Discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness - cherishing the first, avoiding the last — George Washington, First State of the Union Address, January 8, 1790

A Progressive Tax Code Is Economically Destructive

September 10, 2012   ·   By   ·   0 Comments

Most Americans assume a progressive tax code is needed to promote equality and remove some of the burden of other taxes on those with the lowest income. But the progressive nature of the tax code changes behavior in many ways. As a result a progressive tax code is economically destructive.

To start with an obvious example, let’s assume the tax rates on a business start at 10% and after a certain point reach 100%. How much money would be collected at the 100% rate? The answer, of course, is zero. No business would bother earning more money only to be obligated to give it all to the government.

Many statistics would hide this change of behavior. The average tax rate on businesses would seem a low 10%. But decisions are not made at the average. They are made at the marginal rate. When your hand first touches a hot stove, your average body temperature is still normal. Nevertheless you recoil quickly. Increasing marginal rates are like a hot stove to additional productivity.

Businesses are like rich people. They can decide how much income they want to realize each year. Capping the income of otherwise productive companies is economically destructive. Not only does it restrict productivity and the creation of wealth, but it also limits employment and taxes paid.

Imagine there is a proposal for a flat 20% tax. Liberals rage that would mean doubling the tax on the poor businesses while giving Big Greed an 80% tax cut. But what is the effect? Businesses that would have truncated their earnings no longer hold back. Productivity jumps and unemployment drops. All this while the tax collected could more than double.

Now that an obvious case has established the concept, let’s look at smaller tax progressions. Remember that all economic decisions are made at the margin. There has to be a decision, and we have to look at the marginal tax change.

One such decision is how much money you should convert from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA each year. The more you convert in one year, the higher the tax bracket you get pushed into. Waiting until next year to convert the money is always an option, especially because you can decide to unconvert, or recharacterize, the money any time before you file your taxes.

Getting pushed into a higher tax bracket sets up a hurdle that the conversion account must appreciate before keeping the conversion makes financial sense. Some of the hurdles are extremely high, even at very low incomes.

Suppose you earn less than $17,400 and are in the lowest tax bracket of 10%. If you convert $100 from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, you will owe $10 more in federal tax. But if another $100 pushes you into the 15% tax bracket, you would owe $15 in tax.

If you could wait until next year to convert at the 10% rate again, when would it be advantageous to convert this year even if it pushes you into the 15% bracket? In other words, what is the hurdle of added productivity you must surpass to overcome this minor increase in the marginal tax rate?

It turns out the hurdle is a 50% annual return on your money. Unless your $100 grows to $150, you would pay less tax waiting until next year and converting at the lower rate. Ten percent of $150 next year is equivalent to 15% of $100 this year.

Those who favor a progressive tax system do not realize that a small increment of 10% to 15% can truncate any decision to be more productive unless you have a good chance of earning more than 50% over the next year.

If you think the poor can’t or don’t make such decisions, you are mostly wrong. The poor fear dropping off entitlement cliffs more than they do hitting the wall of higher taxes. And a vague perception of the effects causes most to err on the side of avoiding paying taxes or jeopardizing their benefits. There are places where it can cost you multiple dollars of benefit for every additional dollar you earn.

The middle class and wealthy have even more discretion over the timing and amount of their income. We had just such a case recently with clients with a base income of about $69,000 on which we were considering a Roth conversion. Our federal Roth calculator computed they should convert up to the top of the 28% tax bracket, an additional $143,000 so long as their Roth account had not lost money. This would have resulted in the federal government receiving an additional $38,000 in tax revenue.

The hitch was that these clients live in California.Virginiastate taxes reach their maximum after only $17,000 of income. Beyond that point the rate is a flat 5.75%. But California tax rates are highly progressive, with rates from 1% all the way up to 10.3% for income over $1 million. In our clients’ case, realizing this additional income would push them from the 6% state bracket to 9.3%.

The hurdle for this marginal tax increase is a 55% annual return. A hundred dollars taxed at 9.3% this year is equivalent to $155 taxed at 6% next year. The effect is that neither the federal government nor California will be collecting that additional tax this year or ever.

