Date: 2024-12-21 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00021609
ECONOMICS
TAXATION
Paul Krugman ... Can the Rich Pay for a Better America?
TAXATION
Paul Krugman ... Can the Rich Pay for a Better America?
Credit...Jessica Craig-Martin/Trunk Archive
Original article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/opinion/biden-taxation-rich.html
Burgess COMMENTARY
Every time I hear right wing politicians rail about high taxes killing economic growth I get very upset. Sadly, taxes are an essential part of any society that is going to be functional in the modern world. Very little of what is essential for a decent quality of life at this time is history can be produced on a small scale ... and very little modern production can happen without a complex ecosystem that enables verything that is needed to come together in an efficient manner.
The idea that every individual making their own decisions on everything in the modern world is quite ludivrous, but at the foundation of much of the talk that argues that people know how to spend their money than government, and therefore low taxes are better and essentially no taxes are best. Government is very important and taxes to pay for a government are essential.
Questions related to the peformance of government are perfectly legitimate, but they are a different from the simplistic conclusion that less tax is always better.
Early in my career when I was training as a Chartered Accountant in the UK, I was required to learn something about taxation, and in this context prepared tax returns for some of the wealthy executives working in the UK and for British companies around the world. This was in the early 1960s almost 20 years after the end of WWII. The marginal tax rate for high income individuals was substantially higher than 90%. Compared to this, top marginal tax rates in the 30% to 40% range seem very reasonable. I have little patience for the idea thay high earning individuals should not pay enough in taxation to support the essential expenditures of government is irresponsible.
I have been very concerned for a long time that too much of government is inefficient and ineffective. Some inefficiency it to be expected, but in the US there are many operational characteristics that almost ensure that performance will be compromised and inefficient. Accounting and accountability for almost everything in the Federal Government is almost totally absent. Budgeting is clunky and compromised both in terms of planning priority, budget analysis, execution and oversight.
For me, the most important economic performance metric is 'Return on Capital Employed'. It is a metric that addresses the relationship between progress and the resources used to achieve the progress. It cuts through all the financial gaming that serves to obscure true practical economic performance. Using this approach to financial analysis it becomes very obvious that there are many aspects of the modern socio-enviro-economic system that are amazingly efficient and with almost all the benefit accruing to owners with workers and customers sharing very little of benefit from high performance. This behavior has been the norm from about 1980 to the present. From 1945 to 1980 there was a very different balance between workers, customers and owners with each segment having a reasonable share of performance improvement over time.
A better America is possible ... and certainly the rich have to pay their fair share ... and I would also argue that something should also be done to address the 40+ years of inequitable reward that has been a feature of these last many years.
Peter Burgess
By Paul Krugman ... NYT Opinion Columnist
June 3, 2021 (Accessed January 2022)
The budget proposal released by the Biden administration last week calls for almost $5 trillion in new spending over the next decade — that is, outlays in excess of its “baseline” estimate of the spending that would take place without new policies. Some of the extra money would be borrowed, but most of it — $3.6 trillion — is supposed to come from new revenues.
President Biden has, however, repeatedly promised not to increase taxes on households making less than $400,000 a year. And his budget does indeed propose raising all the additional money via higher receipts from corporations and high-income individuals.
It’s worth noting, by the way, that the two proposals that have attracted the most attention — raising the corporate tax rate, which Donald Trump cut from 35 to 21 percent, up to 28 percent, and raising the top individual rate back to 39.6 percent — account for only a fraction of the proposed revenue increase (just over a quarter). Most of the money is supposed to come from closing loopholes and eliminating perceived inequities — things like giving the I.R.S. the resources to crack down on wealthy tax cheats, eliminating rules that allow many capital gains to go completely untaxed and closing off some of the major avenues for corporate tax avoidance.
Still, is trying to “build back better” by taxing only the very affluent feasible? Is it wise? Could it be done more effectively?
My answer is yes to the first two questions, if you assume — as I think we should — that given the political realities Biden needs to keep his ambitions fairly modest. The answer to the third is, it’s complicated.
There are, as I see it, three main critiques of Biden’s tax approach, two of which deserve to be taken seriously.
The unserious critique is the claim that raising taxes on corporations and high incomes would cripple the economy. Assertions that prosperity depends on keeping taxes at the top low have been refuted by experience time and time again — most recently in the failure of the Trump tax cuts to deliver the promised immense investment boom.
The only reason the obsession with low taxes for the rich retains any influence is that keeping this zombie shambling around serves the interests of corporations and the wealthy. So let’s not waste time on it.
A far more serious critique of Biden’s approach comes from the left. There’s a good case that the kind of society progressives want us to become, with a very strong social safety net, can’t be paid for just by taxing the rich. A country like Denmark, for example, does have a high top tax rate (although it’s not that much higher than the effective tax rate facing high-income New Yorkers, who pay state and city as well as federal taxes). But Denmark also has very high middle-class taxation, in particular a 25 percent value-added tax, effectively a national sales tax.
And the fact that even the Nordic countries feel compelled to raise a lot of money from the middle class suggests that there are limits — much higher than conservatives claim, but limits nonetheless — to how much you can raise just by taxing the rich.
So if you want Medicare for all, Nordic levels of support for child care and families in general, and so on, just raising taxes on the 400K-plus elite won’t get you there. And many progressives — myself included — would like us to have these things.
It would, however, be incredibly risky politically to try selling members of the U.S. middle class on the idea that paying substantially higher taxes would be worth it because of all the benefits they would receive.
Would you advise Biden to take that risk — especially at a time when democracy itself is under attack? Surely it makes sense to pursue a more modest agenda, one that would still make a huge difference to American lives but that could be financed by raising taxes only on corporations and the wealthy.
But what form should those tax increases take? There are many interesting, smart ideas out there — for example, Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax — that didn’t make it into the Biden plan. There have also been technical critiques of the details of Biden proposals — and tax policy is an area where details really matter.
Oh, and it’s likely that one way or another revenues would fall short of what the Biden administration is projecting, and that as a result deficits would be larger. Given that the U.S. government can borrow at negative real interest rates, however, this isn’t a big concern.
So what is Biden doing wrong? Honestly, I can’t tell. I like to think that I know a fair bit of economics and can recognize the difference between real experts and hacks. But tax policy is really hard — partly because you’re trying to make rules that can withstand assaults from very well paid accountants — and there are seriously credible experts on both sides of the detailed tax debates. Some of my go-to tax experts are now in the administration!
What this means, I suspect, is that while some of the critiques may well be correct, Biden’s proposals are appropriate in their general thrust and probably don’t have huge flaws in their details. My biggest concern isn’t that he’ll botch important issues, it is that Democrats in Congress — some of whom are still far too deferential to moneyed interests — will water down the things he’s trying to do right.
----------------------------------------
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman
----------------------------------------
More from Paul Krugman
Opinion | Paul Krugman The Radical Modesty of Biden’s Budget May 31, 2021
Opinion | Paul Krugman America Needs to Empower Workers Again April 12, 2021
Opinion | Paul Krugman Bidenomics Is as American as Apple Pie April 1, 2021