Taxes

Both our current administration and the New York Times appeared to have little or no understanding how the “real” economy worked or the impact of incentives on tax policy. In more recent years they grasped that changing tax policy can impact economic incentives, which in turn, can increase their chances of being re-elected.

Their first major foray was “cash for clunkers” which gave a tax deduction for turning in your old car for a new one. Like most one-time incentives, it accelerated purchases into the current period, giving a boost to auto manufacturers and car dealerships (and sticking the tax credit to the deficit). Lately the administration has gotten bolder, offering 100% deduction for capital purchases in the current year for tax purposes (which has the same effect as “cash for clunkers”, except on a wider scale as tax incentives for corporations and private companies), and then giving a 2% “payroll tax cut” which finally eliminates even the concept that social security is anything more than a “pay as you go” system and that there is nothing there waiting for you when you retire.

My view of tax policy is that the goal of a sound policy is to:

1) raise the revenue that you set out to achieve
2) minimize negative effects or dis-incentives of the policy

Examples abound of a failure of #1, including raising marginal taxes on the wealthy (they change their behavior or move to another jurisdiction) and the distortive effects of #2 are legendary, including over-investment in non-productive housing stock (due to the mortgage interest deduction) and the massive numbers of lawyers and accountants that make a living on the entrails of our bewildering and counter-productive tax system.

In recent years the NYT, as the sounding arm for the administration, has started to realize that the haphazard and counter-productive effects of our current tax system are legion, and that better core policies could improve revenues while minimizing negative behavior. This article called “A Better Tax System” (Instructions Included) laid our four principles that seem reasonable overall:

1) Broaden the base and lower rates
2) Tax consumption rather than income
3) Tax “bads” rather than “goods”
4) Keep it simple, stupid

I would say that their item 1 corresponds to my number 1, above, because a wider base with a less sloped marginal top is the core to a sustainable base of revenues that won’t fluctuate as much over time. Items 2-4 are under the negative minimization principle.

Of course part of the reason that this article seems to make sense is that it was written by a non NYT staffer who works for an opposition candidate. But I do think that the NYT and the administration are starting to realize that our current tax system is an unholy mess with huge dis-incentives (the highest corporate taxes in the world drive jobs overseas), that doesn’t raise revenue broadly, and has huge dis-incentives in terms of ability for companies and individuals to plan ahead.

Too bad it is too late in the game for them to do much more than talk about it. Also shame on the prior administration for never spending the political capital to attempt to change the system and reform it. They neglected to wield their power to make America more competitive.

Cross posted at LITGM

The recent edition of “Parade” magazine when I saw a list of things that you can do to help others in need. I was struck by their plea to “Feed Hungry Children in Oregon” where they said that

Oregon has the nation’s highest rate of “child food insecurity.” About 252,000 kids – or nearly 30% of the state’s youth – aren’t sure where their next meal is coming from.

This surprised me because I never thought of Oregon as a state that had this sort of poverty. The example they gave in the article was as follows:

My husband and I both work full-time, but we make minimum wage, and some months it’s either pay our bills or buy food, says his mom, Nichole (her child is featured in the photo, above).

While this is a sad and heart rending story, there is another connection as to why their parents are having a hard time finding higher wage work. Per the Tax Foundation:

Oregon’s personal income tax system consists of five separate brackets with a top rate of 11% kicking in at an income level of $250,000. That rate ranks the highest among all states levying an individual income tax.

While tax policy may seem arcane to individuals worrying about food security, it is important to realize the CRUCIAL impact that state income tax rates play in state competitiveness. Of all the components of a tax burden, the ONE element that can be most easily modified or avoided is the personal income tax levied by a particular state. For instance, if you earn $1M a year, you’d be paying about $75,000 more in tax in Oregon than you would in Texas, Florida, Nevada, or other states that don’t levy a personal income tax (it isn’t $1M times 11% because of the graduated nature of the tax up to $250,000 and the fact that state taxes are deductible on Federal returns, so the $75,000 is a rough estimate).

A high marginal personal income tax rate falls DIRECTLY on those most likely to invest in a business that would hire someone like the family in this photo. A high marginal tax is analogous to seeking out the very individuals that could bring a state jobs and economic prosperity and telling them to invest elsewhere. You could go door-to-door and punch them in the face, or just set the nation’s highest personal income tax rate, the net effect is exactly the same.

The biggest fallacy the high marginal tax crowd falls into is the “fixed pie” thinking – since businesses and high income earners are unlikely to move, if you tax them more they will just sit like sheep and take it and pay into the state to fund their myriad social programs. That may be true in the short run and for individuals that are tied to their community, but I guarantee that every wealthy person has an accountant who carefully tells them the negative impact of residing in such a high tax state and the benefits of moving elsewhere on their take-home pay. If they have a choice to invest more in Oregon or go elsewhere, other states look much more inviting. Over time, investment slows, and then there are more and more articles with the sad faced children just like this one, and pleas for the rich to pay their “fair share”.

The problem is, the rich aren’t stupid, and a high state income tax is basically pushing them to invest and live elsewhere, particularly somewhere warm with a tax friendly climate like Nevada, Florida or Texas.

Cross posted at LITGM