Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Want to Stimulate the Economy? Tax the Wealthy

By Chuck Collins, AlterNet. Posted January 24, 2008.


Underlying our economic crisis is a polarization of income and wealth.
Advertisement

Every couple of years, when big investors suffer losses, Congress and their partisan economists launch into a heated debate over how to stimulate the flagging economy. This is mostly a rehash of the "trickle down" versus "bottom up" debate that dates back to the Reagan years.

Conservatives argue that the answer to the recession is to cut taxes and interest rates targeted at their über-wealthy and global corporate patrons. This is their program for any season, rain or shine, so it is immediately suspect.

Progressives argue, correctly, that we should target tax breaks and rebates to low- and middle-income people; their consumer spending will keep the economy chugging. Give a tax break to big corporations and the rich, and it will go anywhere on the planet in search of maximum returns. Give a tax rebate to a lower-income person or a small business and it is spent in the local economy, thus stimulating bottom up demand.

The likely congressional compromise will direct tens of billions in tax breaks to corporations and send ordinary people a check for $300 or $400. The wealthy will be further enriched, and everyone else will have extra cash to spend or pay down their Visa bill.

Whatever Congress does, however, it will borrow funds -- adding further to a national debt that now tops $9 trillion. More borrowing will continue to weaken our economy, widen our trade deficit, increase current and future wealth inequality, and postpone the bill payment for another day.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world's economists look at the United States like we're profligate fools jumping up and down on a bubble of debt. They're nervously depending on us to remain the "shoppers of the world" by borrowing money and buying imports beyond our means. But they see what we ignore: The gig is up.

Underlying our economic crisis is a polarization of income and wealth. Real wages for working people have been stagnant for decades, a horrific fact that has been masked only by increased work hours and vast amounts of private consumer debt in the form of credit cards and second mortgages. On the other end of the wealth spectrum, the superrich have so much money that they are engaging in speculative investments in search of maximum returns. This casino class, with its hedge funds and mortgage gambling schemes, have fueled further economic instability.

Congress should pass a "bottom up" stimulus package and pay for it with taxes on the rich. Three progressive tax proposals could pay for additional investments that would broaden prosperity and reduce distortions caused by concentrated wealth.

Increase top income tax rates. There are 7,500 households in the United States with annual incomes over $20 million. This private jet crowd has been the big winner of the rigged tax system of the last two and a half decades. Congress should boost the top tax rate to 50 percent on annual incomes over $5 million and to 70 percent on incomes over $10 million. This would generate an additional $105 billion a year and pay for a federal stimulus package.

Increase estate taxes. While the Bush administration is using the recession as a pretext for abolishing the estate tax by making the 2001 tax cut permanent, Congress should do just the opposite. The estate tax, our nation's only levy on inherited wealth, should be revamped to tax inheritances over $20 million at higher rates. Revenue should be dedicated to reducing the payroll tax or providing debt-free college educations. As part of reforming the estate tax, Congress should restore the credit that allows states to "piggy back" on the federal estate tax and generate billions in revenue for states. State spending on education, infrastructure and community development are among the most effective intermediate-term economic stimulus.

Tax warehouses of wealth. Over the last two decades, the über-rich have funneled billions of dollars -- funds that could have been taxed -- into private foundations and nonprofit organizations like Harvard University. This is the "people's money," forgone tax dollars that should help stimulate the economy. We should increase the annual excise tax on private foundations and nonprofit corporations with assets over $20 million by two percent. Foundations that fail to pay out more than 5 percent a year, excluding their overhead, should be assessed an even higher excise tax.

These measures would generate hundreds of billions to pay for immediate economic stimulus as well as meaningful investments in economic opportunity. Borrowing funds to stimulate the economy will just postpone the pain. Paying now, through targeted taxes on the wealthy, makes economic sense. Further, it addresses the root of our current economic distress, the extreme inequality of wealth and power.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: stimulus package, economy, recession, taxes, inequality

Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and chair of the Working Group on Extreme Inequality, an emerging coalition of religious, business, labor and civic groups concerned about the wealth gap. He is co-author with Bill Gates Sr. of Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Simple and Logical
Posted by: Xynyx on Jan 24, 2008 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been saying this since Ronnie Raygun first ran for the Presidency.

At least the rich will be nicely fattened when the poor rise up and eat them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Simple and Logical Posted by: Basenjis
Ain't gonna happen
Posted by: atka on Jan 24, 2008 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All good points but the only way these very needed and long overdue policies get implemented is if Kucinich gets elected and we know that's not going to happen unless hell freezes over!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Social Security Economic Stimulus
Posted by: wsowa1 on Jan 24, 2008 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fix social security by removing the payroll cap. Tax all income (including all compensation in whatever form) and the so called problem with social security is solved. This removes the regressive effect of the existing tax.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tax the wealthy?
Posted by: Alphax on Jan 24, 2008 10:26 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tax the wealthy? Are you SERIOUS? Were you ALIVE and CONSCIOUS when Bill Clinton first took office and jacked up the luxury tax (which is, essentially, a tax directed at the wealthy)?

The luxury tax went up, wealthy people stopped buying luxury items, businesses that made those items suddenly stopped making money, which then forced those businesses to lay off the workers that made those items. It was a BRILLIANT move by Bill...and one that people have oddly seemed to have forgotten.

So yeah...great idea there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Troll Posted by: ssegallmd
...and another thing
Posted by: Alphax on Jan 24, 2008 10:40 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is with the constant class/economic war that people so enjoy pushing?

I make a very paltry salary, and barely scrimp by, but I don't despise the "uber wealthy" for the money they've made. If anything, I despise a government system that taxes the top earners at such an enormous rate that it fuels the rich to seek tax shelters and other ways of keeping more of the money they've earned.

It's also very hypocritical to blame the rich for trying to shelter as much of their money as possible, when "joe average" does the exact same thing when he shleps down to his local tax-preperation place (or software) and tries to figure out ways to get a bigger return. Everyone wants as much of what they earn as possible...and getting ticked off at one paticular group for being more successful at it just smacks of sour-grapes.

One of the other posters had it right. Instead of this "us vs them" garbage people keep falling into, just tax all income equally. 15% of 1 billion in income is the same as 15% of a 40k salary. 15% is 15%.

Or, keep facilitating class war and whining about what ever group is making more than you....because that has worked oh so well SO FAR...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ...and another thing Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: ...and another thing Posted by: JSquercia
Tax all these phony churches too
Posted by: cherylholmes on Jan 25, 2008 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
God is big business in this country. Tax all these phony churches and televangelists. Stop all wars NOW!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TWO THINGS:
Posted by: wilty on Jan 25, 2008 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should insist on a "Bottom-up" Stimulus Plan
and mandate an amendment that requires the Federal Budget be balanced by Federal Law, every fiscal year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Jan 25, 2008 12:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re the comments of Alphax, 15% of $30 million in taxes paid does not bring about the same effect as taking 15% from someone making $30K. Not even close. That person making $30 million doesn't feel the bite at all. The $30K one feels it acutely as he's under the median income. We have to stop looking at taxes as aggregates paid - so who cares how much the $30 mil guy paid? He still lives like a king. The $30K guy lives on the edge and is one paycheck away from disaster...probably can't afford to have his car break down or anything else go wrong, and lives under the constant threat of something undermining his tenuous hold on making a living. I think it's the after effect of taxes paid that should be looked at, not the amount. Nothing hurts a guy at $30 mil and his fare share should be much larger as he has no stressors whatsoever. He can always live well no matter what happens.

Secondly I refute the claim that a person has made all of "his" money himself. No one ever does anything all by himself. We all have a debt to society to keep it healthy, sane and compassionate and that's just not what greed mongering capitalism is all about. Why don't you go on MSNBC.com and check it out - we are not a happy country - others are much happier. Why? Because greed is not their centerpiece of living. Cooperation and compassion is. We need to temper the greed of capitalism better than this or we will continue to be a very unhappy, unfulfilled and amoral society. Those are real moral values - not the accumulation of money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent Column ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Jan 25, 2008 1:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is , is tat there is too much investment money out there looking for a deal. Look at all the Hedge Funds and the amounts they command ... The American economy has plenty of 'seed corn' for any viable investment.

