Showing posts with label Tax rate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tax rate. Show all posts

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Increasing The Top Tax Rate Does Not Increase Tax Revenues: Lowering The Top Tax Rate Increases Tax Revenues

From The Wall Street Journal, "There's No Escaping Hauser's Law: Tax revenues as a share of GDP have averaged just under 19%, whether tax rates are cut or raised. Better to cut rates and get 19% of a larger pie" by W. Kurt Hauser:
Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."


***
On average, GDP has grown at a faster pace in the several quarters after taxes are lowered than the several quarters before the tax reductions. In the six quarters prior to the May 2003 Bush tax cuts, GDP grew at an average annual quarterly rate of 1.8%. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, GDP grew at an average annual quarterly rate of 3.8%. Yet taxes as a share of GDP have remained within a relatively narrow range as a percent of GDP in the entire post-World War II period. 
Read the complete Hauser piece here.

Reducing the deficit and debt will not be as easy as passing legislation to increase taxes.

As Hauser describes in his article and as known from other economic research, raising the tax rate produces lower than expected tax revenues and also lowers future GDP. People shift their actions to reduce tax payments, increase tax deductions and generate more tax free income from tax free investments. Higher tax rates lower the rate of capital investment, which reduces future GDP and taxable income.

The Bowles-Simpson draft deficit reduction plan envisions tax revenue rising to 21 percent of GDP. As Hauser notes, 19 percent of GDP is the norm as tax rates rise and fall over the last six decades.

The only way to substantially increase tax revenues is through strong economic growth and strong economic growth is more likely in a low top marginal income tax environment.

The US is unlikely to solve its deficit problems through higher tax rates. The US will find itself needing to make substantial cuts to its spending programs in order to get its fiscal house in order. Simultaneously it will need to lower tax rates to spur economic growth.

Cutting government programs and government spending while lowering top tax rates will not be an easy sell for politicians, but it is the right way to eliminate the deficit and increase GDP growth.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Goolsbee, Supply-Side, Income And Wealth Effects

A comment I posted on Rortybomb, "Goolsbee on Supply-Side and Subprime" by Mike Konczal:
The rise in executive and high-income compensation mentioned in 2 and 3 is in large part due to the sharp rise in the stock market as pay shifted from salary to stock incentives and stock options, starting around 1980 as more income was generated from stock investments than salaries. An effect of a tax law change itself.

To make statements about effects of marginal tax cuts on high-income earners, studies have to separate the effects of taxes on stock compensation (options, etc.) and wages.

They studies do not. For example, the timing switch mentioned in three is in part a decision about when to recognize the wealth gain in stock option compensation. The proper question is not when an executive converts the investment and pays taxes on it. Of course, a rational executive will pick a lower tax year. The studies fail to recognize that the wealth, the appreciation in the stock price, has already occurred and exists independent of its conversion into a taxable event.

The more relevant questions is to what extent did tax policy aid or hinder that stock’s appreciation and do corporations adjust their incentive compensation policies to offset expected tax effects. If corporations adjust future realized compensation for expected tax changes, then of course, corporate income also changes in an opposite direction to gross income to keep after tax income level.

Over the period from Kennedy to Bush, the tax laws increased relating to exceeding a maximum executive compensation level. The consequence was that the amount of executive compensation paid as stock options, etc. increased tremendously.

To make a positive, negative or neutral statement about marginal tax rates on high-income taxpayers, the studies have to distinguish tax effects on wages versus wealth creation (which can occur without recognized taxable income) versus stock market effects.

High wealth and high-income effects are not synonymous and different taxes have different effects on these two components.

There is still a lot of research needed to answer the questions about the effect of marginal tax rates. Yes, a lower marginal tax rate speeds up income recognition. The more relevant, important and difficult question is did the decrease in marginal tax rates contribute to the increased wealth that was recognized in the earlier period?

A paper than definitively answered positively or negatively the supply side effect of marginal tax cuts would have to look both at income and wealth increases (decreases) due to marginal tax cuts.

Looking at either wealth or income creation separately cannot answer the question about marginal tax effects. Both components need to be considered at the same time.