Are the super-rich paying enough tax?

Probably not.

Robin Hood wouldn’t have approved of the trend in tax policy over recent decades. Taking from the rich to give to everyone else has fallen out of favour, especially in Britain and the US. Since the early 1950s the top rate of income tax has tumbled in the US from above 90 per cent to 35 per cent. And a mix of different types of income means many of the super-rich pay an overall rate less than that. In Britain, too, the levy on the rich has halved since peaking in the 1970s at 83 per cent. And while HMRC reports that the share of total tax paid by the top 1 per cent in the UK has increased since 1999, tough fiscal times mean politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have been casting a covetous eye over the bulging wallets of the wealthy.

While the UK’s Conservative-Liberal coalition recently edged the top rate of income tax down, there have been other proposals to force the rich to contribute more – notably the idea of a higher charge on £1m homes, the so-called mansion tax.

In the US, Barack Obama is seeking re-election on a platform of raising top-rate income tax and imposing a minimum 30 per cent tax on those earning more than $1m a year, a policy originally suggested by billionaire investor Warren Buffett. "This debate is partly about fairness," says Len Burman, professor of practice in public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University and former Treasury official under Bill Clinton. "But there is no right or wrong answer to the question of how much of their money the rich deserve to keep." There are also myths about the dangers of taxing the rich that are often repeated with little evidence to back them up, he argues.

In reality, many economists believe governments can extract more money from their wealthiest citizens without chasing them out of the country or hobbling economic growth. Most clashes on high-end taxes begin with the tricky question of justice. The starting point for this debate is one of necessity. Most governments would like more cash. Government debt held by the public in the US is on track to climb from about two thirds of national income to as high as 100 per cent over the coming decade.

"Levels this high would make America vulnerable to a debt crisis that would make the fallout from the Greek debt crisis look like a picnic," says Bob Williams, an economist at the Tax Policy Center in Washington.

Meanwhile, despite far more active effort to control spending, Britain’s fiscal position still looks precarious. Thrift by the government has been hurting growth, further undermining tax revenues.

"The depressing fact is that cuts in spending won’t be enough to fix public finances," says Joel Slemrod, a tax specialist at the University of Michigan. "Painful as it is, we will need both spending cuts and tax increases."

Many right-leaning experts acknowledge that taxes will need to rise. But they also point out that high earners already pay more than their fair share. To back this up, friends of the rich observe that in recent years the top 1 per cent have paid about a third of all income taxes in the US – an impressive $318bn. (To make it into the 1 per cent club, you need to earn more than $344,000 per year.) On average they handed over roughly 25 per cent of their income to the taxman. By contrast the bottom half of American earners chipped in just 2.3 per cent of income taxes and were taxed at an average rate of just 1.8 per cent. Close to half of Americans pay no income tax at all.

Rich Brits aren’t far behind. The top 1 per cent shoulder a full quarter of Britain’s total income tax burden. Still, these figures tell only half of the story. As Occupy protestors never tire of saying, the rich have secured a bigger share of the national pie. As a result higher tax rates would merely be clawing back part of the outsized gains in income the wealthy have claimed over the past few decades. In 1970 the wealthiest 1 per cent of Americans took home just 9 per cent of the nation’s total income. Now that is closer to 24 per cent – the highest level since 1928.

Even if America doubled the effective tax rate on the top 1 per cent this golden group would still have an after-tax income twice as high as in 1970 in real terms, according to Professor Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of Berkeley. Income gaps have widened in the UK too.

Public anger is also roused by the fact that some of the super-rich pay an extremely low tax rate indeed. This may be a small minority but they attract a lot of attention. In an announcement to accompany his Buffett tax plan, President Obama disclosed that 22,000 households that made more than $1m per year paid less than 15 per cent of their income in tax – and 1,470 managed to pay no federal income tax at all, according to figures for 2009 from the Internal Revenue Service.

Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, paid 15 per cent tax on his $21m income partly because his money comes from investment dividends, in a form of payment known as "carried interest", which attracts a lower tax to reward risk taking. He also donates money to charity, which would further reduce his tax liability. America also offers a 15 per cent tax rate to hedge fund managers on fees they get for investing other people’s money. 

