Skip to main content

 The tax reform debate today is dominated by the right-wing. The gist of the debate for the last 35 years generally start and stops with: "we need to lower taxes".
   The implication is that lowering taxes is good for the economy, while progressive ideas for taxation are bad for the economy.

  The only real answer of progressives these days is a weak defense of progressive income taxes.

  What is left out of this debate is the lessons from the great economists of history concerning what is good for the economy. And not surprisingly, the progressive ideas for taxation are better for the economy than current conservative ideas.

 This is part three of a series. For earlier editions see Part 1 and Part II.

Morality and taxation

  One of the favorite ideas of conservatives for tax reform is a flat tax. It treats all people and all income the same.
  But is that type of thinking good for society?

  Consider sin taxes. Specifically taxes on cigarettes.
Sin taxes are very popular because society has decided that it doesn't want to encourage this behavior. It's a moral choice.
   This is especially true for cigarettes because the smoker will ultimately develop health problems that will be a burden on society, thus they must pay for those burdens up front.

  Even conservatives have no real problem with this logic. Not only is this a matter of fairness, its also a matter of morality. Sin taxes are both good politics and good economics.
   But for some reason this idea of linking morality and economics never gets further than sin taxes in the current debate of tax reforms. When in fact the entire reason for the creation of the study of economics was for improving society.

Earned and Unearned Income

  It isn't a controversial statement to say that our tax code should encourage productive activities that benefit both the individual and society in general, while punishing activities that have no useful value for society (just like we do with taxing cigarettes).
   Given that statement, consider Adam Smith's statement about landlords:

  As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces.
 The big landlord of Adam Smith's time was a parasite on the economy. Often he never bought the land himself, and instead inherited it from ancestors that acquired it through corruption or murder.
   Now he collects unearned rents by sucking off the surplus of productive members of the economy.
   Adam Smith wasn't alone. David Ricardo, John Stuart Mills, and John Maynard Keynes (who famously predicted the "euthanasia of the rentier") all had great disdain for the big landlord.

  The most famous enemy of the big landlord was economist Henry George.

 I asked a passing teamster, for want of something better to say, what land was worth there. He pointed to some cows grazing so far off that they looked like mice, and said, 'I don't know exactly, but there is a man over there who will sell some land for a thousand dollars an acre.' Like a flash it came over me that there was the reason of advancing poverty with advancing wealth. With the growth of population, land grows in value, and the men who work it must pay more for the privilege.
 George proposed making all land public property, and having a single tax on land in place of all other taxes, thus making wages and investment completely untaxed.

  All the great economists had similar disdain for monopolies.

  To help make a growing economy, you need to discourage the unproductive forces in the economy and encourage the productive. The most direct way of doing that is with the tax code.

   So what is productive? Building things, repairing things, growing things, providing needed services. In other words - actual work. The economy doesn't progress without actual work being done.
  Normally work is compensated with wages. Thus the tax burden on wages should be light.

  So what is unproductive? Collecting rents on things that didn't require work to produce, monopoly pricing, and speculation.
   These are things that should have a punitive tax burden.

  Unfortunately, the tax code today is the opposite of economic common sense.

 A capital gains tax rate (making money off money) that is lower than the earned income rate (making money off work) is just not fair. Bestowing that rate on hedge-fund managers through a specially designed loophole is just not fair. Allowing the rich to take mortgage deductions for second and third homes, or for homes worth over $1 million, is just not fair. Allowing business owners like me to take myriad deductions that our employees cannot take is just not fair. But, most of all, allowing the wealthy to pay very low tax rates while interest on the war debt accumulates, deficits continue, and middle-class incomes deteriorate is just not fair.
It's not just a matter of being unfair, it's also a matter of encouraging unproductive forces in the economy while punishing productive ones. Fairness and good economics are the same in this case.
    The tax rate on capital gains and dividends was recently raised to 20% on the highest tax bracket, while remaining at 15% for the middle and lowest.
    Yet that 20% tax rate for collecting money without producing any actual work is still lower than the income tax rate where people sweat for a living. And who benefits from this unfair and economically backwards tax policy?
A December 29, 2012, New York Times opinion article titled "Why the Economy Needs Tax Reform" states the opposite, noting that "research shows that the [preferential capital gains] tax breaks do not add to economic growth but do contribute to inequality." The top 1 percent of taxpayers receives more than 70 percent of all capital gains, according to the Times.
 Adam Smith could have told you the same thing. So could have Karl Marx, David Ricardo, and John Maynard Keynes.
   In fact, they did. But modern neoclassical economists from the Chicago School are deaf to the most basic and logical facts of economics.

