• Comment (8)

How the 'Buffett Rule' Has Already Hurt the Economy

April 16, 2012 RSS Feed Print

Joseph Mason is the Moyse/LBA Chair of Banking at the Ourso School of Business at Louisiana State University and a senior fellow at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

One topic of concern in the recent news is whether President Obama will succeed in raising U.S. income tax rates. (In fact, one of the first tests of that agenda will take place Monday with the Senate scheduled to vote on the so-called "Buffett Rule.") Of course, it is still too soon to tell, but as tax season rolls around we can look to coming tax collections to get some insight.

In a superb review article in the most recent Journal of Economic Perspectives, Emmanuel Saez, Joel Slemrod, and Seth Giertz point out that when individuals anticipate a tax increase they will accelerate their income so that is taxed at the prior (lower) tax rate. The authors make the case that such patterns are common in historical tax collections, such as when President Clinton was elected in 1992 with a promise of raising taxes, which was implemented in 1993. Taxable income reported in those tax years spiked in 1992 and fell dramatically in 1993, as individuals subject to the higher taxes accelerated income where they could do so.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Should the 'Buffett Rule' Become Law?]

Of course, such strategies work best for realized capital gains and stock option exercises, which can be conveniently timed. In other words, such strategies work well for people like Warren Buffett.

But there's more. When large numbers of market participants do the same thing at once, markets react. In particular, when a large number of investors sell at once, prices go down. If markets anticipate tax increases and the timing that results, they may decline at the policy announcement.

In his first address to the nation on February 15, 1993, Clinton announced his intention to raise taxes to cap the budget deficit. Just two days later in a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress, Clinton unveiled his economic plan focusing on deficit reduction rather than a middle class tax cut, which had been high on his campaign agenda. After falling somewhat in anticipation of the speech, from February 15 to February 17, the S&P 500 lost 2.54 percent, the Dow lost 2.37 percent, and the Nasdaq lost 4.51 percent.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

Of course, any time you can predict a market movement you can make money. That, in fact, is part of the congressional inside trading issue that led to the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, known as the STOCK Act. Clinton was reportedly pressured by his advisers, including Robert Rubin formerly of Goldman Sachs, to raise taxes on the theory that a smaller federal budget deficit would reduce bond interest rates.

While Rubin kept his motivations somewhat under wraps, in the recent episode Warren Buffett has been boldly comfortable basking in the media limelight for pushing the tax increase. It would make sense for an astute investor such as Buffett to place investments that would gain from the market reversal such policy announcements would inevitably cause. Of course, I cannot say for sure that Buffett knew the timing of the announcement or prepared his portfolio appropriately. President Obama, however, squarely situated the Buffett rule in his platform on April 7. By April 14, it was reported that the Standard & Poor's 500 Index just experienced its biggest weekly decline in 2012.

Thanks Warren. Nice trade.

Tags:
economy,
taxes,
federal taxes

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Jeff Young of OH _ Tax increase on rich does not get MORE MONEY...

The tax increase by Bill Clinton on rich did not generate THE INCREASED REVENUE. Newt's tax cuts DID increase revenue. I'll do something most liberals don't do. Provide proof:

"MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth."

"FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997."

"Dr. J. D. Foster":

"Following the [Clinton] tax hike, the economy performed reasonably well, but not as well as one would expect given the conditions at the time. The real economic boom came later in the decade, just when the economy should have slowed as it made the transition from a period of recovery to normal expansion. Further, this acceleration coincided to a remarkable degree with the 1997 tax cut. . . ."

"In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 1997 bill":

"* Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;

* Created a new $500 child tax credit;

* Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;

* Extended the air transportation excise taxes;

* Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;

* Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;

* Established education IRAs;

* Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and

* Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax. . . ."

"In 1995, the first year for which these data are available, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. Venture capital is especially critical to a vibrant economy because high-risk/high-return investment permits promising new businesses to blossom, rapidly spreading new technologies and new ideas into the marketplace and across the economy. Such investments, when successful, generate returns to investors that are subject primarily to the tax on capital gains. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again." (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm)

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm

Bill Hedges of MO 5:48PM April 17, 2012

Here is my idea for how the Buffett Rule could be good for the Tea Party goals.

BUFFETT (Buffett Uber Fair Flat Everybody Taxed 30%) Tax has 3 parts:

1. Classical Buffett Tax - 30% on all income over 1 million dollars.

2. Buff Tax - 30% on hot sexy buff (but poor) celebrities and posers not eligible to be POTUS.

3.(All You can eat) Buffet Tax - 30% for everybody else, even those on SSI/SSD and corporations (since corporations are people too).

Thus the Democrats can increase spending while the Tea Party Republicans (who represent taxpayers) can recruit more voters and in a few years reduce both the debt, the spending, and eventually the 30% rate (in all 3 parts) to 20%, thus letting all tax payers (including secretaries AND Romney) pay as little/much as Obama and Buffett paid on 2011 income. With no special rates for investment income or deductions, the only way to make this tax more fair would be to make it a per capita tax.

PS: A pending tax increase would cause people to take the income early (ie, sell appreciated shares of stock) but they would probably just take the early income (well, what is left of it) and reinvest it (but some shares of stock back).

Jeff Young of OH 2:22PM April 17, 2012

Panskeptic of MT _ You wrote this last, but is FIRST THING I will discuss. “there is nothing in the world more boring than hearing rich folk complain about their taxes. Especially since their's have gone down, while everybody else's have gone up.” Bush tax cuts applied to rich and right on down the line. And the tax cuts for rich INCREASED GOVERNMENT REVENUE not reduced. An skeptical of your knowledge Panskeptic of MT...

Next, NO, “George Bush had a budget roughly in balance when he was inaugurated”. That was Newt’s balanced budget. Clinton never had a balanced budget until Newt.

Then you say “look what he did to the country”. Bush tax cuts for rich increased government revenue. Too bad Democrats did not listen to Bush and correct the housing & financial mess. Might have stopped or at least lessened the recession.

bum-bum out-debted Bush in about 2 years what took Bush 8 years. CBO says bumcare will DESTROY U.S. of A. financially. Kind of funny. buma was going into debt to get out of recession. Democrats just say Bush went into debt.

ON Oct. 1, 2010 when budget was due and Democrats controlled Congress, NO BUDGET WAS PASSED. None after in Senate...

Bill Hedges of MO 9:12AM April 17, 2012

Economic Intelligence

Insights, perspectives, and commentary on the economy. Follow it on Twitter @EconomicIntel.

advertisement

Latest Videos

advertisement