A progressive tax code discourages productivity, actually rewarding you for producing less. This system destroys much growth in the economy that would flourish otherwise. Purposefully doing this simply so the rich have less is evil, and it hurts society as a whole. Listen in political debates when the term “rich” is used with emotions that make it almost an economic slur.

Our current system is complex enough to create many entitlement cliffs and marginal tax walls throughout the income spectrum. Tax simplification would eliminate many of these barriers to economic mobility and encourage greater productivity across the board. And one of these changes is a flatter tax and fewer deductions.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Similar Posts:

David John Marotta CFP®, AIF®, is President of Marotta Wealth Management, Inc. of Charlottesville providing fee-only financial planning and wealth management at www.emarotta.com. Subscribe to his blog at www.marottaonmoney.com. Questions to be answered in the column should be sent to questions at emarotta dot com or Marotta Wealth Management, Inc., One Village Green Circle, Suite 100, Charlottesville, VA 22903-4619.
David John Marotta
Print Friendly

If you enjoyed this article, please consider leaving a comment below (subject to the comment guidelines listed at the bottom of the article), sharing it to Facebook or Twitter or another social media site, subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader, or have a daily digest of the latest American Clarion articles delivered to your email inbox each morning..

Readers Comments (0)

Sorry, comments are closed on this post.

Featured Articles


Hating Families, Hating Children

Bob Ellis

The video below from Bradlee Dean exposes some of the dark agenda of the Leftist "hate group" Southern Poverty Law Center. SPLC loves to smear people and groups as "hate groups" for telling the truth about homosexual activism, Islamic extremism, illegal immigration, and other pet Leftist issues. One of the interesting pieces of information cited by Dean involves the detriment to children wrought by the homosexual agenda and its war on marriage and family.

stop spending

Term Limits: A Fix for the Spending Epidemic

Howard Rich

“Buy now, pay never.” That’s the modus operandi of government at all levels, where a “high time” spending preference continues to flood our nation with a rising tide of red ink. “High time” spending — or the ongoing accumulation of present and future deficits to fund new entitlement promises — has reached epidemic proportions, and both major parties are guilty of fueling this worsening addiction.

The Death of Jane McCrea (1804)

A Signal Stroke of Providence

William J. Federer

Her beautiful, long hair was scalped off her head by Indians after she was shot. This was the fate of Jane McCrea, whose loyalist fiancé David Jones had only weeks earlier joined "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne, the British General marching with 5,000 troops from Canada to Albany, New York. Capturing Fort Ticonderoga, Burgoyne headed down the Hudson River Valley, making a treaty with the Mohawk Tribe to terrorize American settlements.When Indians returned to camp with a scalp of beautiful long hair, David Jones instantly recognized it as his fiancée's.

President Barack Obama, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, delivers a statement in the Rose Garden of the White House, Sept. 12, 2012, regarding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. (Photo credit: Lawrence Jackson)

Lying Exacts a Prohibitive Cost

Jim Bowman

The problem with lying rests within its original ease. Soon, the deceiver becomes the deceived as his knowing becomes mired in the spin. Simultaneously, his growing ego, being fed from this diet of “getting over,” becomes his own worst enemy and eventually his downfall. This was just played out with regards to our most recent 9/11 terrorist attack.

"No Women" sign at the Jeddah Marriott (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Silence of American Feminists is Deafening

Ken Connor

The airwaves are clogged and mailboxes stuffed with the message that the crusty old white men who comprise the GOP are engaged in a "war on women." Meanwhile, half a world away a fourteen-year-old Pakistani girl, Malala Yousafzai, is fighting for her life after being shot in the head for defying the Taliban by speaking up for women's education. For some strange reason, American feminists don't seem all that bothered by the fact that in many countries Muslim women are treated as second class citizens.


Other News

Other Commentary

Featured Blogs

Like American Clarion

Authors (with latest article)

  • Bureaucratic Red Tape Strangles Jobs

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964

NewMedia blog