A Philosopher's Blog

Taxing the 1% IV: Incentives

Posted in Ethics, Law, Philosophy, Politics by Michael LaBossiere on November 25, 2015

As noted in previous essays on this topic, the highest income folks in the United States now pay about 1/3 of their income in taxes.  The left has proposed increasing the tax rate to 40% or even 45% while the right has countered with proposals to either not raise taxes or cut them even more. This, the final essay in this series, considers the stock argument that a tax increase will be a destroyer of incentives.

The gist of the argument is that if the taxes for the top income brackets is increased to 40% or higher, the rich will become demotivated and this will have negative consequences. Since these negative consequences should be avoided, the conclusion is that taxes should not be increased—thus keeping the incentives in place.

In terms of assessing this argument, there are two major points of concern. One is whether or not a tax increase would destroy the incentives of the top economic class. The other deals with the negative consequences, their nature, their likelihood of occurring and the extent and scope of the harm. I will begin with the alleged consequences.

The alleged consequences are many and varied. One is based on the claim that the top economic class contains the innovators and if they are demotivated, then there will be less innovation. This could range from there being no new social media platforms to there being no new pharmaceuticals. While this is a point of concern, this assumes that innovation arrives primarily out of the top economic class—a matter that can tested empirically. While some top earners are innovators, much of the innovation seems to come from those in the lower economic classes—such as the folks in the labs doing the actual research and engineering. The idea that the rich are the innovators certainly matches the fiction of Ayn Rand, but seems to miss the way research and development actually occurs.

Another is based on the claim that the top class serve as the investors that provide the capital that enables the economy to function. Since the top class controls the capital, this is quite a reasonable concern. If Americans with the largest shares of the money decided to reduce or stop investing, then the economy would need to rely on foreign capital or what could be provided by the lower classes. Since the lower classes have far less money (by definition), they would not be able to provide the needed financial support. There are, of course, foreign investors who would happily take the place of the wealthy Americans, so the economy would probably still roll along. Especially since American investors might find the idea of losing out to foreign investors sufficient motivation to overcome the demotivation of a tax increase.

There is also the claim that the top income class contains the people who do the important things, like brain surgery and creating the new financial instruments that will take down the world economy next time around. While this does have some appeal, it seems that much of the important stuff is done by people who are not in the top classes. Again, the idea that the economic elite are doing the important stuff while the rest of the people are not (or are takers rather than makers) is yet another part of the fictional universe of Ayn Rand.

Fairness does, however, require that these matters be properly investigated. If it can be shown that the top class is as critical as its defenders claim, then my assertions can be refuted. Of course, it is well worth considering that much of the alleged importance of the top class arises from the fact that it has a disproportionate share of the wealth and that it would be far less important if the distribution were not so grotesquely imbalanced. As such, a tax increase might have the impact of decreasing the alleged importance of the top economic class. I will now turn to the matter of whether or not a tax increase would demotivate the top economic class.

One easy and obvious response to the claim that a relatively small tax increase would demotivate the top economic class is that the vast majority of the rest of us work jobs, innovate, invest and do important things for vastly less than those at the top. Even if the rich paid slightly more taxes, their incomes would still vastly exceed the rest of us. And if we can find the motivation to keep going despite the relative pittances we are paid, then the rich can also do so. When I worked a minimum wage job, I was motivated to go to work. When I was an adjunct making $16,000 a year, I was still motivated to go to work.

It could be replied that the lower classes are motivated because they need the income to survive. We need to work to buy food, medicine, shelter and so on. Those who are so well off that they do not need to work to survive, it could be claimed, also have the luxury of being demotivated by a slight decline in their income. Whereas someone who must earn her daily bread at a crushing minimum wage (or less) job has to get up and go to work, the top economic folks can allow themselves to be broken by the slight tax increase and decide to stop investing, stop innovating, and stop doing important stuff.

One reply is that it seems unlikely that the top folks are so weak as to be broken by a slight tax increase. Naturally, a crushing increase would be a different story—but there are no serious proposals to inflict crushing tax burdens on the rich. After all, crushing burdens are for the poor. Another reply is that if the current rich become demotivated, there are plenty of people who will be happy to take their place—even if it means paying slightly higher taxes on a vastly increased income. So, we would just get some new rich folks to replace the demotivated slackers—capitalism at its finest.


My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Tagged with: ,

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. TJB said, on November 25, 2015 at 10:55 am

    If you tax something, you get less of it. If you tax the job creators, you get fewer jobs.

    But maybe having fewer jobs is a feature, comrade, so that the masses will be more receptive to collectivism?

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on December 1, 2015 at 4:11 pm

      You are right-my pay is taxed, so I get less pay. Same for everyone else. It is a wonder any of us bother to show up to work, what with that disincentive.

      • WTP said, on December 1, 2015 at 4:22 pm

        Hmm….interesting…Is this the clown nose or is he too obtuse to understand your point?

  2. TJB said, on November 25, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    I like the tennis player pic. Here you have chosen someone that may earn a lot of money for a few years, and this money may have to last for a lifetime.

    So, may as well grab the money while you can, right? Who cares if tennis players only earn big for a few years when they are young?

  3. nailheadtom said, on November 25, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    Of course, increasing the taxes on “the rich”, whoever they might be, means more money going to the tax collector, the government. When the government gets tax receipts, from whatever source, they don’t bury them in a field somewhere, they spend this money on things like the salaries of Dept. of Agriculture trade analysts, Bureau of Land Management fire fighters, Justice Department secret policemen, DEA agents, WADA agents, IRS investigators and battalions of other non-productive drones that make life expensive for the ordinary citizen. The increased tax receipts are redistributed to employees, contractors and suppliers that suckle on the government teat.

    By the way, I saw a US Postal Service truck driver sleeping behind the counter of a post office yesterday afternoon.

    • nailheadtom said, on November 25, 2015 at 4:09 pm

      Perhaps you’re making the point that increasing taxes on the rich will mean more wealth for the “poor”. The reality is that more money for government means more money for government, bigger buildings, more employees, etc. The people that they hire for bureaucratic posts aren’t the same as we perceive as “the poor”. Welfare rolls aren’t scoured for people to take positions in the defense department.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: