Gordon Gray: For the left, is there anything ‘taxing the rich’ can’t do?
Heading into Tax Day, if you listen to progressive policymakers for a few minutes, you’ll likely hear that few problems on Earth can’t be solved by “taxing the rich.” Want to nationalize health care? Tax the rich. Want to close the deficit? Tax the rich. Need a ball gown for the Met Gala? Tax the rich. Unfortunately, legislators not invited to fashion shows should look elsewhere for real solutions to America’s fiscal challenges.
Let’s start with the basics: the federal tax code is already one of the most progressive in the world. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the U.S. tax code is highly progressive, with the bottom 50% of U.S. taxpayers facing an average federal tax rate of 6.8%. In comparison, the top 1% pays about five times that amount, at 34%. Note that these measures include all federal taxes, including payroll taxes, which are generally regressive, and the corporate tax, which JCT assumes primarily falls on higher-income earners.
Compared to our peers, the U.S. tax code has generally been more progressive than any other in the developed world. While many European nations raise more revenue overall, they do it by taxing everyone — including low-income households — at the register through value-added taxes. In contrast, the U.S. leans heavily on progressive income and payroll taxes, disproportionately hitting high earners.
It’s also progressive relative to income. According to the IRS, the top 1% earn 22% of total income but pay more than 40% of the nation’s income taxes. By contrast, the bottom 50% of earners collectively pay a negative share of income taxes, mainly due to refundable credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. Note that these households do face other taxes, and these outcomes are by design.
The basic facts of the U.S. tax system reveal that those arguing in favor of a progressive tax system have already won — that’s what the U.S. has today.
What the U.S. does not have is a massive welfare state to match those of many European nations to which so many U.S. progressives aspire. The overall level of U.S. taxation is comparatively low. For instance, in France, the government collects 43 cents from every dollar earned, compared to about 25 cents in the United States.
U.S. progressives tend to hide the ball on this front. When Sen. Bernie Sanders released his Medicare for All financing plan, it came with a buffet of new taxes: a 52% top income tax rate, a new wealth tax, higher corporate taxes and more. Yet, even with all that, it still came up trillions short. That was to fund one new program.
When it comes to fixing the structural deficit, the math gets worse. Manhattan Institute economist Jessica Riedl estimates that taxing the rich to the “maximum sustainable extent” — raising top income tax rates, taxing capital gains as ordinary income, implementing a wealth tax, closing loopholes — would increase, at most, 1% to 2% of GDP.
Yet, the Congressional Budget Office projects deficits will average 6% of GDP in the 2030s and climb toward 9% by 2054. Under more realistic assumptions, the deficit is likely to be 14% over the long term. The gap between what progressive taxes can raise and what the government is projected to spend isn’t just large — it’s unbridgeable.
The problem isn’t tax revenue. It’s spending. Historically, federal revenues have averaged about 17% of GDP. Even without new laws, they’re projected to rise to nearly 19%. But spending is on track to hit, conservatively, 27% of GDP by 2054. And it’s not because of military or discretionary spending. The drivers are Social Security, Medicare and interest on the national debt.
There is no path to long-term fiscal solvency that does not run through spending reform. The numbers are too large, the obligations too dominant, and the demographics too unfavorable to pretend otherwise.
Taxing the rich may be a helpful applause line. But on Tax Day, remember that as a governing strategy, it doesn’t come close to solving the problem. Eventually, lawmakers must say the quiet part out loud: the federal government doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem — and the longer we ignore it, the harder it will be to fix.
Editor’s note: Gordon Gray is the executive director of Pinpoint Policy Institute. He wrote this for InsideSources.com. Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.
