Skip to comments.Higher Tax Rates Donít Equal Higher Revenues
Posted on 12/06/2012 9:57:10 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The fiscal-cliff negotiations seem to be foundering on Barack Obamas insistence on higher tax rates on high earners and House Republican leaders insistence on opposing them. The president believes he has a mandate from voters for his position, and House Republicans believe they have a mandate from voters for theirs.
The real argument here is over the size and scope of government. Under Barack Obama, federal outlays the technical term for federal spending have increased to over 24 percent of gross domestic product.
Thats a higher level of federal spending than in any year since 1946, when we were demobilizing after World War II. And the Obama budgets envision federal spending continuing at such levels more or less indefinitely.
This is an inevitable result, some Obama backers argue, of our aging population. Spending for entitlement programs for the elderly Social Security and Medicare are on a rising trajectory, and so the federal government simply must absorb a higher percentage of the economy than in the last two-thirds of a century.
Lets adjust the trajectory, House Republicans argue, by reforming the entitlements. Obama has given lip service to this idea but has offered no specifics.
He seems to be paying attention to those Democrats who oppose any changes in entitlements. Just raise taxes, they seem to say, and entitlements can keep rising as scheduled.
The problem is that, as historian Paul Rahe wrote earlier this year, we no longer have the resources to support the entitlement state. We can certainly raise taxes, as President Obama and the Democrats intend to do, but that does not mean that in the long run we will take in more revenue and it is massively increased revenue that the entitlement state needs.
Rahe seems to have history on his side. To see why, take a look at the Economic Report of the President 2012, Appendix B, Table B-79, on page 412, which shows federal receipts the technical term for revenues and outlays as a percentage of gross domestic product for every year from 1939 to 2011, with estimates for 2012 and 2013.
Over that period of nearly three-quarters of a century, federal receipts have never exceeded 20.9 percent of gross domestic product. That was the number for the war year 1944.
The highest number since then was the 20.6 percent of GDP in 2000, the climax of the dotcom boom. In the Obama years, federal receipts have hovered at 15 percent of GDP.
Thats just because tax rates are too low, Obama backers reply. Just raise the rates on high earners, and the problem will be solved.
Actually, high earners dont make enough money to close the current budget deficit. Youd need to raise taxes on middle-income earners too.
But we have had higher income-tax rates in most of the years since World War II. What history and Table B-79 show is that even much higher rates like the 91 percent marginal rate on top earners imposed from the 1940s to the 1960s have never produced federal receipts higher than 20 percent of GDP.
Why is that? As the late Jack Kemp liked to say, when you tax something, you get less of it. When the government took 91 percent of what the law defined as adjusted gross income over a certain amount, not many people had adjusted gross income over that amount.
According to a Congressional Research Service study, the effective income-tax rate on the top 0.01 percent of earners in the days of nominal 91 percent tax rates was only 45 percent. Others have pegged it at 31 percent.
In the 1970s, when the top rate on wage and salary income was 50 percent, and 70 percent on investment income, high earners spent much of their time and energy seeking tax shelters. The animal spirits of capitalists, to use John Maynard Keyness term, were directed less at productive investment and more at tax avoidance.
But dont European nations extract more in taxes from their citizens? Yes, but through consumption taxes like the value-added tax. Those taxes tend to be regressive, and in this country sales taxes have been the province of states and localities.
Barack Obama and the Democrats may well get higher tax rates. But its not likely that high tax rates can ever generate enough revenue to fund unreformed entitlement programs.
Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner.
It’s not about revenues. It’s about fairness.
B0 has already told us that he has cut nearly a trillion dollars over the next 100 years.
So nice to make these points after the election.
>Its not about revenues. Its about fairness.
Barry already said he doesn’t care about revenue. It’s about punishing success, because so many of Eric Holder’s people have no idea what that is.
RE: Barry already said he doesnt care about revenue. Its about punishing success, because so many of Eric Holders people have no idea what that is.
We have been warned MANY TIMES and the signs were all there. Most people were either not paying attention or don’t care.
Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wants to redistribute wealth and he believes it is good for everyone.
Charlie Gibson, in an interview with Obama, explains how history shows lowering the capital gains tax actually increases government revenue. Gibson asks Obama, with the facts showing lower tax rates actually increase revenue, why raise the capital gains tax at all?
Then Senator Obama responds by saying raising taxes is about FAIRNESS.
Obama then shows his true hand when he told the successful business owners that “You didn’t build that.”
Finally, Dinesh D’Souza, in example after example in his film -— “2016, Obama’s America”, told us how Obama plans to LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD by bringing American down to the level of other nations to promote international EQUALITY.
Did America pay attention? The answer is either NO, America did not, or America does not care.
Generate enough revenue to fund unreformed entitlement programs.
The socialist program is working as planed.Depression to ensue.
Wha?!? Next you’ll tell me supply and demand applies to labor, housing, and loans, too. You, sir, are mad. Burn him, he’s a witch!