Monthly Archives: November 2011

Tax Reform Options: Marginal Rates on High-Income Taxpayers, Capital Gains, and Dividends

Robert likes it when smart people say the same things he says.  And vice versa.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=901447

Tax Reform Options: Marginal Rates on High-Income Taxpayers, Capital Gains, and Dividends

 

Abstract

Leonard Burman’s testimony before the Senate Committee on Finance on tax reform options affecting high-income taxpayers.

Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Hatch, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on tax reform options affecting high-income taxpayers. I applaud the committee for devoting much of the past year to examining ways to make the tax code simpler, fairer, and more conducive to economic growth, and I’m honored to be asked to contribute to those deliberations.

In summary, here are my main points:

  • Economic theory suggests that the degree of progressivity should balance the gains from mitigating economic inequality and risk-sharing against the costs in terms of disincentives created by higher tax rates. The optimal top tax rate depends on social norms and the government’s revenue needs.
  • Experience and a range of empirical evidence suggests that the rates in effect in the 1990s would not unduly diminish economic growth. However, a more efficient option would be to broaden the base (reform or eliminate tax expenditures and eliminate loopholes) to achieve distributional goals while keeping top rates relatively low.
  • The biggest loophole is the lower tax rate on capital gains. Several bipartisan tax reform plans, including the Bipartisan Policy Center plan that I contributed to, would tax capital gains at the same rate as other income. Combined with a substantial reduction in tax expenditures, this allows for a cut in top income rates while maintaining the progressivity of the tax system. That was also the approach taken by Ronald Reagan in 1986.
  • Different economists reach diametrically opposite conclusions about the taxation of dividends. I find most compelling a recent analysis that suggested that concerns about tax avoidance activities of multinationals (e.g., moving headquarters and jobs overseas) would argue for fully taxing dividends and using the revenue raised to cut corporate tax rates.
  • Finally, there has been much hand-wringing about lower-income families that don’t pay income tax or even receive net subsidies. Some of these families are retired and I can’t imagine that taxing them is feasible or desirable. The lower-income working families receive tax subsidies that encourage work, which is consistent with the prescriptions of optimal tax and transfer literature. To clarify the distinction between tax obligations and benefits, I suggest that the IRS produce a tax and subsidy report for all filers showing what their true tax liability is—before tax expenditures—as well as the value of their tax subsidies.
  • Bottom line: allowing the top tax rates to return to their pre-2001 levels after the economy has recovered would not be economically disastrous and might help build support for tax reform that would broaden the base and lower rates while maintaining the progressivity of the tax system (and hopefully contribute to reducing the debt).

 

The Problem with Flat Tax Fever

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/business/flat-tax-doesnt-solve-inequality-problem.html?src=recg

CLOSE watchers of presidential politics weren’t surprised to see many of this year’s Republican hopefuls proposing to replace the nation’s progressive income tax with a flat tax. Such plans reliably surface every four years, and, just as reliably, sink without a trace.

That’s not because the current tax system is far from the abominable tangle of complexity that candidates say it is. Actually, it’s worse. Flat-tax proponents promise to sweep away that mess by imposing a single levy on every dollar earned. That change, many contend, would allow taxpayers to file their returns on postcards. And surveys suggest positive voter responses to several of the most recent proposals.

Tax Reform Options: Marginal Rates on High-Income Taxpayers, Capital Gains, and Dividends

Robert likes it when smart people say the same things he says.  And vice versa.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=901447

Tax Reform Options: Marginal Rates on High-Income Taxpayers, Capital Gains, and Dividends

 

Abstract

Leonard Burman’s testimony before the Senate Committee on Finance on tax reform options affecting high-income taxpayers.

Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Hatch, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on tax reform options affecting high-income taxpayers. I applaud the committee for devoting much of the past year to examining ways to make the tax code simpler, fairer, and more conducive to economic growth, and I’m honored to be asked to contribute to those deliberations.

In summary, here are my main points:

  • Economic theory suggests that the degree of progressivity should balance the gains from mitigating economic inequality and risk-sharing against the costs in terms of disincentives created by higher tax rates. The optimal top tax rate depends on social norms and the government’s revenue needs.
  • Experience and a range of empirical evidence suggests that the rates in effect in the 1990s would not unduly diminish economic growth. However, a more efficient option would be to broaden the base (reform or eliminate tax expenditures and eliminate loopholes) to achieve distributional goals while keeping top rates relatively low.
  • The biggest loophole is the lower tax rate on capital gains. Several bipartisan tax reform plans, including the Bipartisan Policy Center plan that I contributed to, would tax capital gains at the same rate as other income. Combined with a substantial reduction in tax expenditures, this allows for a cut in top income rates while maintaining the progressivity of the tax system. That was also the approach taken by Ronald Reagan in 1986.
  • Different economists reach diametrically opposite conclusions about the taxation of dividends. I find most compelling a recent analysis that suggested that concerns about tax avoidance activities of multinationals (e.g., moving headquarters and jobs overseas) would argue for fully taxing dividends and using the revenue raised to cut corporate tax rates.
  • Finally, there has been much hand-wringing about lower-income families that don’t pay income tax or even receive net subsidies. Some of these families are retired and I can’t imagine that taxing them is feasible or desirable. The lower-income working families receive tax subsidies that encourage work, which is consistent with the prescriptions of optimal tax and transfer literature. To clarify the distinction between tax obligations and benefits, I suggest that the IRS produce a tax and subsidy report for all filers showing what their true tax liability is—before tax expenditures—as well as the value of their tax subsidies.
  • Bottom line: allowing the top tax rates to return to their pre-2001 levels after the economy has recovered would not be economically disastrous and might help build support for tax reform that would broaden the base and lower rates while maintaining the progressivity of the tax system (and hopefully contribute to reducing the debt).

 

The Problem with Flat Tax Fever

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/business/flat-tax-doesnt-solve-inequality-problem.html?src=recg

CLOSE watchers of presidential politics weren’t surprised to see many of this year’s Republican hopefuls proposing to replace the nation’s progressive income tax with a flat tax. Such plans reliably surface every four years, and, just as reliably, sink without a trace.

That’s not because the current tax system is far from the abominable tangle of complexity that candidates say it is. Actually, it’s worse. Flat-tax proponents promise to sweep away that mess by imposing a single levy on every dollar earned. That change, many contend, would allow taxpayers to file their returns on postcards. And surveys suggest positive voter responses to several of the most recent proposals.