Wealthy in America-Inequality in America; where is the ROI? Higher taxes on the “wealthy” is a losing strategy

A favorite theme of today’s politicians is income inequality; not paying ones fair share, etc. However, inequality has been with all societies since time began. Inequality is not necessarily bad and can result simply from the high achievements of a relatively few in a society. This is not unfair as long as the successful have not intentionally prevented the mass of people from achieving success. For example, through unfair taxation or poor educational opportunity.

In a society such as in the U.S. opportunity abounds regardless of how difficult ones situation may be as the result of circumstances of birth. Some people rise above their circumstances to amazing heights, some rise modestly, some plod along and some do nothing positive, what’s new?

Economically - Challenged & illiterate .. CIA ...

Today we focus on the taxes paid by the rich; billionaires such as Warren Buffett claim they pay too little because most, if not all, of their income is taxed at capital gains or dividend rates. While true that those rates result in a low effective tax rate for the super wealthy, that argument seems to ignore the many government transfers and credits applicable to the majority of Americans. Various tax credits and deductions are unavailable or are limited for higher income (starting in some cases around $80,000 in annual income) Americans. If circumstances such as the number of children one decides to have can result in no income tax payable, how is it unfair that income invested (already taxed once) and at risk is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income?

Higher income (far below millionaires and billionaires) Americans are limited in their tax advantages in many ways such as the taxation of Social Security benefits, higher Medicare premiums, limited IRA contributions, the alternative minimum tax, the estate tax (which the new Obama budget wants to raise to 45%), limited retirement benefits and 401(k) contributions, several new taxes under the Affordable Care Act including a new 3.8% tax on unearned income such as taxable profit from selling a home and more.

Virtually every tax advantaged program passed by Congress contains limitations or exclusions applicable to higher income individuals. In other words our tax system goes out of its way to benefit the non wealthy which is one of the reasons nearly 50% of Americans pay no income tax. Despite this, we are besieged with criticism of the 1% and far lower who, according to our President, don’t pay their fair share.

We struggle even defining wealthy. Is it income or is it assets and net worth? Is the senior citizen living on Social Security and a modest pension wealthy? What if he has accumulated $500,000 in savings and investments and has a fully paid home worth $400,000? Many government transfer programs ignore such assets when defining eligibility. One could easily have a half million dollars in net worth and still avoid taxation of Social Security and higher Medicare premiums. Is that fair?

Is it fair a man can be married three times, be divorced twice and each of those ex and current wives receive his Social Security benefit based on his earnings alone? Not only do higher income people (again, far from millionaires) pay Medicare payroll taxes on all of their wage income, they pay higher Medicare Premiums, while the taxes they pay on their Social Security benefits also pay for a portion of Medicare.

Should higher income people pay more to their government and get less, ok that’s a fair argument. But what is not fair is claiming the successful in America are not now paying their fair share.

If you are poor or low-income and have lived your life accordingly, you have received a disproportional amount of wealth transfer (not to mention access to hundreds of government programs designed to improve your education and lift you out of poverty) and will continue to do so in old age. If you are middle-income, you should remain middle-income in retirement and if you are higher income the same holds true. You lived your life, made your choices, reaped the rewards or suffered the consequences.

And who are these wealthy Americans? We all know about the Wall Street crowd, hedge fund managers, and CEOs, but what about the small business owners, the cop and teacher whose combined income puts them over the limit for many government transfers? Do we think of the prudent middle-income couple who have paid off their mortgage and accumulated a nice nest egg or the government worker with a generous pension and health benefits, plus 403b plan? Probably not.
Frankly it doesn’t bother me that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than I do or that I pay a higher effective tax rate than the majority of Americans. What bothers me is that the politicians have framed the discussion so Americans believe that being fair means taxing the “wealthy” more so that mismanaged government programs and unrealistic promises made by politicians can be partially paid for. That is a losing strategy for all of us.  What we should be asking is what have we gotten for our investment in government programs since the War on Poverty in the 1960s. Why haven’t all the programs in the last fifty years closed the income gap from the bottom up?

2 comments

  1. Shouldn’t the discussion about inequality be about removing barriers from all Americans who wish to pursue their dreams? One hundred fifty years or so ago, deToqueville (sp?) suggested what made American great/different was that you could re-invent yourself here. My brothers (small business owners) both tell me that is highly unlikely today given all the regulatory burdens.

    Regardless, I haven’t yet figured out how increasing taxes on higher income Americans, mostly wage-earners, will solve any inequality issue where the money is primarily spent on entitlements for older Americans.

    In my local newspaper yesterday, on the front page, there was an article titled: Culture Shift: Single Moms a new normal. There, they mentioned that: “…nearly two thirds of U.S. children are born to mothers younger than age 30… (and) By the mid-1990’s, …A third of Americans were born outside marriage… now the figure is 41% – 53% for children born to women younger to age 30. … One group still largely resists the trend: College graduates overwhelmingly marry before having children (92% are married when they first give birth).

    Later, in the same paper, Clarence Page, on the opinion page, wrote an opinion titled “education gap threatens nation” “The black-white achievement gap is a terrible travesty in this country, Amy Wilkins an Education Trust vice president told NPR’s Talk of the Nation after the latest university studies were released. But now, she said: “We have to pay as much attention to the income gap as we have to the race gap.”

    We often search diligently to find causality in wellness programs and elsewhere in our search for benefit and other solutions. I doubt any proposal with respect to income inequality will be sufficient to overcome the headwind of single motherhood. Could Dan Quayle have gotten it right oh so many years ago – I shudder the thought?!

    Like

  2. I can’t say I disagree with anything written above but unfortunately it’s a loosing argument. The word “FAIR” is a subjective term. It means different things to different people. To most people, wealthy means anyone who makes or has more than they do.”FAIR” is a favorite in the lexicon of populists and demagogues. You wont find “FAIR” in books on economics, for that you need to go down the hall to the philosophy department. Class war like any other kind of war always is the least desirable form of conflict resolution with more loses than gains but is a favorite with demagogues when it will forward their agenda.

    Like

Leave a Reply