Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Punishing ‘Extreme Business Success’: Who Does That Help?
The most compelling feature of Bernie Sanders’ wealth tax proposal is that it makes Elizabeth Warren’s seem a bit less unreasonable. The Sanders tax is a graduated levy that reaches 10 percent for fortunes over $10 billion vs. the Warren plan’s 2 percent tax on assets $50 million and an added percentage point for wealth over $1 billion. Assuming each tax has been in place since the 1980s, here’s how they would have impacted America’s richest people, according to economist Gabriel Zucman:
Now that’s what I call static analysis. All else equal — even when implementing a massive new tax on wealth creation, including entrepreneurial fortunes? Really? Would nothing else be meaningfully different about the career arcs of the founders of Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and Google if they operated under such a taxation scheme?
In a paper on the Warren wealth tax, Zucman and fellow economist Emmanuel Saez are dismissive on any unintended consequences for American high-impact entrepreneurship. They explain that a wealth tax “would reduce the financial payoff to extreme cases of business success” but dispute there would be any loss of “socially valuable innovation.” A wealth tax would really only hurt wealthy owners who have already built businesses and are worried merely about “protect[ing] their dominant positions by fighting new competition.” The assumptions here are plentiful and tightly packed, including the idea that America’s tech titans are no longer innovating and merely trying to preserve market share by squashing rivals.
Moreover, what is the policy failure, exactly, when the story of wealth inequality is largely one of housing inequality? As I wrote earlier this year, “Is the solution legally suspect and administratively challenging wealth taxes or tackling land-use regulations that deter housebuilding and generate fat returns for homeowners? Granted, the latter provides much less cathartic punch for those in need of such emotional release.”
Why take the risk to growth when it’s not clear what problem the wealth tax solves? Do we not want more cases of “extreme business success” as Saez and Zucman put it? Why would we want to do anything to discourage such a phenomenon from occurring? And is there not good reason to think taxes do matter for innovation and high-impact entrepreneurship?
And as I also wrote earlier this year, “A wealth tax also seems out of step with a business-admiring nation, especially wealth generated by building a company that successfully delivers goods and products that people greatly value.” This isn’t plutocratic rhetoric. This sort of societal signaling matters. Economist and historian Deirdre McCloskey writes thusly: “The modern world was made by a slow-motion revolution in ethical convictions about virtues and vices, in particular by a much higher level than in earlier times of toleration for trade-tested progress — letting people make mutually advantageous deals, and even admiring them for doing so, and especially admiring them when, Steve Jobs-like, they imagine betterments.” And get wildly rich in the process.
For more on wealth inequality, please check out this recent AEIdeas online symposium on the subject.
Published in Economics
How were these numbers actually calculated?…Did he just take the assets owned by these individuals in each year and multiply it by 2% or 5% or whatever number applied? If so, the analysis is wrong, because the amount compounding in each year has been reduced, and this will have a major effect over time.
This seems so obvious that the question shouldn’t even need to be asked, but I’ve seen a lot of shabby analyses by supposedly-qualified people in recent years.
Also: Even if the analysis was done correctly in a narrow sense, it does not consider the economy-wide impact of the money which would *not* have been invested in new and growing companies by these individuals.
Progs seem to think that money is kept by wealthy individuals in large piles of currency, a la Scrooge McDuck.
Not to mention the fact that super-wealthy people always seem to have a thousand ways of dodging such taxes. Despite Bill Gates’ supposed desire to pay more in taxes, there is no way in hell he would allow nearly 90% of his wealth to have been confiscated in such a socialist scheme.
Another factor is that often, their primary wealth is on paper. A stock certificate might have a face value of $.01 and trade on the market at $100. So, is that $160 billion? Or for tax purposes, is it a mere $16 million? There are always ways to get out of these things.
It is basically a tax on capital.
They do not see, or hope the voters do not understand, the disastrous effects which would result from removing hundreds of billions of dollars from the working economy (e.g. paying salaries and income taxes) and transferring it to the non-productive government.
If only there were a legislative body that could write laws to prevent unfair competition.
Not to mention the foundations not founded, and benevolence not benevolented.
I can tell you who these taxes help. There’s only one group: the envious.
Obviously, any heavy wealth tax (>1%) would result in disappearance of all wealth from US jurisdiction. Overnight, there would be flight of money and the US would look like Venezuela.
