Agony of Defeat
Oh, what a burn. My tax debate with French economist Thomas Piketty was a dead heat, 50-50, for the past four days. Then just as the contest was closing, he pulled ahead to seize victory, 51-49.
The Economist editor described the tightly fought battle:
Chris Edwards got over a strong initial disadvantage to narrow what was originally a strong lead for Mr Piketty to a dead heat, but eventually Mr Piketty has prevailed: but only just—even hours before closing, the vote was split exactly down the middle. One could not have asked for a closer contest: this has been the most closely-fought of our 21 online debates, although it began with a fairly substantial lead for the proposition.
Certainly, the debate revealed high levels of interest in taxation and relative income levels. There were more than 1,100 reader comments posted, making it the “most commented” story on the Economist site for the last 10 days or so. My thanks to all the supportive voters and commenters.
Piketty won the website voting battle, but I don’t think he’ll win the war. Global tax competition has led to large cuts in top tax rates in recent decades, and will continue to exert downward pressure for years to come. However, these are dangerous times as governments press to end financial privacy, to create international tax cartels, and to substitute competition with multinational government power in various other ways.
Federal Tax Rates
Conveniently timed as Tax Day approaches, the Congressional Budget Office has released new data on the taxes paid by each income group. The CBO data includes federal income taxes, payroll taxes, and excise taxes, which amounts to almost the entire federal tax grab.
The CBO calculates tax rates by quintile from the lowest-earning to the highest earning households. These tax rates are simply total federal taxes paid by the group divided by total income earned by the group.
The chart makes clear that we have a very graduated or redistributive tax system, which some people call “progressive.” President Obama doesn’t think that the 25.8% rate paid by the top quintile is progressive enough, so he plans to penalize that group with an income tax rate hike.
New at Cato
Here are a few highlights from Cato Today, a daily email from the Cato Institute. You can subscribe here.
- Malou Innocent argues that the United States should not increase its troop presence in Pakistan in a new Cato Policy Analysis.
- Doug Bandow discusses Tax Freedom Day in the American Spectator.
- Watch Tucker Carlson discuss whether a president should blame problems on past administrations on Fox News.
- Chris Edwards is finishing his live debate with French economist Thomas Piketty over whether the rich should pay higher tax rates. Readers decide who wins, so don’t miss the chance to cast your vote.
- Join the Cato Institute Wednesday, April 15 to hear James Tooley, author of The Beautiful Tree:A Personal Journey Into How the World’s Poorest People Are Educating Themselves, discuss successful ways to educate the world’s poor.
Piketty Tax Battle: Round Two
The Economist has posted rebuttals to first-round arguments in my tax debate with French economist Thomas Piketty. Piketty seems to think that everyone with a high income has a “grabbing hand” that comes at someone else’s expense.
The debate over tax rates on the rich is important, but Piketty is important in himself because he is widely cited in the media and elsewhere as if he were a neutral authority. For example, President Obama’s budget featured a chart showing that the top 1 percent of earners have greatly increased their share of national income over the decades, using Piketty’s numbers.
But Alan Reynolds has found serious flaws in Piketty’s calculations. Piketty bases his calculations on tax return data, but reported income under the federal income tax has changed greatly over time.
The bottom line is to be suspicious when you see a chart on income trends that is sourced to this advocate of 80 percent tax rates.
Majorities Favor Soaking the Rich
We are in the middle of a nine-day debate at The Economist on the proposition that “the rich should pay higher taxes.” I’m on the “no” side of the proposition. French economist Thomas Piketty is on the “yes” side, arguing that we ought to impose an 80 percent tax on those with the highest incomes.
I need help! Thus far, readers are favoring Piketty 57 percent to 43 percent. Please go to the site and register your vote.
Are website visitors actually reading the statements, or do their votes just reflect their existing political biases? Are they mainly Europeans or Americans? We don’t know, but majorities in favor of 80 percent tax rates does not bode well for economic freedom.
On Friday, Piketty and I post our rebuttals to opening statements, and next week we make closing arguments.
Obama vs. Ontario
The left-of-center government in Ontario, Canada’s largest province, is enacting dramatic corporate income tax (CIT) cuts. It announced last week that it is phasing in a reduction of the provincial CIT to 10 percent, which is paid on top of the federal rate that itself is falling to 15 percent. The combined rate of 25 percent will be far lower than the average U.S. federal/state rate of 40 percent.
