Increasing Taxes for the Wealthy Could Spur Growth

The “fiscal cliff” is the single most important problem facing the House of Representatives. Most people considering the economic challenges facing America, believe that reduction of the deficit is critical to our future prosperity. In a recent CNN opinion poll two thirds of people agreed that reduction of the deficit should include a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Even Republicans favor a mixed approach to reduction of the deficit, by an 8 point margin, 52% to 44%.

Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest people in the United States, observes that he should pay a higher tax rate than his secretary, who makes a fraction of what he earns.

Buffett has suggested that there should be a minimum tax of 30% on incomes of 1-10 million, and a flat rate of 35% on any income above 35%.

While it is unclear exactly what plan may eventually be adopted by Congress, Republicans are starting to break ranks.  In the past they have declared that under no circumstances would they be in favor of raising taxes.  Now it appears that they may have been faced with some unforeseen circumstances.  Now some are indicating a willingness to consider raising taxes.   Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Bob Corker of Tennessee  have joined Republican Representatives Peter King of New York, and Scott Rigell of Virginia, in suggesting that they are NOT bound to the Norquist pledge of never raising taxes.

The argument against raising taxes for the wealthy has been that it will thwart economic growth and result in job losses. The reality is that we can no longer afford to watch the deficit grow without attempting to address the amassing of debt. Under any policy proposed by Republicans or Democrats, the rate of capital gains taxes would remain lower than ordinary income tax for the wealthy. Capital gains taxes are those taxes on the sale of stock or assets sold after holding them for one year or longer. Thus there is a common sense argument that because invested income is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income, people with money are more inclined to invest in stock of a company, than a money market or CD that would generate ordinary income.  Thus if a wealthy person had One Million dollars to invest, if it was put in a money market fund or taxable bond fund, it might return 2% on the investment, which would be taxed at ordinary income rates. The income earned on that One Million dollars would be $20,000. If it were taxed at a rate of 38%, the investor would have $12,400 in after-tax dollars to re-invest the following year. If instead that Million dollars was invested  in a new business, if that same Amount of revenue were generated as a result of appreciation of the stock after one year,  it would be taxed at the lower capital gain rate of 15% (rate if nothing changed) to 23% (the proposed new capital gains rate). In that same scenario the investor would have $17,000 to $15,700 to reinvest because his “gain” would be taxed at a lower rate.  Thus the investor would have thousands of dollars more to re-invest if he was taxed at the lower capital gains rate.  The higher the ordinary income rate, the greater the incentive of an investor to put his money into a company, instead of simply putting his money in the bank.

This “common sense” approach has been confirmed by sophisticated economists. In one study, economists confirmed that higher tax rates on the wealthy were associated with higher levels of growth.  As long as “ordinary income” rates for the wealthy stay low, the wealthy are well advised to opt for low risk investments that generate a steady stream of income. The higher the tax rates on ordinary income, the more likely that the investor will take his/her chances by investing in stock or a small business.

The argument could be made that raising taxes on the wealthy will result in less money to invest.  However we have tried lowering taxes with the Bush tax cuts, and we have seen major unemployment and an increasingly large deficit.  It is time to try something else.  A willingness of Congress to raise taxes, as unpopular as that may seem, will give markets a reason to believe again in the willingness of America to tackle its economic problems and will cause people to believe again in the U.S. market.  Investors need to have confidence in America,  or their investments will predictably go to foreign companies and markets.  If only to inspire confidence in the American markets we need a clear message from our Congress that they are willing to take the difficult steps necessary to deal with the fiscal cliff.  Raising taxes on the wealthy would send a message that we are willing to do the difficult work necessary to address the economic problems facing the country.  Restoring confidence in the American economy would undeniably be a first step on the road to recovery.


7 thoughts on “Increasing Taxes for the Wealthy Could Spur Growth

Add yours

  1. It’s time we stopped kidding ourselves about the wealthy being “job creators”. (Maybe for the five Romney sons who can borrow from their parents to start companies!) This is about GREED: corporate and personal GREED.

    Right now corporations are sitting on scads of cash because of so-called “uncertainty” that has more to do with the world economy than whether their companies are going to have to actually pay taxes instead of depending on loopholes they paid Congress to create. Same goes for the 1%: it’s all about fax breaks and loopholes.

    Capitalism in this country is on steroids and has won out over democracy. Those two philosophies are not necessarily in concert.


  2. Thanks for that informative piece; especially the relationship between higher ordinary income tax rates and the wealthy sector’s increased willingness to invest in more risky ventures (companies) that usually create jobs.

    Maintaining the status quo, low ordinary income and capital gains tax rates for the wealthy, also creates jobs. An example is parking cars for Mitt Romney and his cronies during evening country club events. Parking cars is not a demeaning job; however, when a household adult must park cars as a 3rd job to make ends meet, then, the trickle down economic crowd’s argument vindicates the “Horse and Sparrow” theory as mentioned by WIlliam Jennings Bryan at the turn of the 19th century(Bryan didn’t use the word Piss):

    “Trickle Down Economics is the rich pissing on the poor.” – “If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”


  3. Malia ~
    I thought you’d be interested to hear that Romney has re-joined the Board of the Marriott Corp. (head by the Mormon family of Marriotts). No surprise because here’s a quote from Bill Marriott himself citing this incident as proof of how Romney could ‘save’ the country too:
    “Both Mitt and I have summer places up in New Hampshire on Lake Winnipesaukee. And a few summers ago I was taking my grandchildren and children to town in the boat for ice cream. And we got into the docks and they were all full and I looked around, there was no place to park, so we stopped at the end of a dock. They all jumped off and ran up the dock. And I realized there was nobody in the boat to help me dock the boat, handle the ropes, do anything — they just left me out there at sea. So I finally found a place to park after about 20 minutes, and I pulled in, I said, ‘Who’s going to grab the rope?,’ and I looked up and there was Mitt Romney. So he pulled me in, he tied up the boat for me. He rescued me just as he’s going to rescue this great country.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: