Rising Income Inequality: An Excuse for Bigger Government: Part II

Flickr image by mSeattle.

Link to Part I of Rising Income Inequality: An Excuse for Bigger Government

The argument that rich people need to be taxed further to prevent income inequality from rising further doesn’t make sense economically. According to the Michael Schuyler of the Tax Foundation, if esteemed economist Thomas Piketty’s tax plan to change the face of equality in America were put into place, it would be ineffective at preventing income inequality from increasing and would not help the poor at all. “The basic version of Piketty’s wealth tax would impose a tax rate of 1 percent on net worth of $1.3 million and $6.5 million and 2 percent on net worth above $6.5 million. Piketty contemplates additional tax brackets, including a bracket of 0.5 percent starting at about $260,000” (Schuyler).

Schuyler completed two case studies about Piketty’s wealth tax. Both find that it does nothing to help the poor. The first: the basic plan of “1 percent on net worth between 1 and 5 million euros, and 2 percent on net worth above that.” Using purchasing power parity and rounding up a little, in US dollars $1.3 million is the starting point for the 1% tax and $6.5 million is the starting point for the 2% tax. The second: “Piketty’s recommendation for a more comprehensive wealth tax, adds a starting bracket of 0.5 percent on net worth between 200,000 and 1 million euros. Converted into dollars and slightly rounded up, the bracket runs from $260,000 to $1.3 million” (Schuyler).

Those seem like small tax percentages, but in reality will augment the possibility of injury to the economy. A wealth tax is equal to a much higher income tax – an example being “if the pre-tax return on an asset is 8 percent, a 1 percent wealth tax on the asset would take away one-eighth of the income. That is the same tax bite as a 12.5 percent income tax rate” (Schuyler). Also, a majority of some people’s wealth is capital; its accumulation is delicate to expected after-tax returns. This wealth tax would hit capital hard, and in turn, job formation, productivity, and innovation (Schuyler).

The first case “estimates that after the economy has adjusted to the wealth tax, the stock of private business capital will be down 13.3 percent, the wage rate will drop 4.2 percent, there will be 886,000 fewer jobs, and the economy’s total output of goods and services (GDP) will be 4.9 percent lower than otherwise” (Schuyler). The poor will obviously not been helped, but hurt by the supposed wealth tax that was meant to decrease the income gap. The standard of living overall will decrease, not just for the poor. (Schuyler).

The second case increases the number of people having to pay the wealth tax dramatically. It estimates, after adjustments, that “the capital stock will be 16.5 percent smaller than otherwise, wages will be 5.2 percent lower, 1.1 million jobs will be lost, and the overall economy will produce 6.1 percent less output than otherwise” (Schuyler). The severity of the effects of the tax has just increased, not the overall effects. Piketty is but an example of someone coming up with a plan that is believed to decrease inequality if implemented, but in reality, would lead to big problems and big losses if put into action. “The Tax Foundation model estimates that the GDP loss, expressed in terms of the 2013 economy, would be about $800 billion annually under a two-tier wealth tax of 1 and 2 percent. The estimated loss would rise to about $1 trillion annually if a half-percent bracket on smaller wealth holders were also imposed” (Schuyler). The attempted fix to income inequality is estimated to decrease the supply of services and goods, decrease the number of jobs, and lower wages. Everyone would be affected and hurt (Schuyler).

Real factors of income inequality are good news of increasing standards of living. For example, more people going to college causes inequality. The Tax Foundation’s Alan Cole found that in 1968, there were 7 million college students in the US and now there are over 200 million (Cole). Because many college students either delay working or earn very little money at low-skilled jobs, this shift in the number of students increases income inequality. However, a more educated American population is great news for everyone (Smith & Freeman).

In addition, healthcare innovation enabling elderly to have longer retirements is a factor of “rising” income inequality. Mark Perry of the Tax Foundation found that the number of active workers per retired worker has decreased almost 32% since the 1970's (Aging Population). Most retirees using their savings instead of income after retirement results in less wealth for the elderly. The Economist says that since the 1960s, the average number of years people spend in retirement has doubled (The Economist). However, retirees not living from direct incomes primarily doesn’t make them poor nor do retirements hurt productivity (Smith & Freeman).

