5 ms·

> This seems like a pretty poor argument for a flat tax and in fact could be seen as an argument against it. If raising top end bracket taxes didn't increase ov

> This seems like a pretty poor argument for a flat tax and in fact could be seen as an argument against it. If raising top end bracket taxes didn't increase overall income, then it must be the case that it reduced the tax burden on lower incomes -- which is the entire point of progressive taxes. So progressive taxes work, let's keep them! Not necessarily. That would be true if the absolute $$$ collected were the same, but that's not what is asserted. Consider the following: 10 people earn $10 and pay $1 in tax. 10 people earn $20 and pay $5 tax. The total tax collected is 20% of all income. Suppose the government raises tax rates such that the $20 earners will now pay $8 tax. Say 4 of the high earners stop working as much (since their marginal rates are so high). Now you've got: 14 people earn $10 and pay $1. 6 people earn $20 and pay $8 tax. The government now collects 24% of all income. It also collects a higher proportion from the lower income people than it did before. It has lower revenues and people are, on average, poorer. In other words, everyone loses. So you can't just look at effective tax rates to determine whether raising top end tax brackets was good or not.

extra88 10y ago
In scenario 1, government collects $60 from $300 earned (20%). In scenario 2, government collects $62 from $260 earned (~24%). In scenario 2, government has higher revenue, not lower. If high earners had to exert themselves twice as much or otherwise expend twice the resources to earn $20 instead of $10, maybe ending up with $9 instead of $12 would be rational. Of course in the real world it rarely works that way, only a few are in a position to work less to earn fewer commissions or work less overtime to avoid entering a higher tax bracket. The brackets are also a lot more graduated, it's not like you could earn $19 and pay $1 tax.
- djrogers 10y ago
  Except in scenario 1 the person earning $300 has $40 extra to spend or invest somewhere which is good for the economy. Eventually someone else will wind up paying $8 tax on that $40 (20%)...
rqebmm 10y ago
> Say 4 of the high earners stop working as much (since their marginal rates are so high). I know you're just using this as an example, but it begs a question I've struggled with: is there any actual proof that marginal tax rates reduce productivity in high earners? On its face it makes perfect micro-economic sense, but that's like saying a cache will never miss or a cow is perfectly spherical. It just doesn't match up with real life experience. I've never once heard someone say "well, I'd ask for that raise, but they're going to take so much in taxes it's just not worth the effort". Anecdotally it hasn't changed my motivations one lick as I've moved up tax brackets, to the point that I recently joked with my dad "I guess I'm done trying now!" when I stopped qualifying for a certain tax credit after I'd negotiated hard for a nice raise. Not-so-anecdotally there's plenty of research that has shown that money (in and of itself) is a terrible motivating factor[0]. [0] https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv
- chronic940 10y ago
  > I recently joked with my dad "I guess I'm done trying now!" when I stopped qualifying for a certain tax credit after I'd negotiated hard for a nice raise. If you are still talking about tax credits, you are no where near the top tax brackets. Note that income brackets extend to more than just your reported W-2s...
- KyleJune 10y ago
  Agreed, at a certain point money becomes less important. The amount of extra money the rich could make by continuing to work hard or by working harder is less of a motivational factor than it is for people in the lower and middle classes.
- roenxi 10y ago
  Woah there! You've basically just claimed that the laws of supply and demand don't have an impact in the labour market. That requires more evidence than finding a link between pay and intrinsic motivation/job security. Nobody is going to turn down a flat wage hike - but the damage of government tax policy is it shrinks the window of "what the company will pay for" and "what the worker will work for". Now we can't measure this for sure, but theory tells us it is a very likely, if not practically certain, outcome. The issue is you won't see it, because companies will just not be offering some jobs because they experimented and couldn't offer them at a wage that interested workers. As a bonus, raises are a bit of an illusion. There is a huge amount of new money entering the system from somewhere (see https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/20170406/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/20170406/, about 5% p.a. increase). Most wage rises in theory are to balance that out so that you have enough dollars to call on the same real resources for hours of your labour.
awj 10y ago
> Say 4 of the high earners stop working as much (since their marginal rates are so high). I have literally never once heard or even heard of someone deciding to work less because they don't want to pay as much in taxes.
- Pokepokalypse 10y ago
  Only if they have another income source. For example: my ex said that she wanted to go down to part time work (to reduce our tax liability). I suggested maybe I should go down to part-time instead, since that would reduce our income more. (hell, I'd actually like to go down to FULL time. . . . ). Anyway, she didn't like the sound of THAT idea. One of the many reasons she is my ex.
- amscanne 10y ago
  Of course it happens. I knew a surgeon who chose to work half days because the marginal gains were not as good as working half days (in Ontario, so his marginal rate was ~50%).
vacri 10y ago
> Consider the following: 10 people earn $10 and pay $1 in tax. 10 people earn $20 and pay $5 tax. This is way out of proportion to real-life values, and the semantics of this equation change quite a bit with even minor changes. For example, after your high-earner tax hike, the low earners are left with $9 and the high earners are left with $12. This is absurdist nonsense that does not match up with what happens in the real world. A person on $40k and a person on $80k have vastly different spending capacity after tax. A person on $80k (~66k after tax) doesn't pay eight times the absolute amount of tax the $40k (~36k after tax) person does, and they retain their approximately two-times spending capacity.
- amscanne 10y ago
  I'm only demonstrating that the assertion that increasing marginal rates always means a larger share of the tax burden is put on the rich -- this is not true. The example is given to be demonstrative, not to represent a real world scenario. Everything depends on the specific numbers, clearly. That's the point I'm trying to make as well.

