home

Raising Marginal Rate On High Incomes Does Not Reduce Productivity

Yesterday I commented on a Nate Silver post in which Nate posited productivity losses due to raising the marginal rate on top income earners. Today Paul Krugman explains the issue and answers the questions:

[T]he way I see it, even quite high marginal tax rates on high earners — even rates in, say, the 70 percent range that prevailed pre-Reagan — are unlikely to put us on the wrong side of the Laffer curve by discouraging effort. High earners won’t work much less; they might even work harder, because it takes more effort to make enough to buy that fourth home.

That's the conclusion to the question - in short, Nate Silver is wrong to worry about productivity loss due to raising marginal tax rates. For the full explanation, please read Krugman's post.

Speaking for me only

< Happy Days Are Here Again . . . | I'm With Charlie >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Wait a minute (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:28:23 PM EST
    How many of these top income earners actually work, first of all?  And of those who do, what kind of work do they do?  Selling toxic crap on Wall Street?

    IOW, just what actual "productivity" is at issue here?

    honestly (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:16:59 AM EST
    this was my first thought as well.  Or not that they don't work - but do we really even WANT them being "productive" at what they do.

    As far as I can tell they are only really productive at making short-term gains for themselves and long-term hurt for everyone else.

    That being said, obviously not everyone who is rich does this type of work.  But for those who don't, I don't see taxes being the driving force behind them being productive.  Can you see Steve Jobs only coming out with one new product per year cuz his taxes went up? Me neither.

    Parent

    You guys got it... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:23:34 AM EST
    please do us all a favor and be unproductive!

    Except those who get insanely rich spreading joy...we need that productivity.  But I don't think those types are in it for the money, generally.

    Parent

    Exactly, kdog (none / 0) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    I've been muttering on various blogs for the last couple of years that one good way to restrain the wild Wall Street risk-taking behavior that got us into the Big Mess would be to tax the bejesus out of those gigantic incomes these people make.

    I've never my whole life understood why so many people, from Bill Gates on down, can't be satisfied being extremely wealthy but would mow down their grandmothers, never mind the rest of us, in order to be insanely rich.

    Parent

    All that gives me pause... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    is how Uncle Sam will use the money.  The greed mongers might wanna rob me bling but the power mongers want me arrested...and I value freedom over money:)

    I never understood such greed either...but if a Scrooge McDuck-style money bin makes you happy, by all means pursue it...all I ask is you do it making an honest living instead of grifting.

    Parent

    How do you even (none / 0) (#43)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    measure the "productivity" of the CEO of a big corporation?  Seems to me since the cpn is paying him/her big bucks, no matter what percentage of those big bucks he/she gets to keep, they're going to want performance.  The "productivity" in question is that of the entire company.  So is somebody trying to tell us that if the top management has to fork over more of their money to the taxman, the company's productivity is going to fall?

    I'm, er, skeptical of this whole concept.

    Parent

    Everyone's got an opinion... (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:21:38 PM EST


    Actually we have history (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:37:03 PM EST
    But (none / 0) (#10)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:58:14 PM EST
    when you "make your own reality" you don't need no stinkin history.

    Parent
    Do not tell me you believe economics (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:07:39 PM EST
    is a science.

    Parent
    A soft science (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:12:47 PM EST
    But their is history.

    Parent
    Veeeery soft. (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:20:11 PM EST
    Lotsa history. Good luck with it.

    Parent
    This reminds me of the quote, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:16:06 PM EST
    maybe apocryphal, maybe from a low level Bush flunkie, but certainly descriptive of a certain view:  Something to the effect they make reality, make history.....

    Conservatives it seems often believe they can inculcate an idea if just given the chance--regardless of the truth.....

    See, the truth, the facts, don't matter in this approach....Not that you accept or agree with it.....

    Parent

    "The belief that there is only one truth, (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:31:06 PM EST
    "The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world"


    Parent
    Is the next statement in this (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:02:03 PM EST
    argument that "you secular humanists make science your religion"?

    If so, the next statement would then be:  You secular humanists are inflexibly dogmatic in your religious/scientific views....

    And, of course, the big finish in today's gestalt:  Global warming is a religious belief held by scientists that is not backed up by real science....

    It is not my belief system, so I may have the steps a little off, but the gist of trying to undermine science I think is there....

    And, I chose "science" instead of "economics" because when you quote a physicist like Max Born, hard science seems to be implied....

    Parent

    You have a fertile imagination... (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:08:06 PM EST
    Oh well, maybe next time.... (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:08:46 PM EST
    What was once GWB's disease (none / 0) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:35:42 PM EST
    has now infected the entire Republican Party.

    From an article written by Ron Suskind in 2004, "Without a Doubt," describing a conversation he had with Mark McKinnon, Senior Media Advisor to GWB:
    **************************

    "And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community."
    *****************

    see link  and  link

    Parent

    But we have actual data on the Clinton rates (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:34:53 PM EST
    So, there is more than just opinion.....

    Parent
    The point being (none / 0) (#13)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:11:26 PM EST
    that we have good historical precedent--that is recent--of what the repeal of the Bush tax cuts would look like.....

    Parent
    of who's the best team in the NFL, but I wouldn't be betting on the Saints to win the SB this year if I were you.

    It's all a matter of opinion, sometimes it works out the way you think it will, sometimes it doesn't. No matter what your political persuasion.

    imo, of course, based on many years of making the mistake of actually believing economists could foretell the future...

    Parent

    So why bother at all? (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:50:54 PM EST
    It is all a crapshoot.

    If you believe that, you really don't have standing to complain about any economic proposal....Unless, of course, you are saying data is nothing and theory is everything....That, I have heard conservatives say.

    The data about the Clinton rates is solid historical precedent.

    As to your NFL comparison:  I'd say the Saints and the Colts are much better bets than the Lions to win it all....But Republicans in effect want us to bet on the Lions because it fits their ideology.

     

    Parent

    Well, I hope whatever actions are taken (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:06:27 PM EST
    prove to be successful. Regardless of which side of the aisle they come from...

    Parent
    The rub is that (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:17:48 PM EST
    we have to place a bet.....

    We can't take a pass......

    Parent

    The corollary question is: (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:58:44 PM EST
    how much higher to tax rates on high earners have to be to materially increase evasion efforts?

    Kruigman addresses that too (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    He raises the issue, but doesn't address (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:02:58 PM EST
    my question, which might not be an economics question.

    Parent
    But if the current debate (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:11:19 PM EST
    is about the Bush tax cuts, the top marginal rate would be 39.6%.....The Clinton rates worked out fine.

    So, is the question not moot--unless even higher rates are to be considered....

    Parent

    Hey, I'm all for going back to (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:26:25 PM EST
    the Clinton-era rates. But in the process of answering one part of the question, Krugman raised another. And he didn't answer the second one.

    Parent
    If he had just kept it (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:32:10 PM EST
    more concrete--going back to the Clinton rates--instead of the abstract of actually posing the question....

    Parent
    It's POLITICAL economy (none / 0) (#25)
    by abdiel on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:58:45 PM EST
    not economic politics.

    Whether or not a tax increase can raise revenue is irrelevant. The real question here is twofold: 1) is an increase in taxes possible?, 2) will an increase in taxes scare off investors?

    The Clinton tax rates worked, but not because of some hand-waving economics. It worked because the Asian Economic Crisis scared tons of foreign investment out of Asia in a flight to safety, which fueled the dotcom boom and flooded government coffers.

    But in this day and age, I think California is prescient for the US. Dems don't have the backbone to overcome Republican fury at tax increases. And yes, years of high taxes have caused a mass exodus of investors from the state.  

    I don't know what the optimal solution is, but I think a discussion of the Laffer curve is a red herring.

    Wha? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:49:19 PM EST
    Asian crisis occurred in 1998.

    The Clinton tax cuts were in 1993. How do you explain the 5 years of growth before that?

    Parent

    It is a canard (none / 0) (#27)
    by call me Ishmael on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:48:59 PM EST
    to continue the myth that
    years of high taxes have caused a mass exodus of investors from the state
    First off if you look at the overall level of taxes California is roughly in the middle, second of all if you compare corporate taxes now to what they were 20 years ago they are substantially lower and third of all the whole notion of a massive exodus of businesses from the state is not true.  On the last point see the report from the PPIC about the issue.  California is facing a budget crisis right now precisely because for 20 years the Dems (as you point out) have not had the guts to or the ability (given the 2/3 requirement) to actually show people the costs in terms of revenue and services from proposition 13.  Right now it is in big trouble because the national economy is in big trouble.

    Parent
    Let's see... (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:59:41 PM EST
    California, corporate tax rates exceeded only by PA, ME & IA.

    Income tax rates exceeded only by HI.

    Gasoline tax rates exceeded only by NY.

    Sales tax rates exceeded only by, well, nobody.

    Parent

    let's see (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by call me Ishmael on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:45:29 PM EST
    and property taxes are much lower than many places.  If you look at the total tax package in terms of percentage of total incomes california is about 16th or 17th.

    In terms of total income:
    state and local taxes: 13th
    state taxes: 14
    local taxes:32
    property taxes: 36
    sales tax: 23
    motor fuels: 45

    Yes, corporate and income taxes are towards the top.  But corporations get it back because commercial property taxes are so low.

    And in actual practice the burden on the poor is greater than on the wealthy because of the way that the tax breaks and deductions are worked.

    You need to look at more than the rates as they are listed on paper to the actual revenue as a percentage of income.

    Parent

    Indeed. I pay 2.2% in property taxes (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:37:49 AM EST
    and "voted indebtedness." Of which 0.68%
    (16th or 17th) is official state taxes.

    You do need to look at more than rates as they are listed on paper...

    Parent

    Roughly in the middle? (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:06:46 AM EST
    10 California..... 2,724.31
    # 10 is hardly "roughly in the middle" of 50.

    Parent
    where (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by call me Ishmael on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:45:21 AM EST
    are you getting your data? you keep throwing around numbers with no source.  I at least gave you a reference to check.

    Parent
    US Census Bureau (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:20:00 AM EST
    This (none / 0) (#50)
    by call me Ishmael on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:23:20 PM EST
    says nothing about total wealth though.  Of course there are going to be higher tax payments in wealthier states.  The problem is in the amount of taxes versus wealth.  And in california where taxes are heavily weighted towards income tax the wealthier get a far greater amount off of the their federal taxes than the poor do.

    Parent
    Oh come on, (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:36:36 PM EST
    you wrote:
    First off if you look at the overall level of taxes California is roughly in the middle
    That is not true, and that is all my point was.

    I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean:

    the wealthier get a far greater amount off of the their federal taxes than the poor do.


    Parent
    Oh, come on right back at you (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by call me Ishmael on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:59:40 PM EST
    We were talking about tax rates in the original post and depending on how you cut it California is not a particularly high state if you look at the percentage of their income that people actually pay.

    As far as the latter point is concerned poorer people in california tend to pay more of their taxes in payroll and sales taxes than in income taxes.  They don't get a federal credit for that.  If you throw in how low capital gains taxes are it remains the case that the relative rates on the wealthy in california (in terms of percentage of their income) are in practice lower.

    Go check out the numerous studies at the California Budget Project with lots and lots of evidence if you don't believe me.

    Parent

    An important understanding is being ignored. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:39:46 PM EST
    When I spoke on this earlier, I talked about how the rich like to avoid taxes.  I didn't really discuss what they would do.