And most importantly, another reason for income inequality “increasing” is increasing income mobility (Smith & Freeman). Almost 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999 moved up to a higher income group by 2007. The myth of the population decline of the middle class is busted. Because of increasing income mobility, everyone will have a better standard of living (Hodge & Lundeen).

Interestingly, 40% of people in the highest income group dropped down to lower income groups within eight years of the time that they moved to the highest income group. This is a direct denunciation of the misconception that rich people stay rich and take up a large share of the nation’s wealth for long periods of time (Hodge & Lundeen).

Cole, Alan. "Income Data is a Poor Measure of Inequality." 2014. Web. 1 April 2015.

Freeman, Daniel J. Smith and Rachel H. "Income inequality may actually be good news." AL.com 6 February 2015: 1. Web. 6 February 2015.

Hodge, Scott A. and Andrew Lundeen. "Americans Are Economically Mobile." 2013. Web. February 6 2015.

Perry, Mark J. "Can Aging Population Explain Income Stagnation?" Carpe Diem 23 October 2011: 1. Web. 6 February 2015.

Schuyler, Michael. "The Impact of Piketty’s Wealth Tax on the Poor, the Rich, and the Middle Class." 2014. Web. 8 April 2015.

Rising Income Inequality: An Excuse for Bigger Government: Part I

Flickr image by mSeattle.

Concerns for the low-income portion of America is not unjustified – but rather it would be callous to pretend that everyone in America is well-off and is “dealt a fair hand.” However, the cause of fighting rising income inequality leads to an increased desire and need for more government intervention resulting in erosion of freedoms (McCloskey). Misinformed Americans thinking that income inequality can be solved by government is a larger problem than it seems at first glance. “Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free” (Reed).

According to a 2014 poll by Pew Research Center, 78% of people in the US saw the income gap in our country as a big problem (Weldon). Wherever the opinion of income inequality being a major problem came from cannot be narrowed down easily. Where the problem really lies is how the public can be so misinformed as to believe in a false opinion – really just propaganda. 57% of people in the US think that the distribution of wealth is unfair, according to a 2011 Gallup poll, and a CBS news poll found that 69% think that the income gap is increasing (Weldon). A majority of people who are misinformed about such an important issue as equality is not to be taken lightly at all.

Though even capitalists such as famous economist Ludwig von Mises admit that income inequality is an effect of capitalism, he makes the great point that inequality is everywhere in a free market and is the price to pay for such immense overall wealth that makes even the poorest in a capitalist society richer than the poorest in a statist society. Overall, free-market capitalism is a blessing, as the American people can see if they just look around their home at the goods that would not have been possible without innovation and free trade. A free market enables people to quench the desire to make something of themselves using their unique abilities. This has made possible the wealthy society that we know today as the United States of America, the land of opportunity where people are unequal, but have equal opportunity (Boudreaux).

Contrary to popular belief, income inequality is only increasing if you look at before-tax income, which is how highly-esteemed economist Thomas Piketty showed that income inequality is increasing. Measuring before-tax income and using that data to prove that there is a rising income gap doesn’t make sense because people do not consume their tax deductions. Their real income is after taxes and so if you’re going to study income inequality you have to use realistic data – and the fact is that “if one looks at after-tax income, the increase in income inequality over time is greatly reduced. If one goes further and factors in the government’s attempts to redistribute income, income inequality is not increasing in the U.S. at all” (Dorfman).

According to Mark J. Perry, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of Economics and Finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus, “After adjusting for both government transfers and federal taxes paid, the average household in the top quintile received less than 8 times more after-tax income ($188,200) than the average household in the bottom 20% ($24,100)” (“Adjusting for transfers and taxes”). When accounting for federal taxes and government transfer payments, income inequality almost halfway disappears (“Adjusting for transfers and taxes”).