Squeeze the rich?

A similar case can be made in the UK. Research by the Treasury showed that about 550 people earning more than £1m a year were paying a lower average tax rate than those with an annual income of £20,000. Some 330 of these super-high-income Brits were managing to get away with a tax rate of less than 10 per cent.

So there is an argument in favour of both sides of the fairness debate. But assuming politicians will have to levy higher taxes on the rich, it is worth asking how this can best be done.

For decades, right-wing economic theorists have offered dire warnings about the consequence of trying to squeeze the rich. The first line of defence is that the rich will simply manage to avoid the tax. Second, in grabbing more from the rich, governments actively retard economic growth. That leaves everyone worse off. "These theories are intuitively appealing," says Williams at the Tax Policy Center. "But the evidence that this happens in practice is not terribly compelling." 

Take the idea that government revenues actually decline as tax rates rise. In 1974, economist Arthur Laffer impressed US President Gerald Ford and advisers Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney by demonstrating how higher taxes could actually reduce tax revenue. The theory behind the famous Laffer curve – first drawn on a cocktail napkin for the president – is that tax hikes encourage the rich to work less, find more creative ways to evade taxes and postpone or scrap investments. As marginal tax rates move close to 100 per cent, government revenues would actually fall to zero.

Fans of Laffer claim that the celebrated curve was recently put to the test in the UK – and passed with flying colours. Eager for revenue, the Labour government raised the top rate of tax from 40 per cent to 50 per cent in 2010. While revenue didn’t actually fall, it didn’t rise much either. Affluent Brits found various ways to avoid the hike. Bankers asked for bonuses to be paid before the tax came into effect. After the tax came into force, others asked for income to be delayed in the hope that Labour would be replaced by the Conservative Party. Some even moved overseas.

Some would argue Britain was not an entirely fair test. Many tax avoidance strategies relied on delaying tactics. Had the tax remained in place for longer it would have been harder to avoid. There is also plenty of heavy-hitting economic research that shows higher tax rates can deliver more government revenue, especially if the tax code is simplified to reduce avoidance.

Professor Saez and Peter Diamond, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, published a paper in November 2011 concluding that even without closing tax loopholes, top tax rates in the US could be pushed as high as 48 per cent without falling foul of the Laffer curve of declining revenues. If the tax loopholes were removed, the rates could go up to 76 per cent.

Saez helpfully estimates that a tax of 67 per cent on the top 1 per cent would actually raise $4trn over the coming decade – far from enough to close the deficit but a very big step along the way. The common assumption that higher taxation – especially on the rich – slows the economy has even less foundation. Start with a geographical comparison. Many countries around the world tax at far higher levels than Britain or the US and achieve similar rates of growth. The Swedish government, for example, claims 53 per cent of GDP in tax – far higher than the 32 per cent collected by the government in the US, even including state and local authorities. And while it’s true other factors may have played a part, the nation’s economy has outpaced that of the US over the past decade. In fact Anglo-Saxon nations have not grown faster than countries that ignored Laffer’s advice, including Germany and Denmark. 

A time-based comparison goes against defenders of the rich too. There has been no noticeable acceleration of growth in the US or UK as their governments have gone about pruning the top rates of tax.

"In fact the US economy grew very swiftly in the 1950s and 1960s, when top rates of tax were draconian by current standards," observes Mark Weisbrot, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. Professors Diamond and Saez contend that this is because a lot of what the rich do does little to promote economic growth – a claim that many on the right will dispute. So this leaves the question of how best to tax the rich. Buffett’s tax, which sets a 30 per cent floor under the tax rate of those earning more than $1m, makes for gratifying politics.

Sadly, this type of approach can cause policymakers real headaches (witness the charity tax in the UK) and would raise pocket change in budgetary terms, about $47bn over 10 years, compared with expected federal revenues of $41trn. 

Leak tragedy

There is a way of taxing the rich that will yield far more revenue and be much harder to avoid: plugging leaks in the tax code. "The US tax code is riddled with loopholes that the rich can exploit," says Professor Burman. "And many of these deductions are skewed to benefit the rich."

