Save 75% - Only $49.99 for 1 full year! digitalPLUS subscription offer ends 12/1
NewsOpinionReaders Respond

Lower tax rates are needed to fight deficit

Compensation and BenefitsJob MarketGeorge W. BushElections

I could not agree more with your recent editorial regarding the debt limit deal ("We need an election," Aug. 2). Tough choices have simply been postponed. What I cannot understand is your persistent support for taxing the rich. Let's take a look at some of the historical factual information on taxation.

In the 1920s, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon pointed out that people with high incomes were simply not paying the high tax rates that existed on paper because they were putting their money into tax shelters. After the 73 percent tax rate for high earners was cut to 24 percent in 1925 as Secretary Mellon recommended, tax revenue increased as did investment, income and jobs.

The annual unemployment rate in the ensuing years never exceeded 4.2 percent. Moreover, the recovery from the 1920-21 recession was quick and without any other government intervention. As Mr. Mellon said at the time, "Just as labor cannot be forced to work against its will, so it can be taken for granted that capital will not work unless the return is worthwhile. It will continue to retire into the shelter of tax-exempt bonds, which offer both security and immunity from the tax collector."

In other words, high tax rates that many people avoid paying do not necessarily bring in as much revenue to the government as lower tax rates. When lower rates prevail, they make it safe to seek a higher rate of return on investments than provided by tax-exempt securities.

The facts are evident: There were 206 people who reported annual taxable incomes of $1 million or more in 1916. But as tax rates rose, that number fell to 21 by 1921. After a series of tax-rate cuts in the 1920s, the number of individuals reporting taxable incomes of $1 million or more rose again to 207 by 1925.

As output surged, joblessness plunged. It should not be surprising that the government collected more tax revenue under these conditions. Nor is it surprising that with increased economic activity resulting from more investment in the private economy, the annual unemployment rate from 1925 through 1928 ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent.

Similar results were produced by the tax cuts during the Kennedy, Reagan and George W. Bush administrations — namely, rising output, rising employment and rising incomes and rising tax revenues for the government.

Another consequence was that people in higher-income brackets paid not only a larger total amount of taxes, but a higher percentage of all taxes, after what were called "tax cuts for the rich." It was not simply that their incomes rose, but that this was taxable income, since the lower tax rates made it profitable to get higher returns outside of tax shelters.

The inescapable conclusion from history is that high tax rates that people don't actually pay do not bring in as much hard income as lower tax rates that they do pay. Hopefully, the committee to be formed under the recently-enacted debt ceiling bill will include much needed tax reform.

Benedict Frederick, Jr., Pasadena

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
Compensation and BenefitsJob MarketGeorge W. BushElections
  • Schaller fails to see danger of U.S. debt

    Columnist Thomas F. Schaller's analysis is incredibly myopic ("Avoiding Europe's austerity nightmare," April 18). To compare the economic condition of the U.S. to those of Greece or Spain at the beginning of the economic crisis is comparing apples and oranges.

  • Military spending is misplaced U.S. priority

    On April 17, I will be protesting war taxes at Baltimore's main post office. I realize that taxes fund many good programs — education, environment and diplomacy. But sadly when 57 percent of the federal budget goes to the Pentagon, the government's priorities are out of touch with the...

  • A better budget remedy than the Buffett rule

    You end your editorial on the Buffett Rule ("The Buffett Rule backlash," April 13) with the question, "Where will the $50 billion come from to balance the budget, if not from this minimum tax plan?"

  • Skeptical of Buffett and need for higher taxes

    First, I'm an 80-year-old living on Social Security, and I know all the tax loopholes need to be closed ("The Buffett Rule backlash," April 13). But isn't it correct that Warren Buffett owes the IRS a great deal of taxes for a number of years? Let's have a true picture of Mr. Buffett.

  • The Buffett Rule backlash
    The Buffett Rule backlash

    Our view: Taxing the wealthy at rates others already face wouldn't solve the nation's deficit, but it would restore a modicum of fairness to the tax code

  • Godless Republicans turn back on poor and sick

    Some churchmen take exception to some of President Barack Obama's positions on matters of faith. I suggest these men of faith take a closer look at the true meaning of religion. All three Abrahamic religions — Christianity, Judaism and Islam — have as their central theme the...

Comments
Loading