It’s Time to Put Down Biden’s Dog
Matt Gaetz Hurls Serious Allegations at Speaker McCarthy Over How Shutdown-Averting Bill G...
A Key Dem Provision Was Left Out of the Spending Bill That Prevented...
The GOP Needs to Get Some of These Idiots Off Stage
There's One Dem Senator Holding Up the Vote on the Spending Bill Preventing...
Censure and Expulsion Motions Filed Against Dem Who Pulled Fire Alarm Before Spending...
Shutdown Stunner: House GOP Passes Spending Bill to Keep Government Open
Watch Your Money, Because Other People Sure Are
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 185: What the Hebrew Bible Says About Fire
And Lead Us Not Into Temptation
Culture Is Declaring War on Children and Families, Where Is the Church?
Walking Alone In New York City In 2023 Is a Dangerous Crapshoot
Illegal Immigrant Bites Off Police Sergeant’s Finger After Arrest
Biden's Green New Scam Is Coming For More Than Just Your Gas Powered...
Rep. Jamaal Bowman Accused of Pulling Fire Alarm As Democrat Lawmakers Try to...
OPINION

Did Obama Doze Off in Tax Class?

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Did Barack Obama take Tax 1 in law school? I did, and I remember the first day of classes, when mild mannered Professor Boris Bittker asked a simple question, "What is income?"
Advertisement

I was pretty confident I could come up with a quick answer, and so were a lot of other students. By the end of the hour, after Professor Bittker had politely punched huge holes in every student's definition, it was pretty clear that none of us could. Income is a slippery concept -- especially slippery when you're trying to tax it.

Which leads me to think that Obama may have avoided Tax 1. Or perhaps he dozed off in class. For in his April 13 speech at George Washington University, the speech to which Standard & Poor's responded by reducing the government's credit rating to "negative," he seemed to think he could get all the money we need to balance the budget from higher taxes on the rich.

That's wrong as a matter of simple arithmetic, as is clear from a chart reproduced on the Wall Street Journal editorial page showing the total amounts of taxable income of each group.

The chart showed that if the government had simply confiscated every dollar from those reporting more than $1 million taxable income in 2008, it would not have gotten the $1.3 trillion needed to close the current federal budget deficit.

What the chart doesn't show, however, is even more important. And that is that when you reduce income tax rates, high earners have more taxable income. When you raise them, they have less.

High earners don't sit around waiting to have their money confiscated any more than chickens sit around and let you pluck out all their feathers. They pursue other options.

Advertisement

This is most obvious when you think about capital gains. The federal government doesn't try to tax capital gains -- the increase in values of your stocks or your house -- every year (Professor Bittker had us in knots explaining how it might do this). You pay capital gains on a stock or house only in the year you sell it.

What happens if the capital gains tax goes up from 15 percent to 50 percent? People stop selling stocks and hold onto their houses if they possibly can. And when cap gains rates go down? They're more willing to sell, pay the lower tax and invest in something else.

That's why the government's total revenues from capital gains have tended to rise when the capital gains tax rate is lowered. And why increases in the capital gains tax rate never raises the amount of revenues static models estimate it will.

You get the same effect, to a lesser extent, when you change tax rates on ordinary income. People working for minimum wage don't have many options about how they'll be paid. High earners tend to have more options.

If you go back to the 1970s, when the top rates were 50 percent on salary income and 70 percent on investment income, you'll find that a lot of high earners were getting company cars, company payment of country club dues and big expense accounts.

The reason: They didn't have to declare those things as income and pay taxes on them. But when rates went down, there was no demand for company-paid perks any more.

Advertisement

You would find also, if you spent time with those 1970s high earners, that they spent a lot of time and psychic energy in finding tax shelters -- investments that thanks to the intricacies of tax law reduced the amount of taxable income.

After the Ronald Reagan tax cuts, we saw a vast increase in high earners' taxable income. One reason, I suspect, was that they spent less time seeking tax shelters and more time figuring out how to make profitable investments.

There's a reason federal tax revenues since World War II have hovered around 18 or 19 percent of gross domestic product, regardless of tax rates. The reason is that higher rates tend to result in less taxable income. You figure out why in Tax 1.

But perhaps Barack Obama understands this. In 2008, he told ABC's Charlie Gibson that he wanted to raise capital gains rates even if the government got less revenue because of "fairness." Evidently he likes taking people's money away. What he doesn't explain is why this makes anyone better off.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos