Over my coffee this morning, I read the following headline on the front page of The New York Times: "Complaints Aside, Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in the Reagan ’80s." Below it was a graphic comparing average tax rates for various income groups in 1980 and 2010.
The problem is that Reagan did not become president until January 1981, and his tax policy was not fully implemented until a couple of years later (and arguably not until his second term, when we got very significant tax reform). So the headline should have read, "Complaints Aside, Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in Carter's 1980." That makes the story very different, as 1980 was the year the incumbent Carter was defeated by the challenger Reagan, who was proposing significant tax reduction as a key part of his campaign.
By the way, the online version of The Times omits the mention of Reagan in the headline. There, the headline is the more accurate "Complaints Aside, Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in 1980."
Addendum: Using the Times online interactive graphic, you can compare the average tax rates between any two years. Here, by income level, is how the average tax rate changed from 1988, Reagan's last year in office, to 2010, the most recent year available.
0 to 25K, fell by 4 percentage points
25 to 50K, fell by 3 percentage points
50 to 75K, fell by 2 percentage points
75 to 100K, fell by 2 percentage point
100 to 125K, fell by 1 percentage point
125 to 150K, fell by 1 percentage point
150 to 200K, unchanged
200 to 350K, rose by 2 percentage point
350K+, rose by 1 percentage point
That is, according to the Times numbers, since Reagan left office, tax rates have risen at the top and fallen for the middle class and especially the poor.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Quick Movie Reviews
Over the last week, I saw two of the movies that critics have been raving about: Lincoln and Argo. Lincoln was okay but a bit disappointing compared to expectations. It is too hagiographic for my taste. Argo was great.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
The Coming Tax Hikes
Donald Marron of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center explains the tax increases that are part of the upcoming fiscal cliff.
Dividing Household Chores
Advice from economist Emily Oster. A good reading to assign when teaching the theory of comparative advantage.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Michael Sandel and His Critics
My Harvard colleague Michael Sandel has been getting a lot of attention lately with his book What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. To get a flavor of the debate, read
Monday, November 26, 2012
A Master of Tax Avoidance
Warren Buffett has an op-ed in today's NY Times on one of his most popular themes: The rich should pay more in taxes. At first blush, his position seems noble: A rich guy says that people like him should pay more to support the commonweal. But on closer examination, one realizes that Mr Buffett never mentions doing anything to eliminate the tax-avoidance strategies that he uses most aggressively. In particular:
1. His company Berkshire Hathaway never pays a dividend but instead retains all earnings. So the return on this investment is entirely in the form of capital gains. By not paying dividends, he saves his investors (including himself) from having to immediately pay income tax on this income.
2. Mr Buffett is a long-term investor, so he rarely sells and realizes a capital gain. His unrealized capital gains are untaxed.
3. He is giving away much of his wealth to charity. He gets a deduction at the full market value of the stock he donates, most of which is unrealized (and therefore untaxed) capital gains.
4. When he dies, his heirs will get a stepped-up basis. The income tax will never collect any revenue from the substantial unrealized capital gains he has been accumulating.
To be sure, there are pros and cons of changing the provisions of the tax code of which Mr Buffett takes advantage. Tax policy always involves difficult tradeoffs. But it seems odd to me that whenever Mr Buffett talks about taxing the rich more, the "loopholes" that he uses never seem to enter into the conversation.
1. His company Berkshire Hathaway never pays a dividend but instead retains all earnings. So the return on this investment is entirely in the form of capital gains. By not paying dividends, he saves his investors (including himself) from having to immediately pay income tax on this income.
2. Mr Buffett is a long-term investor, so he rarely sells and realizes a capital gain. His unrealized capital gains are untaxed.
3. He is giving away much of his wealth to charity. He gets a deduction at the full market value of the stock he donates, most of which is unrealized (and therefore untaxed) capital gains.
4. When he dies, his heirs will get a stepped-up basis. The income tax will never collect any revenue from the substantial unrealized capital gains he has been accumulating.
To be sure, there are pros and cons of changing the provisions of the tax code of which Mr Buffett takes advantage. Tax policy always involves difficult tradeoffs. But it seems odd to me that whenever Mr Buffett talks about taxing the rich more, the "loopholes" that he uses never seem to enter into the conversation.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Response to Diamond and Saez
In a widely discussed recent paper, Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez have suggested that the top tax rate should be very high--about 73 percent. Tax Notes has a new commentary on their conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)