum wage, Food and Drug Administration, and consenting […]
[…] Taxation and incentives […]
[…] who preach class warfare repeatedly assert that we need higher taxes on “the […]
[…] So you might think the group is no different that other leftists groups such as the United Nations or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Or no different than politicians such as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. […]
[…] our friends on the left are very anxious to impose more class-warfare taxation, so we should file this data for future […]
[…] Clinton proposed big tax hikes in last year’s campaign. And now, as reported by the U.K.-based Times, the Labour Party […]
[…] what it’s worth, the United States does fairly well compared to other nations. This is not because our personal income tax is reasonable (see dark blue bars), but rather because Barack Obama and […]
[…] what it’s worth, the United States does fairly well compared to other nations. This is not because our personal income tax is reasonable (see dark blue bars), but rather because Barack Obama and […]
[…] what it’s worth, the United States does fairly well compared to other nations. This is not because our personal income tax is reasonable (see dark blue bars), but rather because Barack Obama and […]
[…] what it’s worth, the United States does fairly well compared to other nations. This is not because our personal income tax is reasonable (see dark blue bars), but rather because Barack Obama and […]
[…] what it’s worth, the United States does fairly well compared to other nations. This is not because our personal income tax is reasonable (see dark blue bars), but rather because Barack Obama and […]
[…] what it’s worth, the United States does fairly well compared to other nations. This is not because our personal income tax is reasonable (see dark blue bars), but rather because Barack Obama and […]
[…] since the list is dominated by blue states that routinely elect politicians who support class-warfare tax policies and lots of […]
[…] You can enjoy other Mark Perry Venn Diagrams here, here, here, and here (newly […]
[…] can enjoy other Mark Perry Venn Diagrams here, here, here, and […]
[…] she’s been saying during the campaign, Hillary Clinton is a big fan of class warfare. She has put forth a series of “soak-the-rich” tax hikes designed to finance bigger […]
[…] talented (and therefore highly compensated) people are very important for economic growth. Based on the tax policies they advocate, that’s something politicians such as Hillary Clinton have a hard time understanding. Heck, […]
[…] I’m mentally preparing myself for upcoming fights over her agenda of bigger government and class warfare. But the silver lining to this dark cloud is that I don’t think I’ll be distracted by […]
[…] the fifth time over the last seven days (see other examples here, here, here, and here), I feel obliged to do it […]
[…] part of her collection of class-warfare tax proposals, Hillary Clinton wants a big increase in the death […]
[…] plan to lower the corporate tax rate? Hillary’s plan certainly doesn’t qualify since she wants a bunch of class-warfare tax hikes. And while Trump’s plan includes a lower corporate rate, it’s not a serious proposal […]
[…] sauce for the gander. Hillary’s plan to increase the tax burden on work and investment is an even bigger threat to growth, yet the IMF gives her a free […]
[…] Clinton doesn’t seem to care about such matters. She actually just decided to double down on her destructive tax agenda by endorsing an even bigger increase in the death […]
[…] sauce for the gander. Hillary’s plan to increase the tax burden on work and investment is an even bigger threat to growth, yet the IMF gives her a free […]
[…] sauce for the gander. Hillary’s plan to increase the tax burden on work and investment is an even bigger threat to growth, yet the IMF gives her a free […]
[…] that are imposed on global trade, then why doesn’t the IMF criticize Hillary Clinton for threatening to increase the rather harsh tax rates that are imposed on working, saving, and […]
[…] she obviously didn’t learn anything. Her agenda, which is echoed by almost all leftists, is endlessly higher taxes to fight the supposed scourge of […]
[…] P.P.P.S. Speaking of Hillary Clinton, her understanding of the economics of drug prohibition may be even more inane and uninformed than her understanding of the economics of taxation. […]
[…] I wish Hillary Clinton was capable of learning the same lesson. […]
[…] the fifth time over the last seven days (see other examples here, here, here, and here), I feel obliged to do it […]
Willie Sutton only stole and estimated 2 million dollars in his criminal career… and he spent half of his life in the penitentiary… granny Clinton and ol’ bill have a net worth of over 100 million dollars… and they have not yet served one day in jail… either for rape… sexual misconduct… or national security violations… I might point out that in his pursuit of other people’s money… Willie never endangered his country’s national security… or sold us out to foreign interests… you have to wonder how humble public servants like hilly and billy could possibly {and honestly} have accumulate such vast wealth… particularly since they were dead broke when that exited the white house… and conspired to steal 200k worth of furniture… china… and art work…
America…… continues to be the land of opportunity……..
If another country can reward its successful people even marginally better than your own country, then that country will overtake your country.
Small differences in the effort-reward curve have huge implications. That is the reality of the equation, the sixteen trillion question.
When you are close to the competitiveness parity threshold, even a three percent tax disincentive on your successful people can initiate the economic loss of competitiveness death spiral. And judging from the fact that the new “norm” of American structural growth is down to a pathetic two percent (half the world average) the death spiral has actually already started — even under the current tax rates and current effort-reward curves.
Yet voter-lemmings will choose another increase. Well, they deserve what they will get — good and hard.
Dan,
I chalange your title as the “the Don Quixote of fiscal policy”. My tax reform plan can be described in one paragraph.
Government policy should encourage family wealth to gradually increase over a lifetime. Consider the effect of a taxpayer choice of income tax rate between 8% and 28% paired with a wealth tax rate of 2% decreasing to zero. Each taxpayer would also be able to save up to $500,000 wealth tax free for retirement, health care and education; and combined payroll taxes would be eliminated. Social Security would be funded by a 4% VAT and 8% C corporation tax with no tax expenditures. Cumulative wealth taxes could be used to offset estate and gift taxes (set at 28%) – finally making the Estate Tax fair to all.
Your wonderful article describes how we polarize tax issues and how this process blinds us to the other side. It also blinds us even more to any new ideas that don’t help our team.
Tax reform could help tens of millions become millionaires and let multimillionaires fend for themselves with a better pro-growth investment structure. Some see anything new as helping the other side. Others suspect the plan must be too good to be true or the other liberal/conservative side would promote it.
“Do not quench the Spirit.
Do not despise prophetic utterances.
Test everything; retain what is good.
Refrain from every kind of evil.”
1 Thessalonians 5:19-22
Pope Francis has written on the economy and I believe that the inverse taxation of wealth and income is the true quest. Ride, boldly ride.
The problem with taxing the rich is the government becomes dependent on the rich who are them able to demand special privileges and tax breaks while serving as defacto tax collectors through increased cost of goods and services.