Capital Commerce

Obama Pushes for Higher Investment Taxes

By James Pethokoukis

Posted: September 19, 2007

As part of his "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class" plan, Barack Obama is in favor of nearly doubling the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to 28 percent. Leaving the fairness issue aside for a moment—as well as the impact of higher taxes on economic growth—the Obama plan could also be called a "Ways in Which Government Can Collect More Taxes to Pay for New Spending" plan, since Democratic candidates are all scrambling to figure out ways to plausibly pay for new healthcare, education, and infrastructure spending if elected.

But Dan Clifton over at Strategas Research thinks the Dems may be disappointed by the ROT—return on taxes—from higher cap-gains rates. After reviewing the connections between changing cap-gains rates and government revenue during the past five decades, he concludes that higher cap gains could well be a revenue loser for Uncle Sam.

We examined the impact of capital-gains tax rates on investors realizing their gains. As the tax rate increases, investors hold their gains to avoid paying the higher tax. Conversely, lowering the capital-gains tax rate spurs realizations. Interestingly, the 1986 Tax Reform Act increased the capital-gains tax rate from 20 to 28 percent, but investors were given roughly three months before the tax increase was enacted into law. In turn, investors rushed to realize their gains before the higher tax rate kicked in, and capital-gains realizations remained depressed for nearly a decade thereafter with the higher tax rate in place.... Therefore, proposals to raise tax revenue from capital-gains tax increases will be scored as a net revenue gain to pay for new spending, but in reality, the tax revenue may not materialize, which will force tax increases elsewhere to pay for spending.

cap.gains

I have owned my home for 37yrs. I remarried 13 yrs. ago and moved into another home. My youngest child has lived in the home form day one. I haved paid all the taxes and ins. the entire 13 yrs. and have never had a single penny of rental income. If I sale this home will I have to pay cap. gains tax?

Herbert Porter of NC @ Feb 04, 2009 06:23:26 AM

The difference between profit and wealth creation

Generally are disregarded in arguments like this. The assertions that lowering taxes is good for the economy are more or less a theological assertion on the part of Republicans. When it does not work they have to come up with new arguments as to why it did not work, but tax cuts have not yielded the economic growth claimed for them since the early 20th Century

Since World War I, every tax cut has been followed either by a recession, or an economic bubble followed by a crash, followed by bank failures, while periods of high taxation usually have resulted in extended periods of economic growth.

During World War I marginal tax rates went up into the mid 70 percent area, but in 1922, a series of cuts started. The market started heating up, a bubble followed, then depression, bank failures, and so on.

A lot of effort had gone into attempting to prove that FDR's actions did not get the economy moving again, but rather it was Hoover. This is partially true. In 1932 he raised the top marginal rates to over sixty percent and the economy had its best year since the crash. Between 1933 and the start of WWII Roosevelt instituted another two tax increases, and during those years the economy grew by about 58 percent.

During this time Roosevelt also accomplished to create one of the smallest ratios of government spending to GDP as well, a bit over 18 percent.

The economy went along pretty well during the Truman and Eisenhower years with top marginal rates as high as 91 percent. Kennedy started talking tax cuts but it was Johnson who instuted them. From then until Reagan, the econony really did not go anywhere. A recession during the Nixon administration.

Reagan came along cut taxes to 50 percent in 1981 and a recession ensued. Of course this was blamed on Carter, but Reagan stuck to his tax cutting guns and cut the top marginal rates in 1987 the year of Black Monday. This was a period of all sorts of methods of making quick profits which included junk bonds, hostile takeovers, greenmail.

Bush I raised taxes a bit and things started improving but Clinton came along raised the top marginal tax rates again

Finally George H. Bush took the Clinton economy gave his first tax cuts, followed by an immediate recession, and then his second tax cut which was followed by a bubble created in a single sector, the financial sector and a crash. Bank failures and like Reagan, bailouts.

Lowering the capital gains tax does not necessarily result in the creation of new businesses. In fact when taxes are high, businesses do not pay those taxes but choose to put those profits back into them.

Easy profit taking does not grow wealth but creates profits for a small select group of investors. High capital gains taxes create the incentive to long term planning an growth. Low taxes send people to the markets looking for hot investments. Fast money and easy profits. Instead of making money the slow old way starting a business and growing it.

Chernevog of GA @ Nov 18, 2008 16:08:59 PM

captial gains

The first president elected, that I've actually worried about. Swept up like a "messiah", I don't think so. Since its such an obvious thing to overlook, it just rings IDIOT!

It sounds like he plans to abuse his executive power whenever he can:

"One of Mr Obama’s first acts could be to use the power of executive authority – which enables presidents to take action without an Act of Congress – to block the expansion of oil drilling in the Utah wilderness authorised by Mr Bush. He is also looking to use the same power to lift the limits on stem cell research imposed by the current Administration."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5126528.ece

f005 of MN @ Nov 13, 2008 10:43:08 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

Capital Commerce

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!