    First if you increase the tax rate for higher income, I will generally agree that the guy on Wall Street won't stop working hard.  He will though, evade taxes, and I mean all taxes including those outside the income tax as best he can.  His taxable income will be reduced by means of high priced tax lawyers, accounting, different income type distribution plans and some helpful congressmen  which are always able to be found.

    Still it will hurt him or at least make him feel like he is hurt, and his further reactions will be  more important to America, I think, than any net increases from taxing him more.

    We talk about needing investment in America, about how the jobs will come back because of private business which seems to me to mean private investment.

    That still hardworking guy on Wall Street will be much less likely to invest his current income and his savings in the US Main Street.  That I guarantee.  

    I will give you another example of a rich guy avoiding taxes.

    The NY courts just recently had a suit by NY against a former New Yorker that claimed he shouldn't have to pay NY state income taxes anymore because he stayed in NY less than half the time, and had another residence in another state, and therefore was not a resident of NY.
    The state lost the case in it's own courts because this man had his people track his exact time each day that he was in the NYC, and exactly when he crossed over the state line each day.

    Now you might ask was that a bit of trouble to keep such exact as well as compelling records.  Well yes it was, but this man saved about 24,000 USD per day.  (Yes $24,000 per day so you don't think that I wrote it wrong the first time.)  Multiply that $24,000 by 365 ladies and gentlemen!  There are many ways to save on taxes and if you make people mad they will go to great extremes to avail themselves of these methods.

    Weird. All those years I made squat, (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:50:04 AM EST
    I - and, generally, everyone else I've ever met -  liked to avoid taxes as much as we all could. But you seem to imply it's (only?) what "rich people" like to do...

    And, in your example, your guy has to pay state income taxes in a state. Whether it's NY or NJ or CT (or whatever) he's paying state income taxes in a state.

    And if he is legally bound to pay those taxes in a state other than NY, well, just what is your point, exactly?

    Should everyone in the tri-state area be required to pay state income tax only to NY? Doesn't seem  right for some reason...

    You surely aren't suggesting citizen should pay income taxes in more that one state on the same income, are you?

    Parent

    Oh yeah, and there's this: (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:01:50 AM EST
    States Ranked by Total State Taxes and Per Capita Amount: 2005
    (Amounts in thousands. Per capita amounts in dollars)  
    Total tax per capita  
    Rank    State     Amount  

    1 California..... 98,434,685
    2 New York..... 51,326,444



    Parent
    Interesting link (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by CST on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:27:27 AM EST
    and I'll say it again, because I think it bears repeating.

    MA is fairly high on that list as well, it's no CA or NY, but ranks #11 in total tax and #7 in taxes per capita.  We have one of the stronger economies in the country right now.  In fact, we're actually experiencing some growth.

    And actually, according to your chart, CA is only #1 in total taxes (which makes sense it's a huge state).  It ranks at #10 (behind MA) in total taxes per capita.  The #1 state in taxes per capita is VT.  Which had an unemployment rate of 6.4% in April 2010.  Followed by Hawaii, which came in at 6.7% unemployment.  Then Wyoming at 7.1%, CT at 9% and MN at 7.2%.

    Those are fairly solid numbers in this economy.

    Methinks CA has seperate issues.

    Parent

    No arguments, CA has multiple issues (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:21:30 AM EST
    but man we love living here.

    Parent
    sorry, meant that for someone else... (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:05:03 AM EST
    Mr sarcastic. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    You should really look up the tax laws of Florida, and maybe you will see my point.  Maybe you will even be less sarcastic.

    ... o.k. that last was uncalled for.  After all you are wearing the sarcastic hat.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    but FL is not the only state w/no state income tax and is not the only state in which people reside because of it.

    Parent
    We can't raise taxes high enough to get out (none / 0) (#49)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:40:01 PM EST
    of our troubles.

    At least that's what the IMF says.

    According to this link we'd need to "Double" our taxes to get out of the spending hole we've dug.

    That's if we don't spend another cent of money.

    Until Obama and congress drastically reduce spending the talk of tax hikes is a drop in the bucket.