Taxing Capital Income Is Unfair


By Bernie on 29 Nov 2012

Based on the past election I would guess that the majority of Americans have no idea what Socialism is, nor do they have the slightest bit of knowledge about economics.

Last February, Scott Sumner, an Economics Professor at Waltham’s Bentley University, wrote an excellent piece in the Economist, explaining why the proper tax rate on capital income should be zero:

ONE of the most basic principles in economics is that the taxation of capital income is inefficient. Taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains represent a sort of “double taxation”, of wage income. For some reason many people have difficulty grasping this concept, and one often sees even Nobel Prize-winning economists talking about “income inequality” using data that includes both wage and capital income. This makes about as much sense as adding up blueberries and watermelons and calling it the “number of units of fruit”.

To see why this is so, consider twin brothers who each make $100,000 in wage income. Most people would regard these two people as equally well off, even if one freely chose to consume his income now, while the other chose to consume later. But not advocates of the income tax. They insist the more patient twin brother is “richer” and deserves to be taxed at a higher income tax rate. For instance, compare a 40% wage tax with a 40% income tax. Under the wage tax (sometimes called a “payroll tax”) the spendthrift brother is able to consume $60,000, which is 40% less than in a no-tax economy. Now assume the thrifty brother invests the after-tax wage income for 20 years, and sees the money double to $120,000. Then he can consume $120,000 20 years in the future, which is also 40% less than the no- tax consumption level. This sort of tax is neutral with respect to saving and investment; it's essentially a flat rate tax on consumption, whenever it occurs.

But that's not good enough for proponents of taxation of capital income. They want the thrifty brother to pay a 40% income tax on the $60,000 in capital income, leaving him with only a net gain of $36,000. Now the thrifty brother can only consume $96,000 in 20 years, thus he essentially paid a 52% tax on his consumption (as he would have consumed $200,000 in a no-tax scenario). The mistake people make is forgetting that the present value of $120,000 worth of consumption 20 years in the future is the same as $60,000 today. And in a sense that should be obvious, as both brothers are free to spend their money when they choose in the no-tax situation, so obviously the thrifty brother would not be economically “better off” merely because he chose a different year to consume his income. Both are equally “wealthy”, where wealth is the present value of lifetime consumption.


If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is worth a million (with a tip of the turban Hat Tip to Xanthippa's Chamberpot):

YouTube, Economist Steven Landsburg Discusses Incentives and Taxes


While Obama likes to talk about the wealthy paying their "fair share," the truth is that taxing the wealthy is unfair to wage earners. If taxes on dividends and other forms of capital formation were reduced to levels of the 1920s, average wages and real incomes would be about 17 percent higher.

The American Magazine, Don’t Raise Capital Gains Taxes

taxing capital income is unfairIncreasing taxes on capital income goes against current economic thinking on how to finance government spending. Indeed, taxing capital income ultimately hurts the very people it was supposed to help. It reduces investment, which reduces the amount of capital in the economy. A lower capital stock reduces economic growth, productivity, job creation, and wages.

...

A growing number of economic studies conclude that raising taxes on capital income leads to a substantial drop in capital formation. America’s capital income tax rates are about twice as high today as they were in the 1920s, and capital formation rates are much lower today than they were then. Economists use the “capital-output” ratio—the ratio of the capital stock to gross domestic product—to compare rates of capital formation over time. The capital-output ratio was almost 90 percent higher in the 1920s than it is today.

What would happen if the United States returned to the capital income tax rates of the 1920s? Its capital stock would be about 50 percent larger, and average wages and real incomes would be about 17 percent higher.


Taxing the rich more, hurts everyone who is not rich.








Anyone may republish this article for non-commercial use without asking my permission. I make it easy, see details here.


Related Posts with Thumbnails
If this is your first time here, please read my Comment Policy HERE.

comments powered by Disqus


















HOME



Info


Email Me

FAQ/About Me

Search/Archives

Site Policies

Testimonials

My Articles in Danish

Follow Me:

subscribe to my Feedvia RSS Feed

subscribe to comment Feedvia my Comments Feed

subscribe to my YouTube Feedvia my YouTube Feed


View My Stats




Shameless Advertising


This is what Bernie is Reading Now



For Previous Books Click Here.





Comments



Buttons & Widgets


Locations of visitors to this page



Blogs That Link to Me:


123beta
A collection of things...
Always on Watch
Americans Stand with Israel
Animal Magnetism
Apropos of Nothing
Bare Naked Islam
Basil’s Blog
BelchSpeak
Blazing Cat Fur
Blogging for a free world
BlogWrath
Celestial Offerings
Cmblake6's Weblog
Commonsense & Wonder
Conjecture and Consequence
Conservative Thoughts
Cristy Li
Daily Blasphemies
David Drake
DiveDesk
DragonLady’s World
Eclecticity
Elder of Ziyon
Empyreum Cœlum
Eye of Polyphemus
Fausta’s Blog
Fiery Spirited Zionist
foolocracy
Gates of Vienna
GDCritter
Gummihund/ Rubberdog and a proud Orangutan
Hard to Swallow
Hodjanernes Blog
Huff-Watch
Infidelio
Infidels Are Cool
Infidel Bloggers Alliance
Intergalactic Source of Truth
Iron Burka
Israel Matzav
Jewish Preppers
Jihadi Du Jour
Leather Penguin
Maggie’s Notebook
MFS - The Other News
mlah.us
Monkey in the Middle
Muellerstuff
Muslims Attack
My Gripes of Wrath
My Newz 'n Ideas
Neanderpundit
News on the March
News360
Nicholas Hunter Folkes
No Apology
nothing to laugh at
Nuke's
OBAMA CARTOONS
Oswald Bastable’s Ranting
Outside the Camp
Pakshahara
Perigo Islâmico (In Portuguese)
pislamonausea Central
Project 2,996
Prune Juice Media
RADARSITE
Ramrock's Blog (In Spanish)
Remember Amalek
Right Nation
Right Pundits
Right Truth
Right-wing Agenda
Rightjab
Rosemary’s Thoughts
Sherryx’s Weblog
Silence the messenger
Simply Jews
Smooth Stone
So Far, So Good ...So What!
SPLINA ULTRAGIATĂ A ZIONULUI
Squid Thoughts
Stop Islamic Conquest
StormBringer
SumanSpeaks
Sunday Morning Coffee
Synopsis
Tales of a Wandering Mind
TAYLOR TOPICS
The Amboy Times
The Astute Bloggers
The Christian Defender
The Infidel Task Force
The Lambeth Walk
The Lunatic's Asylum
The Mindset
The Old Curmudgeon
THE OUTRAGED SPLEEN OF ZION
The Political Commentator
The Right Nation
The Sandman
The Sassy Tn’T PoLITicallY InCorrect
THE TEXAS SCRIBBLER
The Unreligious Right
The Virtuous Republic
Theo Spark
Third World County
TheRightRant
Thunder Pig
Transhumanisten
Treppenwitz
usa stands with israel
Veritas Universalis
Western Civilization and Culture
wine women and transcendence
Working the Web
Xanthippa's Chamberpot
Zilla of the Resistance
Zionism, Rebbi Nachman, and Rav Kook


Would you be in favor of stopping aid to Africa if it would eliminate hunger and disease there?
  
pollcode.com free polls 
For more details about this poll click HERE