A thought experiment for Bernie and socialists. Assume that your goal for an economy is maximizing the long-term prosperity for the typical citizen. Prosperity comes solely from productivity. Productivity comes from innovative use of capital. Thus, the goal depends on maximizing the innovative use of capital. Who best to direct the use of capital? Technocrats? Bureaucrats? No. The clear solution is to have a contest to see who can demonstrate the best use of capital and then put those people in charge of managing all the capital. In the end, you have our current system with greatest prosperity creators controlling *lots* of capital.
What’s really interesting here is that the tax revenue generated would be under a trillion dollars. Like 800-900 billion, in the most extreme example.
So we’d be at $21 trillion in debt vs. $22 trillion in debt now. Oh. OK. That seems totally worth it.
Just noted that we’re now servicing debt at 9% of our annual federal budget. That’s almost 3X what it was just a short time ago, I’d have to look but I think it was around 4-5% under Obama and Bush, but it creeps up annually as the debt grows.
If 65% of the budget is non-discretionary, and 10% is debt service, everything else becomes vanishingly small, in terms of what we have discretion to spend on. It’s just going to get worse, faster.
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail
Oh, and Sanders is a leech.
Apologies to leeches, everywhere.
Shhhh. Don’t tell anybody. We’re not supposed to notice.
That is why envy is a sin, and one of the Ten Commandments bars covetousness.
Your chart is wrong. They’d all be worth zero now.
<snark on> That assumption might be beyond Bernie’s capability and imagination. <snark off>
More seriously, I think long-term prosperity truly is not a goal for socialists. I think “equality” truly is a higher priority goal than prosperity. I have read of surveys in which socialists explicitly choose lower income disparity and lower median income as a better outcome than higher median income that comes with higher income disparity.
Nancy Pelosi is a perfect example of how hard it is to ascertain actual wealth and liquidity:
When wealth is measured in real estate, valuations have to be on the cautious conservative side. That’s why there is such a wide variation in how her wealth is reported–it’s somewhere between $29 million and $120 million.
(Looking at this today for the first time in a while, I’m wondering if she had to put all of her holdings in blind trust accounts the way Congress made Trump do. :-) )
Others have pointed out the economic implications of the tax here. What definitely stands out to me is that it is hard to measure the counterfactual– of money moving from being invested and creating tons of innovation and wealth to money being given to people who will spend it or save it. Redistribution will most likely make some politically popular subsection of poor people immediately better off in the short run. But will lead to less overall growth, leaving all but the rich less well off in the intermediate and long run. Though I doubt the economy will crash or anything.
For me, the big issue is the political effects and its connection to the economy. Once you get a new transfer program or a new spending program we 1) won’t be able to end it– we will ratchet upwards the expectation for baseline income/consumption and we 2) will create an incentive to compete over who can give out even more. Whatever a family making over 30% of the poverty line gets under Pres Warren or Sanders will not be enough come midterms or their reelection. We will need to do more. And cutting the program will be tantamount to killing people or something. So this is an economic and political nightmare.
I believe we should have a wealth tax on members of Congress – 90% of the amount their net worth increases each year beyond the amount of their salary.
As I recall, this type of tax was used to ransom Richard the Lionhearted. The government went into everyone’s house and seized 1/4 of their wealth, as measured in movable property. If you lacked the cash (and many did back then) they seized good: 1/4 of your chairs, dishes, spoons, knives, bed linen, clothing, etc.
So the best you can say about this proposal is that it is literally (not the Joe Biden literally, but in reality, literally) a medieval idea.
More proof of my assertion that Progressivism is about reviving feudalism and returning us to the Middle Ages.
I don’t disagree with Mr. Pethokoukis, as far as his argument goes, but he does not make a moral argument at all. The argument that “immorality leads to good results” is not very persuasive.
The moral argument is “thou shalt not steal.”
Even this argument cannot be taken too far, as I do believe that some taxation is both necessary and legitimate. It seems to me that the moral line is crossed with the welfare state idea that some people should be taxed not to provide legitimate public goods, but to provide money, goods, or services directly to others.
Actually, the chart is wrong because it purports to list the richest Americans, and it’s a safe bet most of these people would have ceased to be Americans in Liz or Bernies’ world.
I hate the very concept of discretionary spending at the federal level – like they’re teenagers who require walking-around money