How to use this tool
How to use this tool
Tax the Rich?
by Christopher Channer (Write for us!)
(Click on the links within the article to get definition of that word)
(Click on the links within the article to get definition of that word)
Q: I keep hearing that the rich are
getting richer. And, I am sick of multi-million dollar paychecks for the greedy few. Why not raise taxes on those people now?
A: This is a tough one. My answer to this same question hurt my popularity with the media, about 15 years ago, on an ‘Ask An Expert’ television interview. This time I am going to answer more carefully:
First, let me say I agree with your premise, and I too think some of the corporate greed is sickening. In fact, I recently noticed that some of the Wall Street brokerage firms paid their CEO’s in excess of $40 million last year. People who think they need that kind of money have a deluded sense of self-importance. I find it offensive, as do most people. They are fleecing their companies, employees and shareholders. These are facts, and the way you and I feel about it makes sense. But we must be careful about the conclusions we draw because while it is politically correct to say, "Tax the greedy rich, and make them pay a larger share," our American economic system could be seriously damaged if we did. History is the great revealer.
To understand this complex and important question, we have to think about a few facts that are rarely discussed in the media. First, it is factually true that the very rich do not burn their money, nor do they bury it in the backyard. If they did, that would be harmful because that money would then be removed from the system. But factually, there are only a few things anyone can do with excess net income: They can buy goods and services (spend it), or they can buy businesses, stocks, bonds, CD’s, etc., (invest it). Both of these broad activities are good for the economy, which means both activities are good for everyone. The overpaid still have their greedy stripes, but whether they consume or invest their excess millions, the economy is the unavoidable beneficiary. Sure, they waste money, from the average person’s perspective. They may have five-car garages, and five cars to go inside of them, but the building of those cars and garages helps others in a very important (and unavoidable) way. This is good no matter how we feel about those who allocate it.
Now consider the alternative: raise taxes on those same people. Then what happens? That money goes into the hands of the government, where the multiplier effect of those dollars is diminished (when compared to the private sector), much becomes ‘wasted’ through gross inefficiency, and then..the economy suffers. Further, rich people feel defeated when tax rates go up. So they take fewer risks with their money, they invest less, and in many cases they even - intentionally - earn less. Then everything slows down, and the general population suffers. However, when the super rich feel a little penalized and defeated, does their standard of living actually suffer? Probably not. The additional money they pay in taxes probably doesn’t come out of their lifestyle; it likely comes from their excess dollars, which would have otherwise gone into additional investments.
Bottom-line: Tax policy must be determined by clear thinking and careful investigation in order to avoid unintended consequences. Taxing the very rich, based on how we feel about them, can have serious unintended consequences because we live in America - where our capitalist system produces an average standard of living that is outstanding when compared to most of the world. A better solution would be for the Board of Directors to pay their top dogs less. This would leave more money for their shareholders, more money for their companies to grow, and more ability to create jobs and income for everyone.
A: This is a tough one. My answer to this same question hurt my popularity with the media, about 15 years ago, on an ‘Ask An Expert’ television interview. This time I am going to answer more carefully:
First, let me say I agree with your premise, and I too think some of the corporate greed is sickening. In fact, I recently noticed that some of the Wall Street brokerage firms paid their CEO’s in excess of $40 million last year. People who think they need that kind of money have a deluded sense of self-importance. I find it offensive, as do most people. They are fleecing their companies, employees and shareholders. These are facts, and the way you and I feel about it makes sense. But we must be careful about the conclusions we draw because while it is politically correct to say, "Tax the greedy rich, and make them pay a larger share," our American economic system could be seriously damaged if we did. History is the great revealer.
To understand this complex and important question, we have to think about a few facts that are rarely discussed in the media. First, it is factually true that the very rich do not burn their money, nor do they bury it in the backyard. If they did, that would be harmful because that money would then be removed from the system. But factually, there are only a few things anyone can do with excess net income: They can buy goods and services (spend it), or they can buy businesses, stocks, bonds, CD’s, etc., (invest it). Both of these broad activities are good for the economy, which means both activities are good for everyone. The overpaid still have their greedy stripes, but whether they consume or invest their excess millions, the economy is the unavoidable beneficiary. Sure, they waste money, from the average person’s perspective. They may have five-car garages, and five cars to go inside of them, but the building of those cars and garages helps others in a very important (and unavoidable) way. This is good no matter how we feel about those who allocate it.
Now consider the alternative: raise taxes on those same people. Then what happens? That money goes into the hands of the government, where the multiplier effect of those dollars is diminished (when compared to the private sector), much becomes ‘wasted’ through gross inefficiency, and then..the economy suffers. Further, rich people feel defeated when tax rates go up. So they take fewer risks with their money, they invest less, and in many cases they even - intentionally - earn less. Then everything slows down, and the general population suffers. However, when the super rich feel a little penalized and defeated, does their standard of living actually suffer? Probably not. The additional money they pay in taxes probably doesn’t come out of their lifestyle; it likely comes from their excess dollars, which would have otherwise gone into additional investments.
Bottom-line: Tax policy must be determined by clear thinking and careful investigation in order to avoid unintended consequences. Taxing the very rich, based on how we feel about them, can have serious unintended consequences because we live in America - where our capitalist system produces an average standard of living that is outstanding when compared to most of the world. A better solution would be for the Board of Directors to pay their top dogs less. This would leave more money for their shareholders, more money for their companies to grow, and more ability to create jobs and income for everyone.
Email this Article
Print this Article
Cite this Article
Other Suggested Articles
The New Tax Law: What's in It for You? >
Explanation of the Major Factors Affecting Your Tax Returns >
A Guide to Filing Your Tax Returns >
Tax Issues Related to Wash Sales, Lottery Winnings etc. >
Another Tax Season Is Here >
Tax Issues Related to Your Business >
Tax Considerations >
Explanation of the Capital Gains Tax and Related Issues >
Basic Facts about Taxes >
Introduction to Taxes and Basic Information >
Other Articles By This Author
Fiduciary: What is it, and who should care? >
Why Not Skip Using an Advisor? >
Six Powerful Ways to Fail With Stocks >
Understanding Asset-Based Advisory Fees >
Beware of the Banks >
Wars, Markets and Investors >
Warren Buffett: The Best Friend Investors Have Ever Had >
Jim Cramer's "Mad Money" vs. Christopher Channer's "The Conservative Investor" >
Fees Based on Assets >
Article reprinted with permission. Unauthorized reproduction of this content is prohibited.
Click here to license InvestorGuide University content.
Click here to license InvestorGuide University content.