The province is also eliminating sales taxes on business purchases, which will substantially reduce effective business tax rates.
As the Canadian Press reports, the cuts will make Ontario’s business tax rates much “lower than the average U.S. Great Lake state, considered Ontario’s main competitors for jobs and investment.”
Big Three auto companies, for example, may decide to close their U.S. plants over their numerous Ontario plants if they conclude that there will be a long-term Canadian tax advantage.
For its part, the Obama administration’s budget proposed a range of higher taxes on businesses, going in the exact opposite direction of virtually all other advanced economies.
Week in Review: No End to Spending and Regulation in Sight
Geithner to Propose Unprecedented Restrictions on Financial System
The Washington Post reports, “Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner plans to propose today a sweeping expansion of federal authority over the financial system… The administration also will seek to impose uniform standards on all large financial firms, including banks, an unprecedented step that would place significant limits on the scope and risk of their activities.”
Calling Geithner’s plan another “jihad against the market,” Cato senior fellow Jerry Taylor blasts the administration’s proposal:
What President Obama is selling is the idea that government must be the final arbiter regarding how much risk-taking is appropriate in this allegedly free market economy. It is unclear, however, whether anybody short of God is in the position to intelligently make that call for every single actor in the market.
Cato senior fellow Gerald P. O’Driscoll reveals the real reason behind the proposal:
Federal agencies have long had extensive regulatory powers over commercial banks, but allowed the banking crisis to develop despite those powers. It was a failure of will, not an absence of authority. If the authority is extended over more institutions, there is no reason to believe we will have a different outcome. This power grab is designed to divert attention away from the manifest failure of, first, the Bush Administration, and now the Obama Administration to devise a credible plan to deal with the crisis.
A new paper from Cato scholar Jagadeesh Gokhale explains the roots of the current global financial crisis and critically examines the reasoning behind the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve’s actions to prop up the financial sector. Gokhale argues that recovery is likely to be slow with or without the government’s bailout actions.
In the new issue of the Cato Policy Report, Cato chairman emeritus William A. Niskanen explains how President Obama is taking classic steps toward turning this recession into a depression:
Four federal economic policies transformed the Hoover recession into the Great Depression: higher tariffs, stronger unions, higher marginal tax rates, and a lower money supply. President Obama, unfortunately, has endorsed some variant of the first three of these policies, and he will face a critical choice on monetary policy in a year or so.
Obama Defends His Massive Spending Plan
President Obama visited Capitol Hill on Wednesday to lobby Democratic lawmakers on his $3.6 trillion budget proposal. Both the House and Senate are expected to vote on the plan next week.
In a new bulletin, Cato scholar Chris Edwards argues, “Sadly, Obama’s first budget sets a course for more government bloat, more economic distortions, and ultimately lower standards of living for everyone who is not living off of federal hand-outs.”
On Cato’s blog, Edwards discusses Obama’s misguided theory on government spending:
Obama’s budget would drive government health care costs up, not down. But aside from that technicality, the economics of Obama’s theory don’t make any sense.
Obama’s budget calls for a massive influx of government jobs. Writing in National Review, Cato senior fellow Jim Powell explains why government jobs don’t cure depression:
If government jobs were the secret of success, then the Soviet Union wouldn’t have collapsed, because it had nothing but government jobs. Communist China, glutted with government jobs, would have generated more income per capita than Hong Kong where, at least before the Communist takeover, there were hardly any government jobs, but Hong Kong’s per capita income was about 20 times higher than that on the mainland.
Multiplying the number of government jobs did nothing then and does nothing now to revive the private sector that pays all the bills, in large part because of the depressing effect of taxes required to pay for government jobs.
Cato on YouTube
Cato Institute is reaching out to new audiences with our message of individual liberty, free markets and peace. Last year, we launched our first YouTube channel, which has garnered thousands of views and subscriptions. Here are a few highlights:
Obama’s Tax Commission
The Obama administration has announced the formation of a task force to recommend major changes to the federal tax code. According to Congressional Quarterly today:
[Obama budget director Peter] Orszag said the task force will focus on three areas: tax simplification, reducing “corporate welfare” and shrinking the estimated $290 billion a year “tax gap” between taxes owed and taxes paid.