One example is the mortgage interest tax deduction, which allowed Americans to exclude from their income payments on home loans of up to $1m. This disproportionately benefits the rich. Those in a 35 per cent tax bracket will save $35 for every $100 of mortgage interest. Those in the humbler 15 per cent tax bracket save just $15 per $100 on what is likely a lower interest payment. Scrapping this deduction could raise $80bn a year – 20 times more than the Buffett tax over 10 years. Even capping deductions at a lower rate could garner impressive sums. And other policies benefit the wealthy, including a deduction on state income tax. A bolder move in the US would be to tax investment income at the same rate as income.

"Among the main reasons the rich pay less is the privileged treatment of investment over sweat and toil," says Dr Weisbrot. Equalising the two could yield enough to scrap corporate income tax, which is really a form of double taxation on profits. "The best way to ensure the rich pay more is to simplify the tax code," says Professor Burman. "You can even have lower rates and yet raise more money." 

Of course, soaking the rich won’t solve the fiscal problems of Britain or the US. One study by the Tax Policy Center showed that if policymakers tried to rely on top taxpayers alone to bring down the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP, the highest rate would need to rise over 90 per cent.

Few believe this is practical or desirable. Instead the pain will have to be more evenly spread throughout society. But on both sides of the Atlantic there is a compelling case for demanding a bigger contribution from the super rich.

This article originally appeared in Economia.

Photograph: Getty Images

Christopher Alkan

Getty
Show Hide image

Chuka Umunna calls for "solidarity" among Labour MPs, whoever is voted leader

The full text of shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna's speech to Policy Network on election-winning ideas for Labour's future, and the weaknesses of the New Labour project.

There has never been an easy time to be a social democrat (or “democratic socialist” as we sometimes call ourselves in Britain). Whereas the right can demonise the poor and extol the virtues of the market, and the hard left can demonise the market and extol the role of the state, our position of constraining the domination of markets and reforming the state is, by definition, more complex.

It is nonetheless the case that social democracy has a historic responsibility, in every generation, to renew democracy and preserve a civic culture. This is achieved not through soundbites and slogans, but through the hard-headed development of a progressive politics that reconciles liberty and democracy, new comers and locals to our communities, business and workers, in a common life that preserves security, prosperity and peace.  This historic mission is all the more urgent now and my determination that we succeed has grown not weakened since our election defeat last May.

But, in order to be heard, it is necessary to make balanced and reasonable argument that both animates and inspires our movement, and which is popular and plausible with the people.  The first is pre-requisite to the second; and there is no choice to be made between your party’s fundamental principles and electability. They are mutually dependent - you cannot do one without the other.

We are in the midst of choosing a new leader and it is clear to anyone who has watched the UK Labour Party leadership election this summer that amongst a significant number there is a profound rage against Third Way politics – as pursued by the likes of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder and others - as a rejection of our fundamental values.

In the UK there is a view that New Labour accepted an uncritical accommodation with global capital that widened inequality, weakened organised labour and we were too close to the US Republicans and too far from the European left.

I do not believe this is fair, not least because we rescued many of our public services from the scrap heap when we came to office in 1997 and there were very significant achievements  we should celebrate.  New Labour renewed our National Health Service in a fundamental way; we built new schools and improved existing ones; we set up new children’s centres all over the country; we brought in a National Minimum Wage; we worked with others to bring peace to Northern Ireland; we introduced civil partnerships.  Just some of our achievements.

However, though we may take issue with the critique, I do not think we can simply dismiss out of hand those who hold critical views of New Labour. Like any government, the New Labour administration made mistakes - it could and should have achieved more, and done more to challenge the Right’s assumptions about the world. In the end, it is not unreasonable to be ambitious for what your party in government can achieve in building greater equality, liberty, democracy and sustainability. It is far better we acknowledge, not reject, this ambition for a better world, as we seek to forge a new politics of the common good fit for the future.

Realising our values in office has been disrupted by globalisation and the surge of technological forces that are displacing and reshaping industry after industry.

