Tax Cuts For The Rich Don’t Lead To US Economic Growth, But Income Inequality: Study
By Moran Zhang | September 18, 2012 8:11 PM EST
A key difference between the economic agendas of President Barack Obama and his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, are their stances toward whether tax cuts should be granted to the wealthiest Americans. Obama and the Democrats are calling for higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit and fund spending, while Romney and the GOP are advocating lower marginal tax rates for upper-income groups, saying they fuel investment and job creation.
The report concludes that tax cuts for the rich don't seem to be associated with economic growth and instead are linked to a different outcome: greater income inequality in the U.S.
Analysis of six decades of data found that "the evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced."
The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. In 1945, the richest families had to pay a marginal tax rate of more than 90 percent. Today, that tax rate is 35 percent. But both real GDP and real per capita GDP were growing more than twice as fast in the 1950s as in the 2000s.
At the same time that the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1 percent of U.S. families fell from about 50 percent to 25 percent in the last 60 years, the nation' sshare of income for the top 0.1 percent of U.S. families increased from 4.2 percent in 1945 to 12.3 percent in 2007, before falling to 9.2 percent due to the recession.
Here are two graphs of the top 0.1 percent and 0.01 percent. The first shows how average tax rates for the highest-income taxpayers since 1945 have dropped. The second graph shows that during the same period, the richest American families captured a greater and greater share of total income.
Those finds will likely give a lift to Democrats' calls for the Bush-era tax cuts to lapse next year on incomes above $250,000. And they don't bode well for the Romney campaign. The Republican presidential nominee has continuously argued that cutting taxes for the rich would "stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation and investment," thus "breathing life into the present anemic recovery."
Zidar reasoned that "if tax cuts for high-income earners generate substantial economic activity and job creation, then we should expect to see three things in the data. First, employment growth should tend to be higher in the years following exogenous tax cuts for the rich. Second, places with a higher share of rich people should grow faster following national tax cuts for the rich (since these areas receive more tax cuts for rich people in dollar per capita terms). Similarly, growth should be lower following tax increases on the rich, especially in places where many rich people live. None of these predictions are born out in the data."
But Zidar did find that tax cuts for the bottom 90 percent of income earners can stimulate economic growth and job creation.
"Almost all of the stimulative effect of tax cuts," Zidar found, "results from tax cuts for the bottom 90 percent. A one percent of GDP tax cut for the bottom 90 percent results in 2.7 percentage points of GDP growth over a two-year period. The corresponding estimate for the top 10 percent is 0.13 percentage points and is insignificant statistically."
To contact the editor, e-mail:
Join the Conversation
- Russia-NATO Tactical Warplanes In Rapid Stand-off; Putin Orders Snap Military Drills
- Russia Does Not Belong To International Financial System Says David Cameron, Plus New Sanctions Imminent -- Reports
- Russia Decides Not To Involve Ukraine's Facilties In Its Strategic Missile Production Plans
- Russia and US Fight For Underwater Drone Supremacy; Moscow Builds More Warplanes Than US
- Russia’s Ruble Crisis May Weaken Putin’s Grip On Power