Also, by using a single price index for cost of living, income inequality is exaggerated. Between 1994 and 2005, prices of low-end products that low-income households consume were falling. “This implies that non-durable inflation for the 10th percentile of the income distribution has only been 4.3 percent between 1994 and 2005 (0.4 percent per annum), while the non-durable inflation for the 90th percentile has been 11.9 percent (1.0 percent annually), and 13.4 percent (1.2 percent annually) for the richest 5 percent of households in the sample” (“Rising Income Inequality"). According to Perry, this adjusted cost of living index says that real incomes are gradually rising, instead of the income gap between the rich and the poor becoming larger (“Rising Income Inequality").

A method of measuring inequality, the Gini coefficient (ranges from 0% complete equality-100% complete inequality), also proves that income inequality is not rising. Throughout the 1960s-1980s, the Gini coefficient was rising, but leveled out starting in the mid-1990s through 2010, the most recent Gini coefficient data; again, clear-cut evidence that we should not be worried about the income gap rising (“The ‘Imaginary Hobgoblin’ of Income Inequality”).

Another flaw that rising income inequality data is founded upon is that increased capital is a cause of the increasing gap. According to classical philosopher Aristotle and modern-day French economist Piketty, capitals gains that usually exceed the economy’s growth will cause the share of returns in national income to increase because the wealthy people who have the capital will continue reinvesting in interest income, therefore causing rich people to have a larger share of overall national income. However, if capital gains are an unfair advantage to the wealthy as assumed by the above way of thinking, then other assumptions may also be made, such as “the rich always reinvest their returns”, “only rich people have capital”, “there is no such thing as human capital”, “most rich people inherit their wealth”, “the rich never lose money – no creative destruction”, and that “people care most about income inequality and don’t care about the working class”. Those assumptions about the rich don’t make economic sense, or common sense, for that matter (McCloskey 12-13).

A nation having a large amount of capital is not a problem, anyway. Capital is key to innovation, and innovation in a free-market economy means an overall better standard of living for us all, because not just the rich use capital. For example, small business owners in the middle class must have capital to begin their business. They must always have some capital to remain successful as well. Bad investments are also made, signaled by the “invisible hand” of market forces of supply and demand to weed out what is not profitable or necessary. Yes, most people who have capital are rich, however, but the fact that they are “rich” is beside the point because most rich people in a capitalist society accumulate their wealth not by cronyism but by their own work, which is beneficial to others in society (Borders).




Borders, Max. "#1 -- Income Inequality Arises From Market Forces and Requires Government Intervention." The Freeman 15 April 2014: 1. Web. 1 April 2015.
Boudreaux, Donald. "Equality and Capitalism." The Freeman 1 September 2002: 1. Web. 1 April 2015.
Dorfman, Jeffrey. "Dispelling Myths About Income Inequality." Forbes 8 May 2014: 1. Web. 1 April 2015.
McCloskey, Deirdre Nansen. "Measured, Unmeasured, Mismeasured, and Unjustified Pessimism: A Review Essay of Thomas Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century'." Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 2014, Autumn ed.: 56. Document. 1 April 2015.
Perry, Mark J. "Adjusting for transfers and taxes reduces income inequality between highest and lowest quintiles by 50%." American Enterprise Institute 17 November 2014: 1. Web. 5 April 2015.
—. "Rising Income Inequality Has Been Exaggerated: 2X." Carpe Diem 20 September 2010: 1. Web. 1 April 2015.
—. "The 'Imaginary Hobgoblin' of Income Inequality." Carpe Diem 31 October 2011: 1. Web. 1 April 2015.
Reed, Lawrence W. "The Quackery of Equality." The Freeman 30 May 2012: 1. Web. 1 April 2015.
Weldon, Kathleen. "If I Were a Rich Man: Public Attitudes About Wealth and Taxes." Huffington Post 4 February 2015: 1. web. 7 February 2015.