I just have to hi-jack this WSJ piece on taxation to make sure people read it. It's one of the best and most honest takes on the taxation issue and its history I've ever read-Chip
---------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion
Romain Hatchuel: The Coming Global Wealth Tax
Indebted governments may soon consider a big one-time levy on capital assets.
Dec. 3, 2013 7:15 p.m. ET
Between ObamaCare,
Iran and last quarter's uptick in U.S. economic growth, taxpayers these
days may be distracted from several dangers to come. But households
from the United States to Europe and Japan may soon face fiscal shocks
worse than any market crash. The White House and New York Mayor-elect
Bill de Blasio
aren't the only ones calling for higher taxes (especially on the
wealthy), as voices from the International Monetary Fund to billionaire
investor
Bill Gross
increasingly make the case too.
In
his November investment commentary for bond giant Pimco, Mr. Gross asks
the "Scrooge
McDucks
of the world" to accept higher personal income taxes and to stop
expecting capital to be taxed at lower rates than labor. As for the IMF,
its latest Fiscal Monitor report argues that taxing the wealthy offers
"significant revenue potential at relatively low efficiency costs." The
context for this argument is the IMF's expectation that in advanced
economies the ratio of public debt to gross domestic product will reach a
historic peak of 110% next year, 35 percentage points above its 2007
level.
Getty Images
Between 2008 and 2012, several of the
developed world's most fiscally challenged nations (including the
United Kingdom, Ireland and Spain) increased top personal income tax
rates by an average of 8%. In the United States, the expiration of the
Bush
tax cuts pushed the highest federal income tax bracket to 39.6%
from 35%.
What the IMF calls
"revenue-maximizing top income tax rates" may be a good indication of
how much further those rates could rise: As the IMF calculates, the
average revenue-maximizing rate for the main Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development countries is around 60%, way above existing
levels.
For the U.S., it is 56% to
71%—far more than the current 45% paid in federal, state and local taxes
by those in the top tax bracket. The IMF singles out the U.S. as the
country where raising top rates toward 70% (where they were before the
Reagan tax cuts) would yield the most revenue—around 1.25% of GDP. And
with a chilling candor, the IMF admits that its revenue-maximizing
approach takes no account of the well-being of top earners (or their
businesses).
Taxes can rise in ways
both prominent and subtle. In the United Kingdom, the highly
advantageous "resident non-domiciled" status—requiring wealthy residents
to pay taxes on overseas earnings only if they "remit" the money to the
U.K.—has become much harder to qualify for and more costly after recent
reforms.
In France, President
François Hollande
finally managed to pass a 75% tax on income above one million
euros and now he is seeking to limit the tax benefits of "life insurance
contracts," a long-term savings instrument used by most wealthy
households. As for the uniquely French "impôt sur la fortune,"
taxing those with net worth above 1.3 million euros, it is alive and
well. Japan too is taking steps to increase personal taxation, though it
hasn't yet targeted top earners in particular.
Of
course these measures won't return the world's top economies to
sustainable levels of debt. That could be achieved only through
significant economic growth (the good way) or, as the IMF puts it, "by
repudiating public debt or inflating it away" (the bad way). In October
the IMF floated a bold idea that didn't get the attention it deserved:
lowering sovereign debt levels through a one-off tax on private wealth.
As
applied to the euro zone, the IMF claims that a 10% levy on households'
positive net worth would bring public debt levels back to pre-financial
crisis levels. Such a tax sounds crazy, but recall what happened in
euro-zone country Cyprus this year: Holders of bank accounts larger than
100,000 euros had to incur losses of up to 100% on their savings above
that threshold, in order to "bail-in" the bankrupt Mediterranean state.
Japanese households, sitting on one of the world's largest pools of
savings, have particular reason to worry about their assets: At 240% of
GDP, their country's public debt ratio is more than twice that of Cyprus
when it defaulted.
From New York to
London, Paris and beyond, powerful economic players are deciding that
with an ever-deteriorating global fiscal outlook, conventional levels
and methods of taxation will no longer suffice. That makes weapons of
mass wealth destruction—such as the IMF's one-off capital levy, Cyprus's
bank deposit confiscation, or outright sovereign defaults—likelier by
the day.
Mr. Hatchuel
is managing partner of Square Advisors, LLC, a New York-based asset management firm.
Are you sure you understood the article?
ReplyDeleteDemocrat Anon1 here. Thanks for posting this excellent article Chip Shirley.
ReplyDeleteThanks Dem-A1...!
