The change in income for the top 1% fell from 2007 to 2009 by 1/3 in
percentage. So perhaps the lack of economic growth is the most
effective plan if the goal is less income to the top 1%.
Clearly the tax code does affect what income is declared.
Moreover:
If Congress raises top individual tax rates much above the corporate
rate, many billions in business income would rapidly vanish from the
individual tax returns the CBO uses to measure the income of the top 1%.
Small businesses and professionals would revert to reporting most income
on corporate tax returns as they did in 1979.
And how about the bar room analogy below?
Tax Rates, Inequality and the 1%:
Link
A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CB0) says,
"The share of income received by the top 1% grew from about 8% in 1979
to over 17% in 2007."
But here's a question: Why did the report stop at 2007? The CBO
didn't say, although its report briefly acknowledged—in a footnote—that
"high income taxpayers had especially large declines in adjusted gross
income between 2007 and 2009."
No kidding. Once these two years are brought into the picture, the
share of after-tax income of the top 1% by my estimate fell to 11.3% in
2009 from the 17.3% that the CBO reported for 2007. In short, what the Congressional Budget Office presents as increased
inequality from 2003 to 2007 was actually evidence that the top 1% of
earners report more taxable income when tax rates are reduced on
dividends, capital gains and businesses filing under the individual tax
code.
The latest cyclical destruction of top incomes has been unusually
deep and persistent, because fully 43.7% of top earners' incomes in 2007
were from capital gains, dividends and interest, with another 17.1% from
small business. Since 2007, capital gains on stocks and real estate have
often turned to losses, dividends on financial stocks were slashed,
interest income nearly disappeared, and many small businesses remain
unprofitable.
If Congress raises top individual tax rates much above the corporate
rate, many billions in business income would rapidly vanish from the
individual tax returns the CBO uses to measure the income of the top 1%.
Small businesses and professionals would revert to reporting most income
on corporate tax returns as they did in 1979.
If Congress raises top tax rates on capital gains and dividends, the
highest income earners would report less income from capital gains and
dividends and hold more tax-exempt bonds. Such tax policies would reduce
the share of reported income of the top earners almost as effectively as
the recession the policies would likely provoke. The top 1% would then
pay a much smaller portion of federal income taxes, just as they did in
1979. And the other 99% would pay more. As the CBO found, "the federal
income tax was notably more progressive in 2007 than in 1979."
This seems quite hard for some to see and understand how progressive
taxation is. If the top 1% of earners in this country pay,
before the selective tax increase Obama wants, more than the bottom 95%,
then is that fair? Logic is second to emotion usually when
it comes to “getting even.”
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten comes to $100 and if they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.)
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with
the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you
are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of
your daily beer by $20." so drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected...They would still drink for
free...But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How
could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?'...They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33...But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth
man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by
roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before...And the first four
continued to drink for free...But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right,"
exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that
he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man.
"Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the
breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We
didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors,
is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get
the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.