| Media reports in recent
weeks say that Senate Democrats are considering a 3% surtax
on income over $1 million to raise federal revenues. This
would come on top of the higher income tax rates that
President Obama has already proposed through the
cancellation of the Bush era tax-rate reductions.
If the Democrats' millionaire
surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases
already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas
on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a
combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%.
That's more than double the highest federal marginal rate of
28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back
to the 1970s.
Here's the math behind
that depressing calculation. Today's top federal income tax
rate is 35%. Almost all Democrats in Washington want to
repeal the Bush tax cuts on those who make more than
$250,000 and phase out certain deductions, so the effective
income tax rate would rise to about 41.5%. The 3%
millionaire surtax raises that rate to 44.5%.
But payroll taxes, which
are income taxes on wages and salaries, must also be
included in the equation. So we have to add about 2.5
percentage points for the payroll tax for Medicare (employee
and employer share after business deductions), which was
applied to all income without a ceiling in 1993 as part of
the Clinton tax hike. I am including in this analysis the
employer share of all payroll taxes because it is a direct
tax on a worker's salary and most economists agree that
though employers are responsible for collecting this tax, it
is ultimately borne by the employee. That brings the tax
rate to 47%.
Then last year, as part of
the down payment for ObamaCare, Congress snuck in an extra
0.9% Medicare surtax on "high-income earners," meaning any
individual earning more than $200,000 or couples earning
more than $250,000. This brings the total tax rate to 47.9%.
But that's not all.
Several weeks ago, Mr. Obama raised the possibility of
eliminating the income ceiling on the Social Security tax,
now capped at $106,800 of earnings a year. (Never mind that
the program was designed to operate as an insurance system,
with each individual's payment tied to the benefits paid out
at retirement.) Subjecting all wage and salary income to
Social Security taxes would add roughly 10.1 percentage
points to the top tax rate. This takes the grand total tax
rate on each additional dollar earned in America to about
58%.
Then we have to factor in
state income taxes, which on average add after the
deductions from the federal income tax roughly another four
percentage points to the tax burden. So now on average we
are at a tax rate of close to 62%.
Democrats have repeatedly
stated they only intend to restore the tax rates that
existed during the Clinton years. But after all these taxes
on the "rich," we're headed back to the taxes that prevailed
under Jimmy Carter, when the highest tax rate was 70%.
Taxes on investment income
are also headed way up. Suspending the Bush tax cuts, which
is favored by nearly every congressional Democrat, plus a
3.8% investment tax in the ObamaCare bill (which starts in
2014) brings the capital gains tax rate to 23.8% from 15%.
The dividend tax would potentially climb to 45% from the
current rate of 15%.
Now let's consider how our
tax system today compares with the system that was in place
in the late 1980s—when the deficit was only about
one-quarter as large as a share of GDP as it is now. After
the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986, which closed
special-interest loopholes in exchange for top marginal
rates of 28%, the highest combined federal-state marginal
tax rate was about 33%. Now we may be headed to 62%. You
don't have to be Jack Kemp or Arthur Laffer to understand
that a 29 percentage point rise in top marginal rates would
make America a highly uncompetitive place.
What is particularly
worrisome about this trend is the deterioration of the U.S.
tax position relative to the rest of our economic rivals. In
1990, the highest individual income tax rate of our major
economic trading partners was 51%, while the U.S. was much
lower at 33%. It's no wonder that during the 1980s and '90s
the U.S. created more than twice as many new jobs as Japan
and Western Europe combined.
It's true that the economy
was able to absorb the Bush 41 and Clinton tax hikes and
still grow at a very rapid pace. But what the soak-the-rich
lobby ignores is how different the world is today versus the
early 1990s. According to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, over the past two decades the
average highest tax rate among the 20 major industrial
nations has fallen to about 45%. Yet the highest U.S. tax
rate would rise to more than 48% under the Obama/Democratic
tax hikes. To make matters worse, if we include the average
personal income tax rates of developing countries like India
and China, the average tax rate around the world is closer
to 30%, according to a new study by KPMG.
What all this means is
that in the late 1980s, the U.S. was nearly the lowest taxed
nation in the world, and a quarter century later we're
nearly the highest.
Despite all of this, the
refrain from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and most of the
Democrats in Congress is our fiscal mess is a result of "tax
cuts for the rich." When? Where? Who? The Tax Foundation
recently noted that in 2009 the U.S. collected a higher
share of income and payroll taxes (45%) from the richest 10%
of tax filers than any other nation, including such
socialist welfare states as Sweden (27%), France (28%) and
Germany (31%). And this was before the rate hikes that
Democrats are now endorsing.
Perhaps there can still be
a happy ending to this sad tale of U.S. decline. If there
were ever a right time to trade in the junk heap of our
federal tax code for a pro-growth Steve Forbes-style flat
tax, now's the time.
Mr. Moore is a member
of the The Journal's editorial board. |