Showing posts with label capital gains. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capital gains. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

No correlation between cap. gains tax and investment

Sometimes common sense is not so common... or correct.  Quantitative research, i.e. reality, often contradicts our intuitive sense of they way things ought to work, but actually don't.  Such is the case with capital gains tax rates, real investment and economic growth, as proven by tax law professor Chris Sanchirico of the University of Pennsylvania and Wharton in a recent paper [emphasis mine]: 

On the surface, the growth argument against capital income taxes seems clear and compelling. And many policymakers and pundits—on both sides of the aisle—appear to regard it as common sense. 

A very different picture emerges, however, from the academic research on taxes and growth. Scholarly evidence on the growth argument against capital income taxation is mixed at best. Indeed, it would not be unreasonable to conclude, based on the best available theory and data, that the growth argument has no real basis.

[...]  Compelling intuitions tend to melt away on close inspection, and the data tell no consistent story. When the negative growth effects of offsetting increases in labor income taxes or government borrowing are also taken into account, uncertainty begins to shade into doubt. Attempting to spur economic growth with tax preferences for capital income may be like trying to repair one side of the roof with shingles from the other. 

Regarding the non-correlation between capital gains and real investment, here's an historical illustration by economist Jared Bernstein:


If it seems to your untrained eye that there is no relationship between the red and blue lines, your eye is correct.  

And if you care about growing income inequality in the U.S. -- most conservatives don't -- then you must note the conclusion of Thomas Hungerford of the Congressional Research Service: "The reason income inequality has been increasing has been the rising income going to the top one percent.  Most of that has come in capital gains and dividends."

Sunday, June 23, 2013

U.S. tax system targets workers

Everybody in America -- but especially anti-tax conservatives -- needs to read and understand this:

To sum up: The overall rate for wealth-based taxes has been decreasing while the overall rate for labor-based taxes has been increasing. At the same time, the potential base for labor-based taxes is migrating to the wealth-based tax side. And an ever-increasing portion of that potential base for wealth-based taxes faces no tax at all.

Lord and Pizzigati also note what I've been saying for a while now, that redistribution of wealth is alive and well in America -- but from the bottom-up, from workers to shareholders and managers -- not from the rich down to lazy welfare moochers:

Here's how. Until around 1980, wages kept pace with gains in productivity. Since then, productivity has continued to increase while wages have stagnated. The result? The allocation of income between labor and wealth has shifted, with more dollars going toward higher corporate profits, dividends and capital gains than toward wages. Tax rates are shrinking for booming profits, while rising for shrinking wages.


By Bob Lord and Sam Pizzigati
June 20, 2013 | Los Angeles Times

Imagine a society with two tax systems. One taxes the wealth people have accumulated. The other taxes the labor people perform. This society seems to be getting along well enough, raising enough tax revenue to finance the public goods and services that voters have told lawmakers they want to see supported.

Now imagine that lawmakers have decided to cut the tax rates on wealth and raise them on labor. At the same time, the amount of wealth subject to the lower tax rates is rising as income from labor is shrinking.

That society, we would agree, is asking for trouble. In real life, would any society choose to take such an unsustainable course? One already has — the United States since 1980.

In America today, virtually all the taxes that local, state and federal governments levy can be classified as either wealth-based or labor-based.

The wealth-based taxes include the state and local property taxes we pay on an annual basis and the one-time taxes on large inheritances and estates. Wealth-based taxes also include taxes on the income people get from holding wealth — dividends and interest, for instance — and the capital gains income from buying and selling assets. Throw in the corporate income tax here, too.

Labor-based taxes obviously cover the levies paid on the income we earn from the work we do. These include personal income taxes and the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare.

These labor-based taxes also include the more difficult to categorize sales and sin taxes. The lion's share of the revenue raised from these taxes, we would argue, comes from people spending their labor-based income on basic living expenses or, in the case of sin taxes, on cigarettes and alcohol.

What has happened to the rates in these two tax systems?

Over the last three decades, the rates for wealth-based taxes have been plummeting.  In 2011, the effective corporate income tax rate dropped to a 40-year low of 12.1%. The top federal estate tax rate has sunk from 70% to 40% since 1981. Estate-tax avoidance strategies have brought the actual rate paid on large estates down to less than half that. Many states have abandoned the state inheritance tax altogether.

The tax rate on capital gains did recently increase at the federal level, but the long-term trend has been downward, and the rate of tax on dividends has fallen dramatically, from 70% in 1980 to 20% today. Finally, beginning with the passage of California's Proposition 13 in 1978, average property tax rates nationwide have declined sharply.

Meanwhile, the rates for labor-based taxes, taken together, have increased.  Average Americans do pay federal income taxes at a slightly lower rate than 30 years ago. But the effective payroll tax rate has increased sharply, as the ceiling on wages subject to Social Security taxes has risen and the ceiling on wages subject to Medicare taxes has been removed entirely.

On top of that, sales taxes have also increased steadily, as have sin taxes.

The two tax systems, however, don't operate on a totally separate basis. The money that makes up the base in one system can migrate to the other. Over the last three decades or so, the available tax base from our labor-based tax system has been migrating to the wealth-based tax system.

Here's how. Until around 1980, wages kept pace with gains in productivity. Since then, productivity has continued to increase while wages have stagnated. The result? The allocation of income between labor and wealth has shifted, with more dollars going toward higher corporate profits, dividends and capital gains than toward wages. Tax rates are shrinking for booming profits, while rising for shrinking wages.

But that's not the worst of it. Tax rates in the wealth-based tax system aren't just decreasing. An increasingly higher share of the dollars in that system escape taxation entirely.

This growing exempt pool of wealth includes pension plans, IRAs, 401(k) plans, life insurance and annuity policies, municipal bond portfolios and funds held offshore. Most of this wealth sits in the portfolios of the richest families. Over recent decades, this tax-exempt chunk of American wealth has grown faster than our aggregate wealth — about $20 trillion, not including what may be as much as $10 trillion in wealth parked in offshore tax havens.

In the estate tax arena, it's the same dynamic. The exemption from estate tax has swelled. In 1981, the first $175,625 of the estate an affluent American left behind faced no estate tax. Today, the first $5,250,000 is exempt. And with the help of a decent estate planner, that exemption can be leveraged into a much higher number.

To sum up: The overall rate for wealth-based taxes has been decreasing while the overall rate for labor-based taxes has been increasing.  At the same time, the potential base for labor-based taxes is migrating to the wealth-based tax side.  And an ever-increasing portion of that potential base for wealth-based taxes faces no tax at all.

This is unsustainable.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Meyerson on tax avoidance: More than one bad Apple

Meyerson reminds us that:

 ... the system of sovereign nation-states — a pretty impressive creation in its day — has become a plaything for big business in the age of globalization and digital communication. The world is full of places with dirt-cheap labor, low or no taxes and scant or non-existent regulation.

We call sovereign states' total submission to corporate puppeteers in this globalized system "the race to the bottom."

Meyerson also keenly notes that lowering U.S. corporate tax rates is not the solution for corporations' tax avoidance: 

Reducing the nominal tax rate on corporate profits in the United States to 25 percent, or 15 percent, from the current 35 percent won’t deter some future Apple from shifting profits to some future Ireland if the tax rate there is zero.

So what are the solutions?  Meyerson says we should consider: 1) replacing corporate profit tax with an increase on capital gains tax; or even 2) a tax on corporate sales revenue earned in the country, not corporate profit.


By Harold Meyerson
May 29, 2013 | Washington Post

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Study: Millionaires ARE different

Shocker: millionaires care the more about capital gains taxes and the federal deficit than they do about jobs and a living wage for their fellow Americans. Well knock me over with a feather.


By Joshua Holland
March 11, 2013 | AlterNet

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Be honest about taxes on rich capitalists

A lot of folks in the MSM, punditry, think tanks and lobbying firms are blowing a lot of smoke about tax hikes and the "fiscal cliff."  Most journalists are too lazy, or too intimidated, to contradict their BS.

This includes the corporate media's preemptive strikes against a possible increase in U.S. dividend tax rates. Thanks to one ultra-conservative reader I learned, inadvertently, that higher U.S. dividend tax rates in fact correlate, historically, with higher stock market returns!

Now, as I'm always quick to point out, correlation does not equal causation; nevertheless, this shows that economic performance is not doomed by relatively higher tax rates. Far from it.


By Peter Hart 
December 3, 2012 | FAIR