In defending President Obama’s effort to make as the
centerpiece of his campaign the so-called Buffett Rule — which would require
anyone earning at least $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of his
income in taxes — Jason Furman, deputy director of Obama’s National Economic
Council, said, “Our goal is to have a progressive tax system.”
Furman added that the tax was never intended “to bring
the deficit down and the debt under control” (contradicting a past claim made
by the president). The goal, according to Furman, is to establish “a basic
issue of tax fairness.”
Let’s take Furman’s claims in order, starting with the
goal of a progressive tax system.
According to the CBO, the top 1 percent of earners pay 40 percent of all
federal taxes, compared to less than 20 percent in the 1970s. And today,
according to research by the OECD, income taxes in America are the most
progressive among the rich nations of the world. As Stephen Moore has observed,
the “richest 10 percent of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country’s
income-tax burden than do the richest 10 percent in every other industrialized
nation, including socialist Sweden.”
Second, the United States now has the top corporate tax
rate in the world, having recently passed Japan (and once again placing America
ahead of socialist Sweden).
Third, middle-class workers on average pay just under 15
percent of their income in federal taxes while the richest 0.1 percent pay
almost twice that rate (26 percent). The Buffett Rule applies to the
exceedingly small number of individuals who make most of their money from
capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income in order to
encourage savings and investment and because that income has already been taxed
as corporate income. It’s reasonable to assume that The Buffett Rule is, in the
words of the Wall Street Journal, “really nothing more than a … way for Mr.
Obama to justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30 percent
from 15 percent today.”
As for the “basic issue of tax fairness:” This is a
recurrent theme for Obama. In a 2008 debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton,
ABC’s Charles Gibson asked Obama why he would support raising capital-gains
taxes given the historical record of government’s losing net revenue as a
result. “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the
capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness,” Obama replied. This moment
revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes
for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes
through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes
to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income
inequality. The president really does favor, in his words, “spreading the
wealth around.”
This debate goes to the core of what separates
progressives and conservatives. The former are drawn to the concept of equality
of results while the latter are far more committed to equality of opportunity.
And for liberals, the problem of income inequality has to do with the rich
whereas for conservatives, the problem is not wealth but persistent poverty. As
Robert Beschel and I argue in a National Affairs essay, “the right way to
deal with income inequality is not by punishing the rich, but by doing more to
help the poor become richer, chiefly by increasing their social capital. This
means not simply strengthening the bonds of trust and mutual respect among
citizens, but also equipping Americans — especially the poor — with the skills,
values, and habits that will allow them to succeed in a modern, free society.”
Liberals are correct about this: income inequality has
increased over recent decades. The task of conservatives is to give a full and
fair picture of income gaps in America, to explain what is behind it, and to point
out the injustice of the left’s remedies and the degree to which their
proposals represent a radical departure from America’s ideals.
But more is required than simply that. Social mobility,
which is the central moral promise of American economic life, has been the
traditional alternative to economic egalitarianism. But the truth is that
whether one judges by intragenerational mobility (meaning movement within or
between income brackets and social classes within an individual’s lifetime) or
intergenerational mobility (movement within or between income brackets and
social classes occurring from one generation to the next), the United States is
less mobile than it should be. Many European countries, for example, now have
as much social mobility as, and more opportunity than, the United States.
Today, a child’s future depends more on parental income in America than it does
in Canada and Europe.
It would therefore be a mistake for conservatives to
ignore the issues of social mobility and income inequality. They couldn’t even
if they wanted to. The divide between rich and poor in America will be a focal
point of this election. This is an instance, then, when the left is forcing the
conservative movement to grapple with an issue it might otherwise ignore. (When
things are working right, liberalism and conservatism focus attention and spur
creative thinking on topics each movement is largely indifferent to.) The
challenge for conservatives is to offer up a comprehensive social agenda in the
face of America’s deep cultural and structural problems. Assembling such a
platform is a hugely complicated task. But doing so, and translating good ideas
into policy, would make America a more just, decent, and less divided society.
No comments:
Post a Comment