Some argue that globalisation as an ideological construct of the right. But we must recognise that we live in an increasingly integrated world in which markets have led to an unprecedented participation of excluded people in prosperity, a rise in living standards for hundreds of millions  of people and a literacy unprecedented in human history – this is particularly so in emerging economies like my father’s native Nigeria. And the internet has led to a level of accountability that has disturbed elites.

Yet, this has been combined with a concentration of ownership that needs to be challenged, of a subordination of politics that requires creative rather than reactive thinking, and these global forces have exacerbated inequalities as well as helped reduce poverty.

So it is important that we understand the sheer scale and impact of new technologies. At the moment we are engaged in a debate about Uber and its threat to one of the last vestiges of vocational labour markets left in London, those of the black taxi cabs and their attainment of 'The Knowledge'. But the reality is that within the next decade there will be the emergence of driverless cars so we have to intensify our exploration of how to support people in a knowledge economy and the realities of lifelong learning, as well as lifelong teaching. As people live longer we will have to think about how to engage them constructively in work and teaching in new ways.

Once again, I'm addressing all of this, Social Democracy requires a balanced view that domesticates the destructive energy of capital while recognising its creative energy, that recognises the need for new skills rather than simply the protection of old ones. A Social Democracy that recognises that internationalism requires co-operation between states and not a zero sum game that protectionism would encourage.

Above all, Social Democratic politics must recognise the importance of place, of the resources to be found in the local through which the pressures of globalisation can be mediated and shaped. Our job is to shape the future and neither to accept it as a passive fate nor to indulge the fantasy that we can dominate it but to work with the grain of change in order to renew our tradition, recognising the creativity of the workforce, the benefits of democracy and the importance of building a common life.  Sources of value are to be found in local traditions and institutions.

This also requires a recognition that though demonstration and protest are important,; but relationships and conversations are a far more effective way of building a movement for political change.

One of the huge weaknesses of New Labour was in its reliance on mobilisation from the centre rather than organising. It therefore allowed itself to be characterised as an elite project with wide popular support but it did not build a base for its support within the party across the country, and it did not develop leaders from the communities it represented. It was strong on policy but weak on strengthening democratic politics, particularly Labour politics.

Over half a million people are now members, supporters or affiliated supporters of our party, with hundreds of thousands joining in the last few weeks. Some have joined in order to thwart the pursuit of Labour values but many more have joined to further the pursuit of those values, including lots of young people. At a time when so many are walking away from centre left parties across the Western world and many young people do not vote let alone join a party, this is surely something to celebrate.

So it is vital that we now embrace our new joiners and harness the energy they can bring to renewing Labour’s connection with the people. First, we must help as many them as possible to become doorstep activists for our politics. Second, I have long argued UK Labour should campaign and organise not only to win elections but to affect tangible change through local community campaigns. We brought Arnie Graf, the Chicago community organiser who mentored President Obama in his early years, over from the U.S. to help teach us how to community organise more effectively. We should bring Arnie back over to finish the job and help empower our new joiners to be the change they want to see in every community – we need to build on the links they have with local groups and organisations.

I mentioned at the beginning that in every generation Social Democracy is besieged from left and right but the achievements of each generation are defined by the strength of a complex political tradition that strengthens solidarity through protecting democracy and liberty, a role for the state and the market and seeks to shape the future through an inclusive politics. Solidarity is key which is why we must accept the result of our contest when it comes and support our new leader in developing an agenda that can return Labour to office.

Yes, these are troubled times for social democrats. All over Europe there is a sense among our traditional voters that we are remote and do not share their concerns or represent their interests or values.  There is surge of support for populist right wing parties from Denmark to France, of more left wing parties in Greece and Spain and in Britain too. There is renewal of imperial politics in Russia, the murderous and abhorrent regime of ISIL in the Middle East, volatility in the Chinese economy and in Europe a flow of immigration that causes fear and anxiety.

But, the task of Social Democracy in our time is to fashion a politics of hope that can bring together divided populations around justice, peace and prosperity so that we can govern ourselves democratically. We have seen worse than this and weathered the storm. I am looking forward, with great optimism to be being part of a generation that renews our relevance and popularity in the years to come.

Chuka Umunna is the shadow business secretary and the Labour MP for Streatham.