Good tax policy should strive to solve the three major problems that plague today’s income tax.
- Punitive tax rates on productive behavior.
- Double taxation of saving and investment
- Corrupt, complex, and inefficient loopholes.
Today, let’s focus on the second item. If the goal is to minimize the economic damage of taxation, both labor and capital should be taxed at the lowest-possible rate.
But, as illustrated by the chart, the internal revenue code imposes widespread “double taxation” on income that is saved and invested.
Actually, it’s more than double taxation. Between the capital gains tax, corporate income tax, double tax on dividends, and death tax, there are multiple layers of tax on income from saving and investment.
So even if statutory tax rates are low, effective tax rates can be very high when you consider how the IRS gets several bites at the apple.
This is why good tax reform plans eliminate the tax bias against capital.
But we don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Simply lowering tax rates on capital also would be a step in the right direction.
And such an approach would produce meaningful economic benefits, as explained in a new Federal Reserve study by Saroj Bhattarai, Jae Won Lee, Woong Yong Park, and Choongryul Yang.
…capital tax cuts, as expected, have expansionary long-run aggregate effects on the economy. For instance, with a permanent reduction of the capital tax rate from 35% to 21%, output in the new steady state, compared to the initial steady state, is greater by 4.24%… A reduction in the capital tax rate leads to a decrease in the rental rate of capital, raising demand for capital by firms. This stimulates investment and capital accumulation. A larger amount of capital stock, in turn, makes workers more productive, raising wages and hours. Finally, given the increase in the factors of production, output expands.
This is all good news.
But our left-leaning friends might not be happy because some people get richer faster than other people get richer.
This aggregate expansion however, is coupled with worsening…inequality in our model. For instance, skilled wages increase by 4.66% while unskilled wages increases by only 0.56%, driven by capital-skill complementarity.
For what it is worth, I agree with Margaret Thatcher about adopting policies that help all groups enjoy higher living standards.
Here’s a chart for wonky readers. It shows how quickly the economy grows depending on how lower capital taxes are offset.
And here’s some of the explanatory text.
The main takeaway if that you get the most growth when you also lower the burden of redistribution spending.
The three financing schemes under consideration…produce different effects on aggregate output because each scheme influences workers’ labor supply decisions differently. …lump-sum transfer cuts…boosts unskilled hours and in turn, contributes to greater aggregate output… In comparison, a rise in the labor or consumption tax rate decreases the effective wage rate (as is well-understood) and additionally, weakens the wealth effect for the unskilled household. These two mechanisms work together to generate a smaller aggregate expansion under the distortionary tax adjustments. …we show that the capital tax cut has different welfare implications for each type of household depending on time horizon and policy adjustments. …The tax reform benefits the skilled households the most when transfers adjust, whereas the unskilled households prefer distortionary financing to avoid a significant reduction in transfer incomes.
The secondary takeaway from this research is that it would be bad for the economy (and bad for both rich people and poor people) if Joe Biden’s class-warfare tax policy was enacted.
But if you read this, this, this, and this, you already knew that.
[…] is why entrepreneurs, innovators, inventors, and investors respond to difference in tax […]
[…] is why entrepreneurs, innovators, inventors, and investors respond to difference in tax […]
[…] Less investment reduces worker productivity. […]
[…] Less investment reduces worker productivity. […]
[…] Since we have been discussing how taxes on capital are bad for workers, this is an opportunity to share an old cartoon from the British Liberal Party (meaning […]
[…] Since we have been discussing how taxes on capital are bad for workers, this is an opportunity to share an old cartoon from the British Liberal Party (meaning […]
[…] gains tax is double taxation, and that’s a bad idea (assuming the goal is faster growth and higher […]
[…] capital gains tax is double taxation, and that’s a bad idea (assuming the goal is faster growth and higher […]
[…] Less investment reduces worker productivity. […]
[…] Less investment reduces worker productivity. […]
[…] don’t need to be a wild-eyed supply-sider to conclude this will undermine growth by discouraging people from saving and […]
[…] Less investment reduces worker productivity. […]
[…] don’t need to be a wild-eyed supply-sider to conclude this will undermine growth by discouraging people from saving and […]
H.R. 25 Fair Tax AND repeal 16th Amendment AND constitutionally cap federal spending
The focus of capital gains taxes is to hurt capitalists, whereas the impact is to hurt the economy.
The correct tax would be zero, not only to cancel “double taxation”; but also to increase revenue. If capital gains tax rates go up, stock prices go down. If they go down, stock prices will go up, by more than the tax adjustment.
The right approach to take, is to have all businesses pay a flat tax. The only deductible items would be items, where the tax has already been collected like salaries or domestic purchases.
The day before the zero capital gains tax goes into effect, tax all gains on stock appreciation at (20%?). The net effect should be positive for holders of stock and the Treasury. Growth in the future should benefit.
Taxes could be satisfied by giving up future Social Security benefits, in amounts comparable to the tax, alleviating the coming Social Security crisis.
Reblogged this on Utopia, you are standing in it!.
[…] Lower Taxes on Capital = More Prosperity […]
[…] Source link Author Dan Mitchell […]
Dan, I really like the new look of your site. It is much easier to read. One question I wish you would tackle is that of whether maximizing income (or GDP or whatever metric you are using) is necessarily the most important thing. While I generally agree with you, isn’t it possible that a nation might logically choose to have fewer people in poverty, even if it means higher taxes and less opportunity for individuals to amass great wealth? Aren’t the Scandinavians examples of that (and, yes, I know they accumulated much wealth via free market capitalism prior to prioritizing equality, but I guess that’s their right)?