Isn’t Orzag missing something here? For goodness sakes, what about about economic growth? The economy is in the crapper, America has huge competitive challenges ahead with the rise of China, and the ratio of unproductive retirees to productive workers is soaring — it’s obvious that we need to reduce government hurdles to economic growth every way we can, and the high-rate federal tax code is one giant hurdle that policymakers need to start cutting. U.S. companies are not investing in China and elsewhere because our business tax code is too complex, but because our business tax rates are far higher than just about anywhere else.
Week in Review: Bailout Bonuses, Marijuana and Eminent Domain Abuse
House Approves 90 Percent ‘Bonus Tax’
Sparked by outrage over the bonus checks paid out to AIG executives, the House approved a measure Thursday that would impose a 90 percent tax on employee bonuses for companies that receive more than $5 billion in federal bailout funds.
Chris Edwards, Cato’s director of tax policy studies, says the outrage over AIG is misplaced:
While Congress has been busy with this particular inquisition, the Federal Reserve is moving ahead with a new plan to shower the economy with a massive $1.2 trillion cash infusion — an amount 7,200 times greater than the $165 million of AIG retention bonuses.
So members of Congress should be grabbing their pitchforks and heading down to the Fed building, not lynching AIG financial managers, most of whom were not the ones behind the company’s failures.
Cato executive vice president David Boaz says this type of selective taxation is a form of tyranny:
The rule of law requires that like people be treated alike and that people know what the law is so that they can plan their lives in accord with the law. In this case, a law is being passed to impose taxes on a particular, politically unpopular group. That is a tyrannical abuse of Congress’s powers.
On a related note, Cato senior fellow Richard W. Rahn defended the use of tax havens in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, saying the practice will only become more prevalent as taxes increase in the United States:
U.S. companies are being forced to move elsewhere to remain internationally competitive because we have one of the world’s highest corporate tax rates. And many economists, including Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas, have argued that the single best thing we can do to improve economic performance and job creation is to eliminate multiple taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends. Income is already taxed once, before it is invested, whether here or abroad; taxing it a second time as a capital gain only discourages investment and growth.
Obama to Stop Raids on State Marijuana Distributors
Attorney General Eric Holder announced this week that the president would end federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries that were common under the Bush administration.
It’s about time, says Tim Lynch, director of Cato’s Project on Criminal Justice:
The Bush administration’s scorched-earth approach to the enforcement of federal marijuana laws was a grotesque misallocation of law enforcement resources. The U.S. government has a limited number of law enforcement personnel, and when a unit is assigned to conduct surveillance on a California hospice, that unit is necessarily neglecting leads in other cases that possibly involve more violent criminal elements.
The Cato Institute hosted a forum Tuesday in which panelists debated the politics and science of medical marijuana. In a Cato daily podcast, Dr. Donald Abrams explains the promise of marijuana as medicine.
Cato Links
• A new video tells the troubling story of Susette Kelo, whose legal battle with the city of New London, Conn., brought about one of the most controversial Supreme Court rulings in many years. The court ruled that Kelo’s home and the homes of her neighbors could be taken by the government and given over to a private developer based on the mere prospect that the new use for her property could generate more tax revenue or jobs. As it happens, the space where Kelo’s house and others once stood is still an empty dustbowl generating zero economic impact for the town.
• Daniel J. Ikenson, associate director of Cato’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, explains why the recent news about increasing protectionism will be short-lived.
• Writing in the Huffington Post, Cato foreign plicy analyst Malou Innocent says Americans should ignore Dick Cheney’s recent attempt to burnish the Bush administration’s tarnished legacy.
• Reserve your spot at Cato University 2009: “Economic Crisis, War, and the Rise of the State.”
Regulations vs. Rate Cuts
A set of stories in International Tax Review today illustrate the backwards nature of U.S. corporate tax policy. The first story discusses the high-profile chest-thumping in Washington over corporate “tax haven abuse.” The congressional response to greater international tax competition is to load even more regulations on American businesses.
The second story is entitled “Taiwan Slashes Corporate Tax Rate”:
Taiwan’s government has approved plans to cut the country’s corporate tax rate from 25% to 20%. Ministers hope the cut will encourage investment in the country and stimulate growth in the economy…
America is in the worst recession in decades and it desperately needs to cut its 40 percent corporate tax rate to reinvigorate business investment. Why are U.S. policymakers so clueless about the most obvious way to spur investment when that policy imperative is clear to leaders just about everywhere else?
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on Google+
Cato on YouTube