   Conservatives like to argue that taxing capital gains at a lower tax encourages investment. For some reason no one has turned that argument on its head and asked the simple question, "Shouldn't we be encouraging people to work? If so, isn't this an argument for lower taxes on wages than on speculation?"

  Of course the ultimate example of unproductive income is inheritance. Tax returns from Estate Taxes has never been lower. The gift tax exemption is now equal to $5,250,000.

Taking this home

  An even more controversial aspect of the tax code involves the tax break for interest payments.
  Strictly speaking, this is encouraging people to stay in debt.

  You may not want to hear this, but that's insane.
Throughout history debt has always been associated with slavery. No sane society wants its people in debt.
  People in debt are less likely to go on strike or quite their jobs. They are also less likely to move to another part of the country for work if they are tied to a heavy mortgage, which makes a labor force less dynamic.

  This doesn't just stop at mortgages. The tax code is friendly to bonds and other debt instruments. These financial instruments aren't wealth, they are a claim on the economic surplus generated by the productive parts of the economy. By encouraging the proliferation of debt, we are encouraging future debt serfdom.

  The only logical reason the tax code encourages debt is because the financial industry wants it that way.

Obvious choices

   Should America encourage businesses to ship well-paying jobs overseas to out economic competitors? Of course not. That would be insane.
  Yet that is exactly what the tax code does.

 “Firms can generally deduct business expenses,” said Kimberly Clausing, the Thormund A. Miller and Walter Mintz Professor of Economics at Reed College. “Thus, of course, if firms incurred expenses in moving abroad, they would be able to deduct those expenses.”
 And once companies move those jobs overseas, they can indefinitely defer paying taxes on the profits from that overseas venture.

Wrapping this up

   There are more progressive ideas out there, but I wanted to focus on just those that are good for long-term economic growth beyond question. While hiking income taxes on the upper bracket would unquestionably address the inequality issue, it is debatable whether it would help economic growth.
   OTOH, hiking capital gains and estate taxes would both discourage unproductive activities while also addressing the inequality issues.
  Progressives have mostly lost the debate about tax reforms because they can't see beyond the "fairness" issue. What progressives need to do is reclaim the wording of Adam Smith and the other great economists and start using the term "unearned income".
   Once progressives do that, conservatives will have nothing left to debate with.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (13+ / 0-)

    “Wall Street had been doing business with pieces of paper; and now someone asked for a dollar, and it was discovered that the dollar had been mislaid.” ― Upton Sinclair

    by gjohnsit on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:02:14 PM PDT

  •  One suggestion on raising taxes on the wealthy - (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gjohnsit, Simplify, Alumbrados

    I quote:

    While hiking income taxes on the upper bracket would unquestionably address the inequality issue, it is debatable whether it would help economic growth.
    That really depends on how the tax proceeds are used. If they are used for capital investments -such as those raised in a sinking fund- to further employment then, yes, there would be a net boost to economic growth.  And then, that depends on the nature of the capital investment. This measure was the whole premise of the New Deal.

    The "fairness" issue certainly would need to be addressed. How one couches this bit of fiscal policy would require some deft rhetorical skills.

  •  Excellent. I believe this is the first one of (0+ / 0-)

    your diaries I rec'ed, fwiw.   The tax code is a mess for sure but there is little chance it will change very much.

    I propose a "progressive flat tax" as a compromise.

    (A 25% flat tax on all income with a single $25,000 deduction per household.  If you make $24,000 you pay nothing.)

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:27:49 PM PDT

    •  Your compromise (6+ / 0-)

      sort of defeats the purpose of everything I just wrote above.

