The Capital Gains Tax Cut: Economic Panacea or Just Plain Snakeoil?

By Aaron, Henry J. | Brookings Review, Summer 1992 | Go to article overview

The Capital Gains Tax Cut: Economic Panacea or Just Plain Snakeoil?


Aaron, Henry J., Brookings Review


Economic panacea or just plain snakeoil?

Should tax rates on income from realized capital gains be set below rates on other income? In a way, the question is academic. They already are, in practice. Although the maximum statutory tax rate on capital gains is 30 percent, more than half of all capital gains are never taxed. Either they are held until the owner dies, after which they are exempt from tax to subsequent owners. Or they accrue to tax-exempt U.S. entities, such as pension funds, or to foreign owners not subject to U.S. tax. In addition, most capital gains are realized several years after they actually accrue, a delay that automatically and significantly reduces effective tax rates. And the longer the delay, the greater the reduction. In actual practice, the tax rate on capital gains is less than 10 percent.

Advocates of reduced statutory rates, however. clearly want more. To make their case, they offer four lines of argument. First, reducing the tax rate on realized capital gains will promote growth. Second, it will mitigate flaws in the tax system. Third, it will increase tax equity. Finally, it either is, or comes very close to being, a perfectly efficient tax cut: it generates benefits but no costs.

None of these arguments, alas, is valid. Each is either demonstrably false or ignores alternative - and better - policies.

Promoting Growth

To understand why a capital gains tax cut will not promote growth, it is important to keep in mind a key economic identity. Domestic investment is exactly equal to private saving less the government budget deficit less U.S. net investment abroad as measured by exports minus imports. That assertion is not a matter of opinion or economic analysis. It is an identity that must exist, given the way we count investment, saving, government spending and revenues, and international transactions. The idea is clear enough. Resources for investment can come from the domestic saving left over after paying for the government deficit and from whatever we invest abroad. (In recent years the United States has been borrowing from foreigners, not investing abroad.) There is nowhere else to get the resources.

Private Saving

If the reduced rate on capital gains is to boost private saving, it must do so by increasing the after-tax rate of return to saving. Economists have debated whether private saving really does increase when the rate of return rises. In theory, the effect could go either way. A higher rate of return lessens the need to save (someone saving, say, to make a down payment on a house five years hence can put aside a little less each year the higher the rate of return). But it also makes saving more attractive (bringing within reach, for example, the goal of saving enough to make a down payment on a larger house).

Most economists think that private saving will rise if the rate of return increases, but they are unsure how much. One widely used estimate is that of current Council of Economic Advisers chairman, Michael Boskin, who suggests that a 10 percent increase in the

Say that the average annual rate of return to capital is 10 percent, that one-third of this return accrues in the form of capital gains, and that the effective rate of tax on these capital gains is the maximum statutory rate of 30 percent. If so, reducing the capital gains tax rate by one-half (about what President Bush is seeking for assets held three years or more) would increase the rate of return by 7 percent, which would boost private saving by just under 3 percent. If these crude assumptions are valid, then, given the current U.S. net private saving rate of under 5 percent of gross domestic product, the capital gains tax cut would boost saving by 0.15 percent of GDP. Given standard economic models, such an increase in saving would raise growth of national income no more than 0.02 percent of GDP.

In fact, this estimate grossly exaggerates the effect of a capital gains tax cut on private saving, since, as noted, the effective tax rate on capital gains is actually less than 30 percent. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Capital Gains Tax Cut: Economic Panacea or Just Plain Snakeoil?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.