DeleteSpread the word.....The analysis is right-on and the part I really appreciate is that it directly references the fact that this kind of Tax Policy isn't just 'an idea' or something that only some European nations have, the article makes the point that the USA had this type of Tax Structure prior to the Reagan tax cuts. During our economic 'glory days' from 1940-80 we used these types of tax rates to build out the US Infrastructure and make America profitable for all, rich and poor...The American Dream.
Apparently you people can't read. The article certainly wasn't an endorsement of high taxes.
ReplyDeleteMaybe a reading comprehension course would help.
I realize the author didn't endorse higher taxes, but the article acknowledges some key information that conservative media have airbrushed out in their brainwashing of America. Example, the article proves that...
DeleteA. The rest of the 1st world nations on earth do indeed have far higher tax rates than the US does today...and...
B. The story acknowledges that prior to the Reagan tax slashing, America had much higher rates on the most wealthy than we do today.
Both of these facts are turned on their heads by corporate media lies.
Why is it exactly you'd like to tax people more?
DeleteYour obsession with past tax rates is something. Maybe you should take the time to read up on it.
DeleteEssentially, no one paid those rates.
You need to understand the diference between an actual tax rate, effective tax rate and marginal tax rate.
In the 1950's there were so many loopholes, tax shelters, and deductions ... that no one paid the actual tax rates.
As the deductions were eliminated (Reagan), the rate was also reduced - keeping the effective and marginal rates close to the same as they are now.
Democrat Anon2 here. @Chip Shirley, I'm in support of the Robin Hood tax plan. http://www.winningprogressive.org/support-the-robin-hood-tax
ReplyDeleteI agree. Things have shifted so far to the right for so long, we do need a drastic measure like such a tax to get society back in balance. And to the 'hair on fire' conservatives...No, after of thousands of years of humankind struggling to get out from under monarchs and dictators we are not going to let corporations monopolize our financial structure and enslave us again. If we have to change the system we will, but 'fairness' doesn't have to allow a minority of people to win so big in the casino of capitalism that they own everything and charge whatever 'rent' they want to for 99% of the people on earth to exist.
DeleteThe IMF is talking about taking money AFTER taxes. Money in savings, household wealth appraised and absconded. It won't do anything to lower spending which is the entire cause of the problems. They're talking about massive global redistribution of wealth. Global socialism.
ReplyDeleteDo you guys have brains? You approve of this?
I agree. Things have shifted so far to the right for so long, we do need a drastic measure like such a tax to get society back in balance. And to the 'hair on fire' conservatives...No, after of thousands of years of humankind struggling to get out from under monarchs and dictators we are not going to let corporations monopolize our financial structure and enslave us again. If we have to change the system we will, but 'fairness' doesn't have to allow a minority of people to win so big in the casino of capitalism that they own everything and charge whatever 'rent' they want to for 99% of the people on earth to exist.
DeleteWhat on earth are you talking about? Corporations have no power unless corrupt government gives them power. Understand?
DeleteCorruption happens when someone or something has power over individuals or groups of individuals. That's why you see corruption in police departments but rarely in fire departments.
When government has power over business, business will do what anyone does, looks out for their own interests usually in the form of lobbying and donations. It's this power over business that creates massive corruption inside our government and these corrupt official then use their power to grant favors to big business. Small businesses simply don't have the money or clout to lobby and pay. They're the ones that suffer along with the individual.
In a true free market the consumer has all the power. When government intercedes with regulation favorable to big business we lose all that power. When government essentially controls business it's the people who lose the power of the consumer.
Take green energy ... it's extremely costly, it's inefficient, it kills hundreds of thousands of birds (including raptors) every year, yet government has protected and subsidized it with taxpayer money. The consumer has no choice but use it and pay higher rates. In turn these green energy companies continue to lobby and shower government officials with cash. Look at the battle to save the ethanol industry. It's been subsidized for years and government uses mandates to force people to use it making corn growers rich. These same corn growers want to keep the gravy train going. They don't want to return to growing corn for food subject to market prices. Ethanol by the way, is one reason food prices have skyrocketed. So much is used to produce ethanol that the remainder used for food commands high prices. Thank you corrupt government.
Plus, there is no such thing as capitalism. The free market is simply what free people do. The founders didn't set out to create capitalism, they set out to free people. What you support will reverse not only freedom, but what has freed more people from poverty than any monarchy, dictatorship or Marxist government has ever done.
We haven't gone right ... we have been going left for over a hundred years. If we went right we'd have a small federal government answerable to the people, more power in the states, a free market and government would have much less control over business.
I really think you need to read more objective sources. You're steeped in Marxist thought and your facts have no basis in reality.
Now, if you're a committed socialist or Marxist then I understand where you're coming from ... is that the case?