      “Wall Street had been doing business with pieces of paper; and now someone asked for a dollar, and it was discovered that the dollar had been mislaid.” ― Upton Sinclair

      by gjohnsit on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:30:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, ideally, land and unearned income would (0+ / 0-)

        shoulder the greatest tax burden.  I agree with you 100% on that - the gist of your diary.

        But states own the property tax game as it is and unearned income could be taxed at 100% and still not pay all the bills.

        So we are back to income taxes, unfortunately.

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:34:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Taxes don't pay fed gov bill anyway. You know, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          that whole fiat currency thing, and how the fed gov is the issuer of our, not a user.

          If you had a money making machine, you too wouldn't need to tax in order to spend.

          Or, as the head of the Fed back in 1932 noted:  "Taxes are obsolete in funding the fed gov".

      •  here is a table to support my claim (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Total capital gains (most of unearned income) peak at below $1 trillion but were 1/4 that in the depressed year of 2009.

        Taxing at 50% pays about 20% of our federal budget.

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:50:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Capital gains (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shrike, Alumbrados

          Granted, taxing capital gains alone isn't going to solve the budget problem.
            But that isn't the point.

          We need to reclaim the debate, and to do so we need to reclaim the rhetoric that can win the debate.
             While doing so we also address the issue of fairness and help the economy.

           At least that is the point I tried to get across.

          “Wall Street had been doing business with pieces of paper; and now someone asked for a dollar, and it was discovered that the dollar had been mislaid.” ― Upton Sinclair

          by gjohnsit on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:55:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Fed doesn't have a check book, so can't (0+ / 0-)

          balance one.

          It balances the financial sectors:  Public, Domestic Private and Foreign Trade.  It does so through issuing an fiat currency into the private sector.

        •  Using a fiat currency = the fed gov is not revenue (0+ / 0-)


          Or as Alan Greenspan tried to explain to Paul Ryan:  The US can always pay all it's liabilities, no matter how large.

          Fiat = accounting entries and relies upon the numerical system.

          •  It was done once before (0+ / 0-)

            with the Greenbacks during the Civil War.

             But it's not something you want to get in the habit of doing. Foreign investors won't tolerate it.

              However, these aren't normal times. The debt levels are unpayable, so the solution of the Fed monetizing the debt seems to be a logical solution.

            “Wall Street had been doing business with pieces of paper; and now someone asked for a dollar, and it was discovered that the dollar had been mislaid.” ― Upton Sinclair

            by gjohnsit on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:00:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  No billionaires (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, katiec, Alumbrados

    Then there's the matter of separation of powers as well as checks and balances, in economic terms to match the political.

    Up to a certain level, wealth is freedom: speech, movement, etc. Wealth is also power. Beyond a certain level, wealth is power unaccountable to the rest of the people. Perhaps the level would be that at which one can afford a high-priced lawyer.

    As a matter of fairness and accountability, I don't see why the wealthiest individual should possess more than, being generous, a thousand times that which the median individual possesses. In approximate terms, call it $50,000 versus $50,000,000. Beyond that point, what is society rewarding? Greed, delusions of grandeur, overconsumption... This is especially the case given the limited resources of and environmental impact upon the planet.

    A conservative might say, "Life's not fair." That would be an argument for feudalism. A free and representative society makes life more fair.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:58:57 PM PDT

    •  Yeah if You're Not Preventing Concentration of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gjohnsit, Alumbrados

      wealth it doesn't much matter what else your system accomplishes, because it's only a matter of time till the rich take their country back and run it for themselves.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 04:27:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for a really good diary. We really do need (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to go back to Smith, etc....  and recapture, not just their pragmatism regarding how a democratic enough economy is necessary to maintain a good enough democracy.

  •  I've said it before, and I'll say it again... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm tired of all of these anti-tax freeloaders. They're all the corporate media monopoly listens to, for obvious reasons.

    Also, I make sure I always refer to them as anti-tax freeloaders in conversations with friends and family. It makes them harder to defend and cracks open the overton window enough to at least begin to place doubt and this crap; if the economy itself hasn't already done so.

    Regulated capital serves the people, unregulated capital serves itself.

    by Alumbrados on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:45:26 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site