Who's Afraid of Taxing Rich People?

More

President Obama is creating a bipartisan commission to reach a consensus on how to bring down the deficit. Michael Tomasky has a great, thought-provoking blog post at the Guardian about the mechanics of deficit reduction, but I don't agree with his take on the politics of tax increases.

Tomasky beings by pointing out that the top marginal tax rate in the 1950s was 91% on income earned above $200,000. Today it's 35% on income earned over $360,000 (see this interesting PDF chart). Tomasky concludes that we should be talking more about raising the top marginal tax rate:

When Washington talks about the deficit and entitlements, people always talk about cutting. About living within our means ... And if you broach the subject of what the people at the very top should contribute to the maintenance of this condition, you're considered extreme and unserious.

On the contrary, it seems to me that everybody who doesn't self-identify as Republican talks quite a bit about making the people at the very top contribute more. House Democrats proposed to pay for health care reform with a surtax on the top one percent. Obama made it clear as early as 2007 that he wants Congress to cancel the Bush tax cuts for Americans making more than $200,000 -- which is effectively a tax increase. Calling for various new taxes on the rich isn't extreme, it's mainstream. Tomasky goes on to write ..


...the discussion of these matters is always about cuts that will be borne by middle- and working-class people and almost never about taxes on a class of Americans who've been having a financial orgy for the last 30 years.

I see it the other way around. I see that very few people (Republicans or Democrats) are talking about cutting services significantly (Paul Ryan, aside) or raising taxes on anybody in the bottom 95 percentiles of the tax bracket (VAT rumors, aside) because that would be considered politically unserious, or at least political suicide. Look at Obama's 2011 budget which cuts taxes for 95 percent of the Americans and raises the top income rate. Look at the House, which in addition to the surtax, has fought the Senate's efforts to impose an excise tax on expensive insurance plans because they might hit middle class families in the future.

To be sure, Tomasky is right that nobody is talking about returning the top marginal tax rate to 91 percent -- even he rules that out -- and his fundamental point is that Washington is skittish about drastically hiking up the top rate to as high as 50%. But Washington is skittishness about acting drastically about everything. No need for Tomasky to take offense on behalf of tax policy.

Tomasky beings by pointing out that the top marginal tax rate in the 1950s was 91% on income earned above $200,000. Today it's 35% on income earned over $360,000 (see this interesting PDF chart). Tomasky concludes that we should be talking more about raising the top marginal tax rate:

When Washington talks about the deficit and entitlements, people always talk about cutting. About living within our means ... And if you broach the subject of what the people at the very top should contribute to the maintenance of this condition, you're considered extreme and unserious.

On the contrary, it seems to me that everybody who doesn't self-identify as Republican talks quite a bit about making the people at the very top contribute more. House Democrats proposed to pay for health care reform with a surtax on the top one percent. Obama made it clear as early as 2007 that he wants Congress to cancel the Bush tax cuts for Americans making more than $200,000 -- which is effectively a tax increase. Calling for various new taxes on the rich isn't extreme, it's mainstream. Tomasky goes on to write ..


...the discussion of these matters is always about cuts that will be borne by middle- and working-class people and almost never about taxes on a class of Americans who've been having a financial orgy for the last 30 years.

I see it the other way around. I see that very few people (Republicans or Democrats) are talking about cutting services significantly (Paul Ryan, aside) or raising taxes on anybody in the bottom 95 percentiles of the tax bracket (VAT rumors, aside) because that would be considered politically unserious, or at least political suicide. Look at Obama's 2011 budget which cuts taxes for 95 percent of the Americans and raises the top income rate. Look at the House, which in addition to the surtax, has fought the Senate's efforts to impose an excise tax on expensive insurance plans because they might hit middle class families in the future.

To be sure, Tomasky is right that nobody is talking about returning the top marginal tax rate to 91 percent -- even he rules that out -- and his fundamental point is that Washington is skittish about drastically hiking up the top rate to as high as 50%. But Washington is skittishness about acting drastically about everything. No need for Tomasky to take offense on behalf of tax policy.

Jump to comments
Presented by

Derek Thompson is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he writes about economics, labor markets, and the entertainment business.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

A Fascinating Short Film About the Multiverse

If life is a series of infinite possibilities, what does it mean to be alive?


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

The Death of Film

You'll never hear the whirring sound of a projector again.

Video

How to Hunt With Poison Darts

A Borneo hunter explains one of his tribe's oldest customs: the art of the blowpipe

Video

A Delightful, Pixar-Inspired Cartoon

An action figure and his reluctant sidekick trek across a kitchen in search of treasure.

Video

I Am an Undocumented Immigrant

"I look like a typical young American."

Video

Why Did I Study Physics?

Using hand-drawn cartoons to explain an academic passion

Writers

Up
Down

More in Politics

Just In