Just because taxes go up on higher income doesn't mean that investors will stop trying to make more and more money.

And yes, we need to get foundations to get busy using their money, a 5% use it or lose it law would work wonders to get money circulating again. All donations from wealthy individuals should at least have to pay a capital gains tax or more, as much of these funds have never been taxed.

Estate taxes are our only defense against an oligarchy. Money always snowballs into fewer and fewer hands. The money needs to be recirculated to reward the next round of bright andd talented investors and inventors not gather dust in some trust.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We were all Keynesians once long ago. We should all become Keynesians once again...And soon!!
Posted by: yellow on Jan 28, 2008 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chuck Collins hits the nail on the head. The problem is that we have a national average efffective rate of taxation of about 23% with multi-millionaires paying the same effective rate of federal income tax as a middle class family of four that earns about $75,000 a year. This is appalling and must be reversed. The fact of the matter is that between 1970 and 2003 the US GDP in inflation adjusted dollars nearly tripled from $3.7 trillion to $10.8 trillion while the incomes of the bottom 90% barely increased at all with many actually decreasing in real terms. In fact, according to researchers Thomas Piketty and Emmanual Saez, the average real annual income for the bottom 90% of US earners, in inflation adjusted year 2000 dollars, declined from $27,041 in 1970 to $25,862 in 2002. This represents a real decline of 4.5% over this entire period. The real incomes of the top 1% actually tripled along with the growth of the economy during this time far outpacing even the rate of inflation. The real problem in the US has not been the fed, except for its recession inducing monetarism, but rather the growth of social and economic inequality since the dawn of the Reagan era.

The earnings gap has been worsening. According to David Kay Johnston of the NY Times, whose reporting on tax issues has gained national acclaim, between 1950 and 1970, for each additional dollar earned by those in the lower 90% of income earners, those in the top 0.01% earned an additional $162.00. By contrast, from 1990 to 2002, for every dollar earned by the bottom 90% of earners, those in the upper 0.01% earned an additional $18,000. This represents an increase in the earnings differential between the rich and the rest of us of more than 110 fold!! Because of the rapid concentration of income in the US and the consequent constriction of effective demand in most of the US domestic market, the economy has only received stimulus through the steady growth of public and private debt. This has caused much financial instability leading us inexorably to our current state of affairs.

Turning the situation around will take the restoration of a steeply progressive system of federal income taxes as suggested by Mr. Collins. Spending should be focused on the working poor and the middle class. Increased income assistance for the unemployed and the elderly is a good start. Targeted tax cuts for those below the national median income, especially those with dependants, is also a good start. Increases in things like heating fuel assistance for the poor and food stamps also would create the needed stimulus more than more tax breaks for businesses who have no real incentive to invest in the midst of a recession. Allowing the economy, and the position of the poor, to deteriorate further is no solution. This is immoral and inhumane, will not succeed in turning the economy around and will only make our problems far more expensive to fix in the not too distant future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Economic ignorance
Posted by: ironchuck on Feb 5, 2008 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it was Ludwig von Mises who stated that economic ignorance is the worst type of ignorance, because everything else depends on the economy.
First, from a standpoint of justice, a fair tax cut cuts rates equally. Therefore, those who pay more (the wealthy) will benefit more in absolute terms even if relatively they gained the same or less than the middle class. Secondly, from an economic standpoint. tax cuts to businesses spur growth, because they are both the means and the incentive to add jobs and invest in capital that enhances productivity. What the article proposes is unjust, because it is confiscatory and coercively redistributes. It is also economically stupid because it takes money from people who are efficient allocators of resources (hence the wealth) and gives it to relatively inefficient allocators. It distorts the market and substracts from economic growth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]