As part of a video debate last year (where I also discussed wealth taxation, poverty reduction, and the inadvisability of tax increases), I pontificated on the negative economic impact of class-warfare taxation.
To elaborate, I’m trying to help people understand why it is a mistake to impose class-warfare taxes on high-income taxpayers.
Back 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 investments.
And since it’s comparatively easy to control the timing, level, and composition of that income, class-warfare taxes generally backfire.
Heck, well-to-do taxpayers can simply shift all their investments into tax-free municipal bonds (that’s bad for the rest of us, by the way, since it’s better for growth if they invest in private businesses rather than buying bonds from state and local governments).
Or, they can simply buy growth stocks rather than dividend stocks because politicians (thankfully) haven’t figured out how to tax unrealized capital gains.
Some of my left-leaning readers probably think that my analysis can be ignored or dismissed because I’m a curmudgeonly libertarian.
But I’m simply recycling conventional economic thinking on these issues.
And to confirm that point, let’s review a study on taxes and growth that the International Monetary Fund published last December. Written by Khaled Abdel-Kader and Ruud de Mooij, there are passages that sound like they could have been written by yours truly.
Such as the observation that taxes hinder prosperity by reducing economic output (what economist refer to as deadweight loss).
…public finance…theories teach us some important lessons about efficient tax design. By transferring resources from the private to the public sector, taxes inescapably impose a loss on society that goes beyond the revenue generated. …deadweight loss (or excess burden) is what determines a tax distortion. Efficient tax design aims to minimize the total deadweight loss of taxes. The size of this loss depends on two main factors. First, losses are bigger the more responsive the tax base is to taxation. Second, the loss increases more than proportionately with the tax rate: adding a distortion to an already high tax rate is more harmful than adding it to a low tax rate. Two prescriptions for efficient tax policy follow: (i) it is efficient to impose taxes at a higher rate if things are in inelastic demand or supply; and (ii) it is best to tax as many things as possible to keep rates low. …empirical studies on the growth impact of taxes…generally find that income taxes are more distortive for economic growth than taxes on consumption.
There are several parts of the above passage that deserve extra attention, such as the observation about elasticity (similar to the point I made in the video about why higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers are so destructive).
But the most important thing to understand is what the authors wrote about how “the [deadweight] loss increases more than proportionately with the tax rate.”
In other words, it’s more damaging to increase top tax rates.
This observation, which is almost certainly universally recognized in the economics profession, tells us why class-warfare taxes do the most economic damage, on a per-dollar-collected basis.
The IMF study also has worthwhile observations on different types of taxes, such as why it’s a good idea to have low income tax rates on people.
Optimal tax theory emphasizes the trade-off between equity and efficiency. …This requires balancing the revenue gain from a higher marginal top PIT rate at the initial base against the revenue loss induced by behavioral responses that a higher tax rate would induce—such as reduced labor effort, avoidance or evasion—measured by the elasticity of taxable income. …high marginal rates cause other adverse economic effects, e.g. on innovation and entrepreneurship, and thus create larger economic costs than is sometimes assumed.
Very similar to what I’ve written.
And low income tax rates on companies.
Capital income—interest, dividends and capital gains—is used for future consumption so that taxes on it correspond to a differentiated consumption tax on present versus future consumption—one that compounds if the time horizon expands. Prudent people who prefer to postpone consumption to later in life (or transfer it to their heirs) will thus be taxed more than those who do not, even though they have the same life-time earnings. This violates horizontal equity principles. Moreover, it causes a distortion by encouraging individuals to substitute future with current consumption, i.e. they reduce savings. The tax is therefore also inefficient. A classical result, formalized by Chamley (1986) and Judd (1985), is that the optimal tax on capital is zero.
Once again, very similar to what I’ve written.
Indeed, the study even asks whether there should be a corporate income tax when the same income already is subject to dividend taxation when distributed to shareholders.
…capital income taxes can be levied directly on the people that ultimately receive that income, i.e. shareholders and creditors. So: why is there a need for a CIT? It is hard to justify a CIT on efficiency grounds. As explained before, the incidence of the CIT in a small open economy falls largely on workers, not on the firm or its shareholders. Since it is more efficient to tax labor directly than indirectly, the optimal CIT is found to be zero. …CIT systems…in most countries…create two major economic distortions. First, by raising the cost of capital on equity they distort investment decisions. This hurts economic growth and adversely affects efficiency. Second, by differentiating between debt and equity, they induce a bias toward debt finance. This not only creates an additional direct welfare loss, but also threatens financial stability. Both distortions can be eliminated by…cash-flow taxes, which allow for full expensing of investment instead of deductions for tax depreciation
Also similar to what I’ve written.
And I like the fact that the study makes very sensible points about why there should not be a pro-debt bias in tax codes and why there should be “expensing” of business investment costs.
I’ll close by noting that the IMF study is not a libertarian document.
The authors are simply describing the economic costs of taxation and acknowledging the tradeoffs that exist when politicians impose various types of taxes (and the rates at which those taxes are imposed).