extra88 10y ago

In scenario 1, government collects $60 from $300 earned (20%). In scenario 2, government collects $62 from $260 earned (~24%). In scenario 2, government has higher revenue, not lower. If high earners had to exert themselves twice as much or otherwise expend twice the resources to earn $20 instead of $10, maybe ending up with $9 instead of $12 would be rational. Of course in the real world it rarely works that way, only a few are in a position to work less to earn fewer commissions or work less overtime to avoid entering a higher tax bracket. The brackets are also a lot more graduated, it's not like you could earn $19 and pay $1 tax.

djrogers 10y ago
Except in scenario 1 the person earning $300 has $40 extra to spend or invest somewhere which is good for the economy. Eventually someone else will wind up paying $8 tax on that $40 (20%)...

rqebmm 10y ago

> Say 4 of the high earners stop working as much (since their marginal rates are so high). I know you're just using this as an example, but it begs a question I've struggled with: is there any actual proof that marginal tax rates reduce productivity in high earners? On its face it makes perfect micro-economic sense, but that's like saying a cache will never miss or a cow is perfectly spherical. It just doesn't match up with real life experience. I've never once heard someone say "well, I'd ask for that raise, but they're going to take so much in taxes it's just not worth the effort". Anecdotally it hasn't changed my motivations one lick as I've moved up tax brackets, to the point that I recently joked with my dad "I guess I'm done trying now!" when I stopped qualifying for a certain tax credit after I'd negotiated hard for a nice raise. Not-so-anecdotally there's plenty of research that has shown that money (in and of itself) is a terrible motivating factor[0]. [0] https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv

chronic940 10y ago
> I recently joked with my dad "I guess I'm done trying now!" when I stopped qualifying for a certain tax credit after I'd negotiated hard for a nice raise. If you are still talking about tax credits, you are no where near the top tax brackets. Note that income brackets extend to more than just your reported W-2s...
KyleJune 10y ago
Agreed, at a certain point money becomes less important. The amount of extra money the rich could make by continuing to work hard or by working harder is less of a motivational factor than it is for people in the lower and middle classes.
roenxi 10y ago
Woah there! You've basically just claimed that the laws of supply and demand don't have an impact in the labour market. That requires more evidence than finding a link between pay and intrinsic motivation/job security. Nobody is going to turn down a flat wage hike - but the damage of government tax policy is it shrinks the window of "what the company will pay for" and "what the worker will work for". Now we can't measure this for sure, but theory tells us it is a very likely, if not practically certain, outcome. The issue is you won't see it, because companies will just not be offering some jobs because they experimented and couldn't offer them at a wage that interested workers. As a bonus, raises are a bit of an illusion. There is a huge amount of new money entering the system from somewhere (see https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/20170406/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/20170406/, about 5% p.a. increase). Most wage rises in theory are to balance that out so that you have enough dollars to call on the same real resources for hours of your labour.

awj 10y ago

> Say 4 of the high earners stop working as much (since their marginal rates are so high). I have literally never once heard or even heard of someone deciding to work less because they don't want to pay as much in taxes.

Pokepokalypse 10y ago
Only if they have another income source. For example: my ex said that she wanted to go down to part time work (to reduce our tax liability). I suggested maybe I should go down to part-time instead, since that would reduce our income more. (hell, I'd actually like to go down to FULL time. . . . ). Anyway, she didn't like the sound of THAT idea. One of the many reasons she is my ex.
amscanne 10y ago
Of course it happens. I knew a surgeon who chose to work half days because the marginal gains were not as good as working half days (in Ontario, so his marginal rate was ~50%).

vacri 10y ago

> Consider the following: 10 people earn $10 and pay $1 in tax. 10 people earn $20 and pay $5 tax. This is way out of proportion to real-life values, and the semantics of this equation change quite a bit with even minor changes. For example, after your high-earner tax hike, the low earners are left with $9 and the high earners are left with $12. This is absurdist nonsense that does not match up with what happens in the real world. A person on $40k and a person on $80k have vastly different spending capacity after tax. A person on $80k (~66k after tax) doesn't pay eight times the absolute amount of tax the $40k (~36k after tax) person does, and they retain their approximately two-times spending capacity.

amscanne 10y ago
I'm only demonstrating that the assertion that increasing marginal rates always means a larger share of the tax burden is put on the rich -- this is not true. The example is given to be demonstrative, not to represent a real world scenario. Everything depends on the specific numbers, clearly. That's the point I'm trying to make as well.