The Buffet tax would raise taxes and reduce jobs. It is
however being sold as a fair-share tax on the rich.
The Buffett rule is rooted in the fairy tale that taxes on the wealthy
are lower than on the middle class.
The contradictions in this tax policy abound. Does this make it
more of a campaign issue, attempting to gather votes and channel emotion?
Obama's ploy means the highest capital gains tax rate since 1978.
Yet in a time of the highest deficits since World War II, Mr. Obama wants to double the capital gains
tax rate even as he raises the top income-tax rate to 42% or so. Mr. Obama really is taking us back to the worst habits of the 1970s.
Imagine a policy that is so unfair it is being sold on the notion of
fairness. Imagine such an insane attempt to fuel class
warfare that all lose. Imagine a diabolical plot to prove
history correct. Just imagine the proposal of the
Buffet Rule by Obama.
The Buffett Ruse Link
(WSJ Opinion section: Jan 26, 2012)
Obama's ploy means the highest capital gains tax rate since 1978.
Remember the moment in 2008 when Charlie Gibson of ABC News asked
Senator Barack Obama why he would support raising the capital gains tax
even though "revenues from the tax increased" when the rate fell? Mr.
Obama's famous reply: "I would look at raising the capital gains tax for
purposes of fairness." Well, we were warned.
Here we are four years later, and President Obama on Tuesday night
linked the term "fair" to U.S. tax and economic policy seven times. The
U.S. economy is still hobbling out of recession, real family incomes are
falling and 14 million Americans are unemployed, but Mr. Obama declared
that his top priority is not to reform the tax code to promote growth
and job creation.
His overriding goal is redistributing income.
Mr. Obama endorsed the political ruse he calls the Buffett rule,
which asserts as a matter of moral principle that millionaires should
not pay a lower tax rate than middle-class wage earners.
Specifically, Mr. Obama is proposing that anyone earning more than $1 million pay at
least 30% of that income to Uncle Barack.
The White House says that if a millionaire household's effective tax
rate falls below 30%, it would have to pay a surcharge—in essence a new
Super Alternative Minimum Tax—to bring the tax liability to 30%. For
those facing this new Super AMT, all deductions and exemptions would be
eliminated except for charity.
The Buffett rule is rooted in the fairy tale that taxes on the
wealthy are lower than on the middle class. In fact, the Congressional
Budget Office notes that the effective income tax rate of the richest 1%
is about 29.5% when including all federal taxes such as the distribution
of corporate taxes, or about twice the 15.1% paid by middle-class
families. (See "How Much the Rich Pay," January 23, 2012.)
This is because wealthy tax filers make most of their income from
investments. Such income is taxed once at the corporate rate of 35% and
again when it is passed through to the individual as a capital gain or
dividend at 15%, for a highest marginal tax rate of about 44.75%.
This double taxation is one reason the U.S. has long had a
differential tax rate for capital gains. Another reason is because while
taxpayers must pay taxes on their gains, they aren't allowed to deduct
capital losses (beyond $3,000 a year) except against gains in the
current year. Capital gains also aren't indexed for inflation, so a
lower rate is intended to offset the effect of inflated gains.
One implication of the Buffett rule is that all millionaire
investment income would be taxed at the shareholder level at a minimum
rate of 30%, up from 15% today. The tax rate on investment income from
corporations would rise to 54.5% from 44.75%, a punitive tax on start-up
or expanding businesses.
The new 30% capital gains rate would be the developed world's third
highest behind only Denmark and Chile, according to the American Council
for Capital Formation. This is on top of the 35% corporate rate that is
already the second highest rate in the world after Japan. That giant
sucking sound you hear come January 2013 would be hundreds of billions
of investment dollars fleeing to China, India, Korea and other U.S.
competitors. Lower capital investment in the U.S. means less wage
growth, and so the people hurt most by this tax hike would be workers,
according to a study by the Institute for Research on the Economics of
Taxation.
Mr. Obama conceded on Tuesday that the high U.S. corporate tax is an
economic loser. Yet he misses the crucial point that business owners
assess the combined corporate and capital gains tax on those business
profits. Lowering the corporate tax rate makes the U.S. more
competitive, but the tax change is self-defeating if it is combined with
an even larger rise in investment income taxes on capital gains and
dividends.
Mr. Obama isn't setting himself apart merely from conservatives with
this Buffett ploy. He is rejecting 35 years of bipartisan tax policy
that began with the passage of the Steiger Amendment by a Democratic
Congress that cut the capital-gains rate to 28% from 35% in 1978.
A decade later Bill Clinton agreed to cut the rate back to 20% as
part of the balanced-budget deal with Newt Gingrich. Capital gains
revenues soared, helping to balance the federal budget.
Nearly every
study estimates that the revenue-maximizing tax rate from the capital
gains tax is between 15% and 28%. Doug Holtz-Eakin, the former director
of the Congressional Budget Office, says that a 30% tax rate "is almost
surely above the rate that maximizes tax revenues." So it's likely the
Buffett trick would lose revenue for the government.
Yet in a time of the highest deficits since World War II, Mr. Obama
wants to double the capital gains tax rate even as he raises the top
income-tax rate to 42% or so. Mr. Obama really is taking us back to the
worst habits of the 1970s. And not because he thinks higher rates will
raise revenue, but merely so he can score points against Mitt Romney and
stick it to the successful.
This isn't tax fairness. It's tax folly.
This isn't tax fairness. It's tax folly.