I wrote last month about a new book from the Fraser Institute about demographics and entrepreneurship.
My contribution was a chapter about the impact of taxation, especially the capital gains tax.
At a panel in Washington, I had a chance to discuss my findings.
If you don’t want to watch an 11-minute video, my presentation can be boiled down to four main points.
1. Demographics is destiny – Other authors actually had the responsibility of explaining in the book about the importance of demographic change. But it never hurts to remind people that this is a profound and baked-in-the-cake ticking time bomb.
So I shared this chart with the audience and emphasized that a modest-sized welfare state may have been feasible in the past, but will be far more burdensome in the future for the simple reason that the ratio of taxpayers to tax-consumers is dramatically changing.
And it goes without saying that big-sized welfare states are doomed to collapse. Think Greece and extend it to Italy, France, Japan, and other developed nations (including, I fear, the United States).
2. Entrepreneurship drives growth – Capital and labor are the two factors of production, but entrepreneurs are akin to the chefs who figure out news ways of mixing those ingredients.
For all intents and purposes, entrepreneurs produce the creative destruction that is a prerequisite for growth.
3. The tax code discourages entrepreneurship – The bulk of my presentation was dedicated to explaining that double taxation is both pervasive and harmful.
I shared my flowchart showing how the American tax code is biased against income that is saved and invest, which discourages entrepreneurial activity.
And then showed the capital gains tax burden in developed countries.
The U.S. is probably even worse than shown in the above chart since our capital gains tax is imposed on inflationary gains.
4. The United States need to be more competitive – Last but not least, I pointed out that America’s class-warfare tax policies are the fiscal equivalent of an “own goal” (soccer reference for World Cup fans).
And this chart from my chapter shows how the United States, as of mid-2016, had the highest combined tax rate on capital gains when including the effect of the capital gains tax.
That’s the bad news. The good news is that the Trump tax cuts did produce a lower corporate rate. So in the version below, I’ve added my back-of-the-envelope calculation of where the U.S. now ranks.
But the bottom line is still uncompetitive when looking at the tax burden on investment.
And never forget that this ultimately backfires against workers since it translates into lower pay.
P.S. The Wall Street Journal produced an excellent description of why capital gains taxation is very destructive.
[…] P.P.S. Rather than increasing the tax burden on capital gains, we should copy Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Singapore, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Turkey. What do they have in common? A capital gains tax rate of zero. […]
[…] P.P.S. Rather than increasing the tax burden on capital gains, we should copy Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Singapore, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Turkey. What do they have in common? A capital gains tax rate of zero. […]
[…] P.P.S. Rather than increasing the tax burden on capital gains, we should copy Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Singapore, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Turkey. What do they have in common? A capital gains tax rate of zero. […]
[…] taxing tobacco, people sometimes argue this is a good result. In other cases, such as taxing work, entrepreneurship, and investment, it seems […]
[…] gains tax should not exist. Such a levy exacerbates the bias against saving and investment, which reduces innovation, hinders economic growth, and lowers worker […]
[…] P.P.S. Rather than increasing the tax burden on capital gains, we should copy Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Singapore, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Turkey. What do they have in common? A capital gains tax rate of zero. […]
[…] the most accurate way to assess the burden on new investment is to look at the combined rate of corporate taxation and capital gains (as as well as the combined rate of corporate taxation and […]
[…] gains tax should not exist. Such a levy exacerbates the bias against saving and investment, which reduces innovation, hinders economic growth, and lowers worker […]
[…] gains tax should not exist. Such a levy exacerbates the bias against saving and investment, which reduces innovation, hinders economic growth, and lowers worker […]
[…] P.P.S. Rather than increasing the tax burden on capital gains, we should copy Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Singapore, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Turkey. What do they have in common? A capital gains tax rate of zero. […]
[…] P.P.S. Rather than increasing the tax burden on capital gains, we should copy Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Singapore, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Turkey. What do they have in common? A capital gains tax rate of zero. […]
[…] the most accurate way to assess the burden on new investment is to look at the combined rate of corporate taxation and capital gains (as as well as the combined rate of corporate taxation and […]
[…] the most accurate way to assess the burden on new investment is to look at the combined rate of corporate taxation and capital gains (as as well as the combined rate of corporate taxation and […]
[…] And the Washington Post reports that he also wants to increase the capital gains tax rate, even though that will make America less competitive. […]
[…] other words, instead of worsening the bias against capital, we should be copying nations such as Switzerland, Singapore, Luxembourg, and New Zealand by abolishing the capital gains […]
[…] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development acknowledges that both layers of tax should be included when measuring the effective tax rate on […]
[…] you can see, the 2017 tax reform was helpful, but we still need a much lower […]
[…] even with that positive reform, the overall tax burden on capital gains is very high compared to America’s major trading […]
[…] calculation. It would create a lot of controversy if a rich person moved for one year to one of the several European nations that have no capital gains tax (Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, etc), sold their assets, and […]
[…] it’s worth noting all the minuses in the columns for marginal tax, progressivity, top rates, dividends, capital gains, and corporate […]
[…] Reprinted from International Liberty. […]
Americans would do good to study not just the finances of Greece, but also how electoral dynamics change when a coalition of net tax consumers plus useful idiots gains a permanent unmovable electoral majority. The boat capsizes, fast.
Americans are saving too little. So aren’t capital gains taxes going to help? Go figure. Go argue with voter-lemmings.
The sixteen trillion question is: will the US catch up to average worldwide growth rates? If not then forget about everything else because then the US is headed down the drain with mathematical precision, and at the personal level energy is then better spent looking at emigration alternatives. I thought that by emigrating to the US I’d be insulated from the decline mentality of voter-lemmings for at least a generation. Alas, humanity is moving ever faster, and voter-lemmings have caught up with me once again on this side of the Atlantic. Perhaps emigration to one of the top five economically free countries in the world at least once a decade is the new recipe of success.
The inequality crowd will hate this, but it serves two purposes at the same time:
To get rid of the capital gains tax, have a “Painless Tax” as a ransom. For example, if the tax expires of Jan 1, have a “painless tax” on Dec 31. This “painless tax” would apply to all accumulated capital gains including non-Roth pension funds. At 20%, the tax would raise over $1T, but the gains on stock would amount to $6T.
{Currently stock is valued at (100%-Tax rate), stock would rise to 100% value.}
You could allow stockholders to pay with future SS payments. This would be a first step in reducing Entitlements and more ethical than means-testing for SS benefits.
This would not put all the money in the hands of legislators, but it would reduce our liability.
This would eliminate the capital gain tax (not for collectibles, derivatives, or real estate) but it would raise about 5x normal investment taxes.