FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Reagan’s Tax Shock

by GERALD SCORSE

Wall Street has always claimed that income from investments is entitled to lower taxes than other income. As The Street sees it, investments in the market deserve tax breaks because they grow jobs, grow companies, and stimulate the economy.

A tax system tied to that belief is a major driver of rising income inequality. Congress could bend the curve by restoring Ronald Reagan’s 1986 shock: equal taxes on income from wealth and income from work. The idea is back and thriving, as we’ll learn. First, let’s take a hard look at the Wall Street claim.

Buying stocks doesn’t grow jobs or grow the economy, it grows portfolios. The money that’s invested doesn’t go to companies, it goes to the prior owners of the stock. In fact, through dividends and stock buybacks, shareholders take money out of companies rather than put it in; they’re a drain on company funds, not a source.

Billions of shares trade hands every business day. Except for the tiny number that raise money for the issuing companies, it’s all just white noise. There’s no real reason for preferential taxes on investment income.

President Reagan tacitly admitted as much with his signature Tax Reform Act of 1986, which levied equal taxes on capital gains, dividends and ordinary income such as wages.  At the signing ceremony, he called the bill “a sweeping victory for fairness” and “the best job-creation program” ever to come out of Congress. Equal taxes soon reverted to unequal, and became more so with the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 (true, new levies in 2013 did reduce the spread for the most affluent.) Today though, Reagan’s policy is on the rebound.

In 2010, when the federal deficit preoccupied all the Very Serious People in Washington, two bi-partisan groups looked at ways to put the nation’s fiscal house in order. The first was a Congressional body, President Obama’s debt commission, commonly known as Simpson-Bowles; the second was the Bipartisan Policy Center, a top D.C. think tank. The blueprints they drew up differed in many specifics, but in the large not so much. Both called for lower marginal rates and a broadened tax base, the pillars of the 1986 reform. Both broadened the base in large measure, as Reagan did, by taxing all income at the same rates.  

Three billionaires say aye, each from a distinct vantage point.

Warren Buffett long ago famously asked why he should pay taxes at a lower effective rate than the secretaries in his office. The hedge fund guru Stanley Druckenmiller has spoken out at college campuses about America’s fiscal stacking of the deck against the young, in favor of the elderly. Tax favors for dividends and capital gains help fuel the unfairness, Druckenmiller says.

Pimco co-founder Bill Gross is the latest equal-tax convert; he published his epiphany in the investment giant’s November newsletter. Gross wrote with feeling about “the plight of labor.” He talked about his wealth having piled up on the backs of workers, about guilt setting in. Finally, this coda: “The era of taxing ‘capital’ at lower rates than ‘labor’ should now end.” Gross also said he had company: Stanley Druckenmiller and Warren Buffett.

President Obama grasps the damage being done by America’s runaway income inequality. As he said in early December, “it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people.” It also challenges him. The president should urge the nation toward greater equality, and make the case for equal taxes on income from wealth and income from work.

It isn’t about redistribution, it’s about tax fairness. Americans understand fairness, as The Gipper well knew.     

Gerald E. Scorse helped pass the bill requiring basis reporting for capital gains. His articles on investment taxes have appeared in newspapers across the country. 

Notes.

“For stocks, mutual funds and bonds…Congress now requires brokerages to report the basis of these investments, a reform wrought partly after my reporting on this issue and the work of others, including Gerald Scorse, who pressed this issue with lawmakers.” – pp. 271-2 of the David Cay Johnston book, The Fine Print.

 
More articles by:
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Fearsome: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail