By Greg Ip
Steep taxes on the ultra-wealthy are, for some, not a means to
an end but an end itself. They see the very existence of extreme
wealth as inimical to economic growth, middle-class prosperity and
democracy. "Every billionaire is a policy failure," goes one
progressive meme.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren doesn't go that far. Yet her tax plans are
in the same spirit. Her wealth tax of up to 6% a year, coupled with
several other levies, would serve to shrink the fortunes of many
billionaires and multimillionaires. It would disincentivize the
accumulation of fortunes above $1 billion much as a cigarette tax
discourages smoking. (They are called "Pigovian" taxes, after the
economist Arthur Pigou, who proposed using taxes to discourage
undesirable behavior.)
Ms. Warren and her supporters are all for Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates
and Larry Ellison creating successful companies such Amazon.com
Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Oracle Corp. But they claim these men's
fortunes are far larger than needed to spur innovation and business
excellence and have simply become a source of entrenched privilege.
A wealth tax, they argue, would repurpose the money to more
socially beneficial purposes such as universal health care and
eliminating student debt.
Virtually all Democrats want to raise billionaires' taxes, and
it isn't hard to see why. The ultra-rich already control
near-record shares of the country's wealth and income yet have had
their taxes slashed, directly and indirectly, by President Trump,
driving the budget deficit sharply higher.
But should they be taxed to the point that they are no longer
billionaires? That's a tougher case to make. In a 2016 book,
economist Caroline Freund, now global director of trade at the
World Bank, found that countries with a lot of billionaires per
capita had higher incomes per capita. She also found a country's
share of the world's billionaires, as compiled by Forbes,
corresponded closely to its share of the world's largest, most
successful companies. While this doesn't mean billionaires make an
economy successful, it does show the two go hand in hand.
How a billionaire earns his or her fortune matters, of course.
Some are "rent seekers," meaning they skim off the productive
efforts of others via corruption, royal prerogative or control of
some valuable market or resource. That's why Russia is an outlier
in Ms. Freund's research: lots of oligarchs, with not much economic
benefit to show for it.
That, however, is rare in Western democracies, where the more
important distinctions are between inherited and earned wealth. Ms.
Freund says countries with less self-made and more inherited wealth
do seem to grow more slowly, although the ranks of hereditary
billionaires are shrinking while those of self-made billionaires
are growing.
There is little economic benefit to the unlimited tax-free
growth of inherited wealth. Democrats, and a few Republicans, have
proposed personal, capital gains and estate tax changes to counter
it.
By contrast a wealth tax, also embraced by presidential
candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders (up to 8%) and billionaire Tom
Steyer (1%), makes no distinction between when or how the wealth
was acquired. It would hit not only Walmart Inc. founder Sam
Walton's children, but also future Sam Waltons; not just Bezos
today, but Bezos when he became a billionaire in 1998 and Amazon
sold just books and music.
No one knows exactly how billionaires would respond, but it
seems certain they would, somehow. A recent study by Enrico
Moretti, an economist at University of California, Berkeley and
Daniel Wilson at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco notes
that billionaires were once largely insulated from state-level
estate taxes by a federal credit. After the credit was eliminated
in 2001, the number of billionaires in states with estate taxes
fell 35% relative to stateswithout. Whether the wealth was
inherited or self-made didn't seem to matter. In another study, the
authors found that star scientists -- the kind that power
technology or biotech companies -- tend to leave states with
relatively higher personal or corporate income taxes.
Gabriel Zucman, an economist at the University of California,
Berkeley said unlike a state tax, American billionaires couldn't
avoid Ms. Warren's wealth tax, which he helped design, by moving,
even abroad. And he said the tax wouldn't deter entrepreneurs from
taking risks and building companies, because they are not mainly
motivated by money and taxes. Mr. Gates founded Microsoft, he
noted, when corporate, personal and estate taxes were far higher
than today. Nor would a 6% wealth tax matter much to someone like
Facebook Inc. founder Mark Zuckerberg, whose wealth has grown 40% a
year since 2008, he added. A wealth tax, he said, would mean the
Forbes 400 would have more self-made billionaires like Mr.
Zuckerberg and fewer hereditary billionaires.
But Mr. Zuckerberg is exceptional. For many billionaires, Ms.
Warren's taxes could easily eat up most if not all his or her
returns. Founders would have to steadily sell off their holdings to
pay their taxes, shrinking their stake. "To say you can't have that
wealth means you can't own your company," Ms. Freund said.
That's a problem, she said: The founder is often a more
successful and committed chief executive than an outsider. "They
really, really care and need to have controlling interest to make
decisions," she said. Indeed, many billionaires use the wealth from
one venture to start another: After selling Electronic Data Systems
to General Motors, Ross Perot later used the proceeds to start
Perot Systems. Mr. Bezos is selling Amazon shares to finance Blue
Origin, his space company.
This isn't a reason not to tax billionaires; it's a reason to be
careful about how it's done.
Write to Greg Ip at greg.ip@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
November 20, 2019 11:40 ET (16:40 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN)
Gráfica de Acción Histórica
De Mar 2024 a Abr 2024
Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN)
Gráfica de Acción Histórica
De Abr 2023 a Abr 2024