Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute is most famous for his Venn diagrams that expose hypocrisy and inconsistency.
- Taxation and incentives
- The War on Drugs
- Minimum wage
- Food and Drug Administration
- Consenting adults
But he also is famous for his charts.
And since I’m a big fan of sensible tax policy and the Laffer Curve, we’re going to share Mark’s new chart looking at the inverse relationship between the top tax rate and the share of taxes paid by the richest Americans.
Examining the chart, it quickly becomes evident that upper-income taxpayers started paying a much greater share of the tax burden after the Reagan tax cuts.
My left-leaning friends sometimes look at this data and complain that the rich are paying more of the tax burden only because they have grabbed a larger share of national income. And this means we should impose punitive tax rates.
But this argument is flawed for three reasons.
First, there is not a fixed amount of income. The success of a rich entrepreneur does not mean less income for the rest of us. Instead, it’s quite likely that all of us are better off because the entrepreneur created some product of service that we value. Indeed, data from the Census Bureau confirms that all income classes tend to rise and fall simultaneously.
Second, it’s not even accurate to say that the rich are getting richer faster than the poor are getting richer.
Third, one of the big fiscal lessons of the 1980s is that punitive tax rates on upper-income taxpayers backfire because investors, entrepreneurs, and business owners will choose to earn and report less taxable income.
For my contribution to this discussion, I want to elaborate on this final point.
When I give speeches, I sometimes discover that audiences don’t understand why rich taxpayers can easily control the amount of their taxable income.
And I greatly sympathize since I didn’t appreciate this point earlier in my career.
That’s because the vast majority of us get the lion’s share of our income from our employers. And when we get this so-called W-2 income, we don’t have much control over how much tax we pay. And we assume that this must be true for others.
But rich people are different. If you go the IRS’s Statistics of Income website and click on the latest data in Table 1.4, you’ll find that wages and salaries are only a small fraction of the income earned by wealthy taxpayers.
These high-income taxpayers may be tempting targets for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and the other peddlers of resentment, but they’re also very elusive targets.
That’s because it’s relatively easy – and completely legal – for them to control the timing, level, and composition of business and investment income.
When tax rates are low, this type of tax planning doesn’t make much sense. But as tax rates increase, rich people have an ever-growing incentive to reduce their taxable income and that creates a bonanza for lawyers, accountants, and financial planners.
Needless to say, there are many loopholes to exploit in a 75,000-page tax code.
P.S. There’s some very good evidence from Sweden confirming my point.
[…] why politicians are wrong if they think you can double tax revenue by doubling tax rates (or that revenues will drop by 50 percentif tax rates are cut in […]
[…] why politicians are wrong if they think you can double tax revenue by doubling tax rates (or that revenues will drop by 50 percent if tax rates are cut in […]
[…] in 2019, I shared data from the Internal Revenue Serviceconfirming that rich taxpayers get the vast majority of their income from business activity and […]
[…] in 2019, I shared data from the Internal Revenue Service confirming that rich taxpayers get the vast majority of their income from business activity and […]
[…] the risk of stating the obvious, that’s one of the main selling points for better tax policy. Supporters of lower tax rates explicitly want entrepreneurs, investors, […]
[…] the risk of stating the obvious, that’s one of the main selling points for better tax policy. Supporters of lower tax rates explicitly want entrepreneurs, investors, […]
[…] the risk of stating the obvious, that’s one of the main selling points for better tax policy. Supporters of lower tax rates explicitly want entrepreneurs, investors, […]
[…] Mark Perry in my columns (including what I wrote yesterday) because he has an uncommon ability to focus on what’s actually important when writing about economic […]
[…] by contrast, upper-income taxpayers are paying an overwhelming share of the tax […]
[…] A war on wealth is a war on capital (increased double taxation is needed since rich people have a lot of saving and investment). […]
[…] For more on this much overlooked aspect of the wealth tax issue – which applies with equal force to income taxes as well – take a look at this excellent Dan Mitchell post on International Liberty. […]
[…] A war on wealth is a war on capital (increased double taxation is needed since rich people have a lot of saving and investment). […]
Punitive tax rates are terrible, but the capital gains tax rate of 14% compared to an income tax rate of 24%, as mentioned in Jan. by Tucker Carlson, does suggest that tax rates are still too high.
There would be more growth and expansion with a lower income tax rate like 18%, along with a higher 18% capital gains tax rate.
Conservatives should continue wanting to shift from gov’t benefit programs (other people’s money) towards user fees for services, as well as lower expenditures. But the Dems will be wanting to merely increase the tax rates on capital gains.
The tax rates should be adjusted so that the middle class growth is higher than the growth at the top. That might even need progressive capital gains taxes of 0% for the first $20k, and 10% on the amount over that up to $100k, with an increase to 18% on the amounts over $100k.
More middle & upper middle class folk should be getting capital gains income. Lower or no taxes on the first investments would help encourage more responsible folk to do those investments.
Funny sad that the mostly great quintile income chart has the poorest first “on top” rather than the richest quintile. I’d prefer to talk about the top and bottom quints being the richest and poorest.
Perhaps the best metric for economic progress in a society would be the economic growth of the second, middle, and fourth quints. With the social goal of having the poorer quint grow faster than the richer quint — but this more as a tweak on the tax rates.
Higher growth continues to be related to lower taxes.
[…] You want the rich to pay more taxes? Lower the tax rate. It doesn’t make sense, I know, but it works and Dan Mitchell explains why HERE. […]