“Common Sense” Aside, What Do We Really Know About Capital Income Taxes and Growth?

By :: March 15th, 2013

If you’re discussing tax policy with someone who asserts that his or her point is “just common sense,” this could indicate one of two things: Either no deep thought is required—as the person would have you believe. Or no deep thought has been applied.

The “common sense” notion that capital income taxes hinder growth seems to be more a case of the latter.

Long term capital gains are taxed only when the asset is sold and at roughly half the rate on wages and salaries. Dare to suggest that the rate on investment profits could be raised a bit—so that perhaps the rate on labor income could lowered—and you’re liable to be reprimanded for failing to understand something as plain as the nose on your face: To tax capital income is to tax the reward for saving and thus to discourage saving. Less saving means less investment and less investment means slower growth, fewer jobs, and lower wages.

Everyone knows that.

Everyone, that is, except the people who study the issue.

Economic theory teaches that the impact of capital income taxes on savings is robustly ambiguous. Empirical research has yielded mixed results, but overall the data seem to indicate that reducing capital income taxes decreases rather than increases savings. In addition, lowering capital income taxes is likely to go hand in hand with raising labor income taxes or government borrowing, both of which are arguably at least as harmful to growth as capital income taxation.

I step through these points in a recent Wharton policy brief. Here’s a brief of the brief:

Notwithstanding the common sense story that taxing the reward for saving reduces it, the effect of capital income taxes on savings is theoretically indeterminate. There are several sources of indeterminacy. Here is one:

Suppose that you’re putting money away for retirement and Congress increases taxes on what you earn from that savings. There are two countervailing effects on how much you save. First, every future dollar of retirement consumption now requires additional savings—to pay the additional future tax. Second, you’ll probably plan to spend fewer future dollars on retirement consumption—because it’s become in effect more expensive. Whether, in the end, you save more or less depends on whether the first effect is greater or less than the second.

What then do the data say? Econometricians have taken several different approaches, and findings vary. On balance, however, the empirical literature seems to lend greater support to the view that capital income taxes increase rather than decrease savings.

Some of the best empirical research, for example, focuses on estimating a key parameter of individual choice called the “intertemporal elasticity of substitution”. Applied to the retirement savings story told above, the bulk of estimates for this parameter support the conclusion that the first effect dominates, and retirement savings increase in response to greater capital income taxation.

But even if one could support the claim that capital income taxes—considered in isolation—hinder growth, that would not be enough. Capital income taxes aren’t set in a vacuum. Lower capital income taxes mean higher labor income taxes or additional government borrowing. (Yes, capital income tax reductions could be offset with spending cuts. But that just begs the question of why such cuts aren’t instead being used to reduce labor income taxes or borrowing .) Thus, to make the case against capital income taxes, one has to argue not just that such taxes hinder growth, but that they hinder growth more than labor income taxes and government borrowing.

That’s not an easy task.

Government borrowing is generally thought to crowd out private investment. CBO, for example, posits that each dollar of government borrowing reduces domestic investment by anywhere from 10 to 50 cents.

And although existing research is not definitive, there are valid reasons to believe that labor income taxes are at least as likely to reduce savings as capital income taxes. Consider, for example, that in the retirement savings story, labor income taxes have only the second, savings-reducing effect. Like capital income taxes, they reduce planned future consumption by making it more expensive (in this case, in terms of “leisure”). Unlike capital income taxes, however, they do not increase the number of current dollars that must be saved per dollar of future consumption.

In short, trying to spur growth by keeping capital income taxes low seems—at best—like trying to fix one side of the roof with shingles from the other.

10Comments

  1. Michael Bindner  ::  5:20 pm on March 15th, 2013:

    One should look the 1997 capital gains cuts to understand these effects. These cuts made it very profitable to set up an Internet start-up (taking advantage of the tech boom which was looking for investment opportunities more than innovation) and going public with it – paying capital gains taxes rather than income taxes for your efforts, most of which were paid in stock. This inflated the input to the Treasury and led to projections of the national debt being paid off by about now. In reality, as the bubble burst, a recession happened but the urge to cut taxes to take advantage of new revenue had already occurred. The next round of cuts in 2003 fueled the housing bubble, as mortgage bonds were thought to be ultra safe. Had neither cut occurred, the tech bubble might have been a more modest boom with less risky projects funded and the housing bubble would never have gotten into selling junk mortgages as AAA.

  2. TaxVox » Blog Archive » “Common Sense” Aside, What Do We … | Income Tax Guide  ::  8:25 pm on March 15th, 2013:

    […] Visit link: TaxVox » Blog Archive » “Common Sense” Aside, What Do We … […]

  3. Ralph H  ::  11:59 am on March 16th, 2013:

    A low capital gains rate is an incentive to invest, and thus is good for the country. It should be debated whether it should be 15%.

    What is not good are the special rules that enable savy people with the ability to avoid or minimize taxes or help special interest groups. Examples include:
    Eliminating CG on most residential sales.
    Carried Interest for Wall Street Investors that converts ordinary income into CG
    The ability of tech investors and employees to exercise options at a low price and convert income or bonus’ to CG
    The ability of high tech firms, and others with intellectual property to shift a high percentage of their income to tax havens.
    Special credits for financing public housing, driving a hybrid or electric car, or not taxing municipal bonds.

    You may think some of these are noble endeavers, but the fact is we all pay for these perks, and either the deficit or our rates could be lower without these perks that primarily are available to higher income individuals or large corporations.

  4. test website  ::  1:39 pm on March 17th, 2013:

    Excellent blog you’ve got here.. It’s difficult to find high quality writing like yours these days. I truly appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!

  5. Tax Roundup, 3/18/2013: Is Iowa’s mental health really a tax problem? And more on pass-through reform! « Roth & Company, P.C  ::  3:17 pm on March 18th, 2013:

    […] Chris Sanchirico,  “Common Sense” Aside, What Do We Really Know About Capital Income Taxes and Growth? (TaxV0x) […]

  6. Sanchirico: Common Sense, Capital Income Taxes, and Growth - Tax1on1 | 美国税1on1  ::  10:56 pm on March 18th, 2013:

    […] Following up on my previous post, Do Capital Income Taxes Hinder Growth?:  Chris William Sanchirico (Pennsylvania), “Common Sense” Aside, What Do We Really Know About Capital Income Taxes and Growth?: […]

  7. Tax Roundup, 3/20/2013: Bury the RV scofflaws in subsidized fertilizer, but remember the Maine! « Roth & Company, P.C  ::  9:33 am on March 20th, 2013:

    […] referring to this post we linked on […]

  8. Will McBride  ::  10:16 am on March 20th, 2013:

    Not wanting to shame you into the mainstream, which is not always right, but you fail to present a compelling case for departure here: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/tax-policy-center-espouses-minority-view-capital-income-taxes

  9. Saint Louis Weddings  ::  5:33 pm on October 17th, 2013:

    Hey guys, where is a good location to sign up for a trailer loan?

  10. Reachout Wireless phone  ::  9:22 am on October 18th, 2014:

    Reachout Wireless phone

    TaxVox