Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
'I asked US Congress to raise my income tax for the common good'
By Kenneth Lewis |
December 22, 2010, Wednesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
AMERICA'S national conversation on our fiscal health for the past few months has been about whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for households with incomes over US$250,000, or to allow them to expire on December 31. They have been extended for two years, after furious debate.
To my amazement, lost in all this controversy and discussion has been any mention of what this would really mean for high-income people in the context of historical tax rates.
During the 1950s this country was flourishing economically and adding new jobs that moved millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class. What kind of tax policy was in place during this period, those years after World War II when the Baby Boomers were growing up?
What was the top marginal tax rate during all eight years of the Eisenhower Administration? 91 percent! The increase proposed for today's rates seems paltry, and the top rate seems very low, in fact too low, and incongruent with the needs of the country for investment right now in education, health and infrastructure.
This comparison is also true when looking broadly over the mid-century; during the years from 1935 to 1980 the marginal rates were never below 70 percent.
One can only wonder what the big fuss is all about.
Right now people pay income taxes on a sliding scale between 10 percent and 35 percent. If the Bush-era tax cuts expired on December 31, the rates would return to between 15 percent and 39.6 percent.
Tax the rich
Less than one percent of taxpayers now pay the 35 percent (according to the Wall Street Journal) and less than 4 percent pay 33 percent. If the tax cuts had been allowed to expire, the top tax rate of 39.6 percent would only apply to those whose income, adjusted for inflation, exceeds US$363,000 per person.
So in reality, the big controversy over the extension of tax cuts boils down to a mere 4.6 percent for those making over US$363,000! And remember, they pay that extra amount only on incomes over US$363,000, not their entire income. Based on the arguments and emotional forcefulness of those who want all tax cuts extended, one would think that the rates we are talking about are historically high rates. Top rates of 35 percent and 39.4 percent aren't even close to historic highs.
At a time when reducing the deficit is a main concern of both the public and of policy makers, it seems incredible that there was even any discussion about this. Letting the tax cuts expire for the top 2-4 percent of high earners will reduce the deficit by over US$700 billion. How could we not do this?
The argument that lower tax rates leads to increased employment is belied by the experience during the Bush Administration. The most massive tax reductions in US history occurred during those eight years, and the increase in employment during those years was the lowest in US recorded history. Lower taxes did not lead to increased employment.
The fair share
I have benefited enormously from the infrastructure that strong federal, state, and local governments provide. As a businessman I have used more than my fair share of these public institutions and therefore, I want to pay my fair share. That's why I asked Congress to raise my taxes!
There is no valid reason to continue these historically low tax rates for those making more than US$250,000 or more than US$363,000 during a period of economic stress.
This country is in trouble and those of us who have benefited the most need to step up and pay our fair share. The small rate increase would decrease the deficit by over US$700 billion and have no appreciable adverse impact on employment.
In fact, I would argue it would stimulate job creation if Congress were to invest in this country again.
(Kenneth Lewis is former president of Lasco Shipping Co of Portland, Oregon, and of the Port of Portland Commission. He is former national chairman of the I Have a Dream Foundation and a member of Wealth for the Common Good. Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum.)
To my amazement, lost in all this controversy and discussion has been any mention of what this would really mean for high-income people in the context of historical tax rates.
During the 1950s this country was flourishing economically and adding new jobs that moved millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class. What kind of tax policy was in place during this period, those years after World War II when the Baby Boomers were growing up?
What was the top marginal tax rate during all eight years of the Eisenhower Administration? 91 percent! The increase proposed for today's rates seems paltry, and the top rate seems very low, in fact too low, and incongruent with the needs of the country for investment right now in education, health and infrastructure.
This comparison is also true when looking broadly over the mid-century; during the years from 1935 to 1980 the marginal rates were never below 70 percent.
One can only wonder what the big fuss is all about.
Right now people pay income taxes on a sliding scale between 10 percent and 35 percent. If the Bush-era tax cuts expired on December 31, the rates would return to between 15 percent and 39.6 percent.
Tax the rich
Less than one percent of taxpayers now pay the 35 percent (according to the Wall Street Journal) and less than 4 percent pay 33 percent. If the tax cuts had been allowed to expire, the top tax rate of 39.6 percent would only apply to those whose income, adjusted for inflation, exceeds US$363,000 per person.
So in reality, the big controversy over the extension of tax cuts boils down to a mere 4.6 percent for those making over US$363,000! And remember, they pay that extra amount only on incomes over US$363,000, not their entire income. Based on the arguments and emotional forcefulness of those who want all tax cuts extended, one would think that the rates we are talking about are historically high rates. Top rates of 35 percent and 39.4 percent aren't even close to historic highs.
At a time when reducing the deficit is a main concern of both the public and of policy makers, it seems incredible that there was even any discussion about this. Letting the tax cuts expire for the top 2-4 percent of high earners will reduce the deficit by over US$700 billion. How could we not do this?
The argument that lower tax rates leads to increased employment is belied by the experience during the Bush Administration. The most massive tax reductions in US history occurred during those eight years, and the increase in employment during those years was the lowest in US recorded history. Lower taxes did not lead to increased employment.
The fair share
I have benefited enormously from the infrastructure that strong federal, state, and local governments provide. As a businessman I have used more than my fair share of these public institutions and therefore, I want to pay my fair share. That's why I asked Congress to raise my taxes!
There is no valid reason to continue these historically low tax rates for those making more than US$250,000 or more than US$363,000 during a period of economic stress.
This country is in trouble and those of us who have benefited the most need to step up and pay our fair share. The small rate increase would decrease the deficit by over US$700 billion and have no appreciable adverse impact on employment.
In fact, I would argue it would stimulate job creation if Congress were to invest in this country again.
(Kenneth Lewis is former president of Lasco Shipping Co of Portland, Oregon, and of the Port of Portland Commission. He is former national chairman of the I Have a Dream Foundation and a member of Wealth for the Common Good. Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum.)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
