FDR’s Tax Secret

From FEE, Myths of the New Deal:

In 1929, the income tax only affected the top 2 percent of earners; they paid almost $1.1 billion in income taxes that year. Excise taxes, which were mainly imposed on tobacco, were less than half that, or $539 million. In other words, if you didn’t smoke and you were not a corporate officer, what money you earned was yours to keep.

During the 1930s (starting under Hoover and expanded by FDR), a host of new excise taxes were passed on such popular consumer items as alcoholic beverages, movie tickets, telephone calls, bank checks, telegrams, gasoline, cars, car tires, and even grape concentrates. In 1936, after FDR helped raise the top income-tax bracket to 79 percent, the revenue collected from income taxes dropped to $674 million, as rich investors withdrew their capital from taxable investments. The excise taxes, which hit the middle- and lower-income groups with full force, were over $1.5 billion. These new excise taxes, much more than income taxes, were helping fund the New Deal programs. In other words, the “forgotten man” who pumped gas into his car and drove it to a theater to smoke a cigarette and watch a movie paid four new taxes (and one old one) to pay the WPA worker in Chicago to build a bridge and the wheat farmer in Kansas to take his land out of circulation (so that the farmer could then receive a higher price for wheat, which translated into more expensive bread for the “forgotten man”).




The Dirty Little Secret of Tax Policy

From National Review,  Charlie Cooke’s The Democrats Have a Tax Problem:

As any economist will tell you, the dirty little secret of taxing-and-spending is that the real money lies in the middle. In England, the 40 percent income-tax rate kicks in at £50,271 ($63,321) for single filers, and it is supplemented by a value-added tax (VAT) on almost all consumer products that has risen over time to an astonishing 20 percent. In the United States, there is no 40 percent income-tax rate at the federal level, and the 37 percent bracket — the highest one we have — applies only once individuals have earned $578,126. If the United States is to adopt the social programs that the Democrats insist they covet, this will have to change dramatically.

HKO

This is the biggest lie perpetuated from the left; that our vast social spending can be funded by only taxing the wealthiest 1%. The math just does not work. As Thatcher so famously noted, “You eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Even FDR funded much of his spending with excise taxes on the middle class.




Peter Has Options

I had a letter in the weekend WSJ responding to Rahm Emanuel’s article earlier in the week:

Not Every Quintile Pays its Fair Share

Rahm Emanuel is correct when he claims the Republicans have lost credibility on taxes (“Why the GOP has Gone Quiet Over Tax Hikes,” op-ed, May 17), but he perpetuates two tax myths of the left. The first is the failure to distinguish statutory from actual tax rates. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 lowered the top statutory tax rate from 39.6% (married filing jointly) to 37%, but by limiting the SALT (state and local tax) deductions to $10,000 sharply reduced the largest deduction for most wealthy taxpayers, effectively increasing the actual taxes paid. Democrats arguing to restore the SALT deductions are now seeking to cut taxes for the wealthy.

The second myth is far more insidious: that we can support endless expensive programs by only taxing the top 1%. The math doesn’t work. The Europeans understand that broad social programs require much higher taxes on the middle class. The polls are meaningless. When you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on Paul’s approval, but you cannot count on Peter to remain cooperative. Peter has options.

Henry Oliner

Macon, Ga.

HKO

The other letters on the article are also worth reading.




Endless Tax Wars

The Great Tax Wars by Steven Weisman (2002) is a history of the establishment of the income tax in America. It is very well written, very readable and an excellent component of the development of the progressive political movement.

We take the income tax for granted, but during the period of its enactment it was controversial and a challenge to the core of American values. Our nation was originally financed by tariffs intended to be just high enough to fund the necessary cost of government. As an agrarian nation few worked for salaries and the means to identify and tax income on a national or individual basis was not available. The Constitution also distinguished direct taxes from indirect taxes, requiring direct taxes to be equally proportioned among the citizens of a state, making an income tax very difficult to execute.

As agriculture became centralized into wealthier hands and as the railroads opened up vast new markets for industrial goods, we experienced significant economic growth and a growth in inequality. Tariffs became more than a means of financing the government; it became a means of protecting American industry and farm production. Tariffs were high enough for the national government to run significant surpluses during much of the 19th century even during recurring recessions and panics. Industrialists lobbied for high tariffs claiming to protect American jobs, but it also protected their profits.

The expansion of valuable markets from the railroads and the protection of profits through high tariffs means that the growing wealthy class were paying disproportionately less to the financing of the government than the middle class and poor.

Coming off of Panic of 1857, the Union faced difficulty financing the war in the South. Lincoln implemented our first income tax in 1862; 3% on incomes over $600 a year and 5% on incomes over $10,000. It also taxed inheritances, liquor and tobacco, banks, and it established the Internal Revenue Service. The South also instituted an income tax and found it difficult to apply and collect fairly especially as their currency rapidly depreciated.

The tax was considered a war time necessity and was removed in 1870. For the next twenty years the country grew, and the wealthy grew even more; many from profits generated to finance and supply the war. The rise of populism viewed the tariffs as an issue of social justice; the poor were paying higher prices from the tariffs that made the industrial class wealthy while the wealthy class of the Gilded Age paid relatively little toward the financing of the government.

An income tax bill was passed in 1893, but was declared unconstitutional in 1895 because in the judgment of the court it did not comply with the conditions of a direct tax allowed in the constitution. The opposition in Congress made the push for a graduated income tax about a war on the wealth of the successful and an attack on the American entrepreneurial spirit. Efforts to roll back tariffs fell flat.

The populist sentiment for a more equitable sharing of the cost of government remained and in 1909 Congress passed a proposal for the 16th Amendment to authorize an income tax, which was ratified in 1913. Nelson Aldrich and other opponents voted for the proposal, feeling safe that it would never be ratified.

Once ratified, Woodrow Wilson quickly signed a bill to reduce tariffs and replace the revenue with an income tax. Lower tariffs dramatically dropped the cost of living. The income tax only affected 3% of the populated and was graduated with the highest rate of 7% on income over $500,000. Still the wealthy were outraged on the idea of graduated rate and the assault on private wealth.

By 1920 Wilson had escalated the top rate to 77% to finance the American cost of WW I. In one of the greatest landslides in American history Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge came into office facing one our worst Depressions in 1920. We recovered in less than two years and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon serving under Calvin Coolidge led multiple tax cuts dropping the top rate to 25%. By 1930 only 2% of Americans filed income taxes which provided a third of the revenue. Another third came from corporate taxes and the rest came from tariffs and fees.

Once the graduated income tax was accepted it became inscribed in a tug of war between justice and virtue; how to fairly allocate the cost of government without quelling the animal spirits we need for innovation and economic growth.

Our tax system has become mired in complexity, credits and deductions; often driven more by social engineering than either justice or virtue. The difference between the statutory rates and the actual rates paid can become significant obscuring much of the necessary clarity we need to properly discuss tax policy. Social justice too often descends into class warfare.

A century past the acceptance of the graduated income tax, income and wealth inequality is still a divisive issue although it is measured quite differently; we are more concerned with relative inequality than absolute poverty. The lack of any bipartisan consensus on tax policy means that rates can change dramatically between administrations, diminishing the effectiveness at either raising revenue or stimulating economic growth. Wealth adjusts for political reality rather than effective allocation.

Our biggest challenge is an endless appetite for government spending and an unwillingness and inability to raise taxes enough to support it. The idea that infinite spending can be supported by a small percentage of taxpayers defies basic math and principles of human action. This has caused record deficits and a belief that deficits do not matter and that tradeoffs are no longer required.

No matter how we tax or how much we tax, an unrestrained democracy will find a way to spend more than it takes in and will find rationalizations to both justify and obscure it.




Peter’s Wall

From Kevin Williamson at National Review, Elizabeth Warren’s Financial Berlin Wall:

The cynical among us might also suspect that the proposal, which will produce a great deal of angst and wailing, is intended to produce a great deal of angst and wailing, which will distract from the fact that if there is anything to be learned from the Scandinavian example it is that putting a Scandinavian-style welfare state on stable fiscal footing requires Scandinavian levels of taxation. And that would mean imposing a radical tax increase on the American middle class: Sweden’s top income-tax rate, about 57 percent, kicks in at around $70,000. Its second-highest rate, about 52 percent, kicks in at less than $50,000. A U.S. taxpayer with the equivalent income currently pays a marginal federal income-tax rate of about 13 percent.

The American people, or at least some of them, are currently in thrall to a vicious, envy-driven ideology that says certain rich people “should not exist.” Italy is inviting them to go right on existing, preferably in Italy, where they’ll be good for 100,000 euros a year in tax. If the United States were not governed by morons, and if our political culture were not effectively suicidal, we might one-up the Europeans’ offerings. Sanremo is lovely, but there are more business opportunities, and more opportunities of other kinds, in the United States. Our Democratic friends are awfully solicitous of low-income illegal immigrants but increasingly hostile to the high-income legal ones. Whatever that’s about, it isn’t about the national balance sheet and making sure that there’s enough revenue to fund needful federal programs.

HKO

When you rob Peter to pay Paul you can count on Paul’s approval, but you can also count on Peter moving to another more friendly place.  When you try to build a wall to keep Peter in, you also discourage Peters from moving here, and you encourage young and enterprising Peters to move away BEFORE they become wealthy enough to be worth robbing. Disturbing the free flow of capital is a sure path to secondary economic status.

Warren’s policy is as destructive of our long term financial health as any policy we can imagine, and she is a leading contender for the nomination of her party.




Elizabeth Warren’s Wall

From Kevin Williamson at National Review, Elizabeth Warren’s Financial Berlin Wall:

Walls have ideological purposes. The infamous one in Berlin was, officially, the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall, the “anti-fascist protection wall.” Senator Warren’s wall is, in theory, about “inequality.” But that is really hardly plausible as a rationale. “Inequality” simply refers to the financial distance between x and y, and reducing that inequality would be as effectively achieved by improving incomes and savings at the lower end rather as by reducing incomes and diminishing savings elsewhere. But that’s a rather trickier proposition than sticking a gun in somebody’s face and saying, “Hand it over.” Which is, of course, what Elizabeth Warren proposes to do.

For what? Some trivial sum in federal tax revenue? No — for the joy of it. For the pleasure of exercising power. For vindictiveness. Elizabeth Warren’s Berlin Wall will not make one poor person in the United States any better off. It might make Elizabeth Warren better off, but she’s far from poor.

HKO

Warren uses ‘rich people’ as a scapegoat in the same way the classical bigots of history used religious and ethnic  vulnerable minorities and the ‘others’.  It is a form of intellectual bigotry and is clouded in the same lethal combination of ignorance and dishonesty.