But that doesn’t mean the IMF is arguing for low taxes.
There are plenty of sections that make the (awful) argument that it’s okay to impose higher tax rates and sacrifice growth in order to achieve more equality.
And there are also sections that regurgitate the IMF’s anti-empirical argument that higher taxes can be good for growth if politicians wisely allocate the money so it is spent on genuine public goods.
Politicians doing what’s best for their countries rather than what’s best for themselves? Yeah, good luck with that.
[…] are all legitimate arguments, even if I have a different perspective. The same cannot be said for the Hope-Limberg […]
[…] the economics of taxation is important because major parts of the Trump tax cuts will expire at the end of next year and it […]
[…] Public-finance economists generally agree about three principles of good tax policy. […]
[…] P.S. My series on Texas vs California and Florida vs New York also show the superiority of low taxes compared to higher taxes. Maybe, just maybe, there’s a lesson to be learned. […]
[…] P.S. My series on Texas vs California and Florida vs New York also show the superiority of low taxes compared to higher taxes. Maybe, just maybe, there’s a lesson to be learned. […]
[…] But I’m digressing. Let’s get back to the economics of tax policy. […]
[…] economics of tax policy is largely the economics of incentives. When governments impose high tax rates on something, you […]
[…] economics of tax policy is largely the economics of incentives. When governments impose high tax rates on something, you […]
[…] economics of tax policy is largely the economics of incentives. When governments impose high tax rates on something, you […]
[…] economics of tax policy is largely the economics of incentives. When governments impose high tax rates on something, you […]
[…] economics of tax policy is largely the economics of incentives. When governments impose high tax rates on something, you […]
[…] Since the Biden-Manchin-Schumer legislation includes a big back-door tax increase on companies (the provision targeting “book income“), that’s a perfect segue to our first item about taxation and incentives. […]
[…] the video (or 14 minutes watching this video), here’s a visual that summarizes why high tax rates discourage people from engaging in productive […]
[…] video (or 14 minutes watching this video), here’s a visual that summarizes why high tax rates discourage people from engaging in productive […]
[…] with a basic understanding of economics realizes that taxes discourage the activity that is being taxed (something politicians understand […]
[…] written a few columns that explain tax principles, but this video from the Tax Foundation may be the best place to start if you have friends or […]
[…] written many times about the importance of low tax rates, specifically low marginal tax rates on productive […]
[…] written many times about the importance of low tax rates, specifically low marginal tax rates on productive […]
[…] anyone should be surprised by these results. The academic literature clearly shows that it’s not smart to impose high tax rates on productive behavior such as work, saving, investment, and […]
[…] opponents are guilty of a sin of omission. That’s because tax reform will benefit lower-income and middle-class taxpayers as […]
[…] is not difficult to understand the economics of taxation. Simply stated, the more you tax of something, the less you get of […]
[…] But we can look at the chart and state that there was a lot of revenue feedback, which shows that the lower corporate tax rate did produce good economic results. […]
[…] But we can look at the chart and state that there was a lot of revenue feedback, which shows that the lower corporate tax rate did produce good economic results. […]
[…] on the latest available data on key indicators such as taxes, spending, regulation, trade policy, rule of law, and monetary policy, here are the top-20 […]
[…] on the latest available data on key indicators such as taxes, spending, regulation, trade policy, rule of law, and monetary policy, here are the top-20 […]
[…] pay 100 percent of the direct costs of the corporate tax. But we need to also consider the indirect costs, most notably who bears the burden when there’s less investment and slower wage […]
[…] Shareholders pay 100 percent of the direct costs of the corporate tax. But we need to also consider the indirect costs, most notably who bears the burden when there’s less investment and slower wage […]
[…] studying the economic of taxation, one of the most important lessons is that there should be low marginal tax rates on work, saving, […]
[…] studying the economic of taxation, one of the most important lessons is that there should be low marginal tax rates on work, saving, […]
[…] is a bad idea since wages for workers are linked to productivity, which is linked to the amount of […]
[…] is a bad idea since wages for workers are linked to productivity, which is linked to the amount of […]
[…] is a bad idea since wages for workers are linked to productivity, which is linked to the amount of […]
[…] Now let’s shift to some satire about the economics of taxation. […]
[…] The Economics of Taxation […]
American politicians know that the citizenry only understand INCOME taxes because they have to file paperwork every year. The average citizen has no “wealth” and sales taxes are merely add-ons to the price of goods.
One wonders what would happen if all taxes (income, sales, etc.) were only paid once per annum. How soon would the revolution begin?
The are three tax bases: net wealth, income, consumption/sales/value added. Each can effect families and business in different ways. Tax one base and the rate is very high. Tax all three and the rates of each can be quite low. A smart economist would promote a blend of all three bases and eliminate unnecessary tax expenditures. A brilliant economist would allow taxation of wealth and income inversely enabling the poor to pay higher rates on wealth and lower rates on income (and vice versa).