--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Support for this Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 episode of Today Explained comes from Quip Electric Toothbrushes. More people than you'll find in the entire state of South Dakota use the Quip Electric Toothbrush. You can get started at getquip.com slash explained, g-e-t-q-u-i-p dot com slash explained. The Quip starts at $25 and your first set of refills is free.
--:-- [Sound effects: A quick sound effect to signal a transition]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: The president was all over primetime TV last night. Why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences, and gates around their homes? They don't build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside. But his address was almost immediately overshadowed by Chuck and Nancy awkwardly sharing a podium during their rebuttal. Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was also on primetime TV this week. Tonight on 60 Minutes.
--:-- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: You look at our tax rates back in the 60s, and when you have a progressive tax rate system, your tax rate, you know, let's say from zero to $75,000 may be 10 percent or 15 percent, etc. But once you get to the tippy tops, on your 10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent. That doesn't mean all 10 million dollars are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: I strongly disagree with this idea that you should just confiscate all the money or most of the money that people make. If you want to find out how to tell people not to make a lot of money, you take 80 percent of what they make and tell them we're taking it all and they won't do it. So now she wants to confiscate what would be the equivalent, if you lived in her state of New York, of 85 cents of every dollar.
--:-- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Something must be done. War would mean a prohibitive increase in our taxes. Hey, I got an uncle lives in Texas. No, I'm talking about taxes, money, dollars. Dollars, that's where my uncle lives, dollars taxes.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: It turns out a lot of people don't really understand how taxes work. They really don't. What became clear just looking around the comments and the way people were framing this idea was people really thought that it meant she wanted to tax everyone's income as 70 percent. So meaning, if you're a school teacher and you earn $50,000 a year, she's going to take 70% of your income. But that's not what she meant at all.
--:-- Amy Peakey: Think of it right now when you pay your taxes, say you're someone who makes about $35,000 a year. Your first roughly $9,000 or $10,000 is taxed at 10%. And then it goes up to 12% from what you earn between $9,000 and that $35,000. So the highest marginal tax rate is not what you actually pay on your entire income. You have to look at it when you average in all the different rates you're paying on each bit of income that you earn up to a certain amount.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Okay, so literally everyone already is paying different income tax on different levels of their income. That's right. Okay. Now, just in case there's anyone out there who's still confused, we found this great example on Twitter that uses someone we all know, a celebrity, a wrestler, a future presidential candidate maybe. Can I play it for you?
--:-- Diana Anderson: So say the Dems get their knickers untwisted and do the bold thing and create a tax rate of 70% for all income above, say, $10 million. Let's say you're Dwayne The Rock Johnson. You made $65 million last year. In one year. So that $10 million cutoff is going to hit you. 70% off everything above $10 million. That leaves you with $16.5 million. Wow, that's a big hit, you think? On paper, yeah, that's a lot of money to just give up in taxes. But that still leaves The Rock with nearly $20 million, considering his $10 million is also taxed at a low rate.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Put it another way, The Rock would pay almost enough in taxes in a single year to completely solve Flint's water crisis. And that's just The Rock. Dwayne The Rock Johnson, wrestler-come-action star, 260 pounds of pure ass-kicking muscle that knows how to say feet down in 32 languages. Imagine what would happen if we were able to tax all billionaires and people above $10 million yearly at that rate. We could fund hospitals. We could fund libraries. We could fix broken infrastructure. We could implement so many programs to ensure children don't go hungry. And yet somehow we don't.
--:-- Amy Peakey: So does she have it right? Yeah, she does. That's great. That's a great Twitter stream. And I love The Rock. And it's a great example. But would The Rock love her after saying that? I don't know. I have a feeling he might, actually. He seems like someone who would be behind investing more money into public education and other things like that. And, you know, I think that's right on.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And it's just that Republicans are coming out kind of framing it as, you know, the crazy left wants to take 70 percent of your income. But that's not the case. It's, you know, these higher rates above this threshold. And it's what we have in the system right now. It's just that the highest rates are much lower. I think the highest tax rate right now is 37 percent. And who does that 37 percent affect? Who's that for? People making over what? Yeah, single filers who make over $500,000.
--:-- Amy Peakey: So what do we know about how high tax rates work with the economy? Do they help it? Do they hurt it? Do they slow it down? Do they make it boom? What happens? When tax rates were at their highest, the economy was actually growing faster than it is now. And so, you know, is it going to ruin the economy? Just looking in our past, no, it won't.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: What about American popular opinion? I mean, what kind of support does like the trickle down, tax cuts for the rich have and what kind of support does, say, tax the rich have? Yeah, so the trickle-down theory was introduced in the 1980s. That was when Ronald Reagan cut tax rates and kind of reformed the tax system with the idea that if the rich had more money, they would invest that money in the economy, create jobs. And there's actually no proof that that actually works, but that's the theory that was fueling Donald Trump's tax cuts in 2017.
--:-- Amy Peakey: In terms of how people feel about it, most Americans believe that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share in taxes. There was an April 2018 Gallup survey that said 62% of respondents believe the wealthy don't pay their fair share. The tax cut bill from 2017 also is not very popular with most people. I think there have been polls as well that find that most people feel that it's benefiting the wealthy over the middle class. And that does bother people.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: How much money would a higher tax rate on the richest Americans, like the one that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is proposing, raise? Well, the Washington Post did a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and they estimate that it would raise about $72 billion a year. Over 10 years, it would pay for half the outstanding student debt. It would fund each year a universal pre-K system in the U.S. It's about as much money as the food stamp program costs. So, I mean, if you think of it in those terms, you could do a lot of good with that money.
--:-- Amy Peakey: Is there any chance in the near distant future that something like this could actually pass? I can't predict political outcomes, but I will say that economists generally believe that there should be higher marginal tax rates. So the research is there. You know, in terms of financially, does this make sense for the economy? I think people would say, yes, you know, it does. I mean, it basically is the system we have now. It's just, you know, should we go back to what we had in the 50s and 60s when the economy was growing at a much faster rate? Well, yeah, I mean, I think people might be more willing to consider that in the future.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Up next, the very first income taxes we ever had were exclusively on the rich. Guess who imposed them? I'll give you one hint. He's on Mount Rushmore. I'm Sean Rameswaram for him. This is Today Explained.
--:-- [Sound effects: A quick sound effect to signal a transition]
--:-- Steve Weissman: I'm Steve Weissman, and I love taxes. It's a subject dear to my heart. Mine too. My parents are accountants. Oh. I wrote about them for the New York Times for a few decades. After that, I published a book about them. It's called The Great Tax Wars, from Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, and how the income tax transformed America.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And why do you start with Lincoln? Is it because income taxes started with Lincoln? That's correct. It very little appreciated that Abraham Lincoln, the father of so much in our country and the great emancipator, is also the father of the income tax. But yes, the income tax was first introduced in the United States during the Civil War to help support the cost of the war and not run up such huge deficits that inflation would completely destroy the finances of the union.
--:-- Steve Weissman: So who exactly was taxed? Only the very rich. It was a tax that was probably not paid by more than 3% to 5% of the earners in the United States. And the top rate at the height of the war was only about 10%. And in the years after the Civil War, in the late 1860s and into the 1870s, it was in stages, it was rescinded and repealed.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So the idea here was that wars cost money. Everyone should have to sacrifice something. If not your life, then your money. War is always the impetus for raising taxes. That is especially true during World War I, when the top tax rate went up to something like 70 percent. 70 percent. And of course, during World War II, the tax rate went up to 90 percent. 90 percent. You only paid that rate on the additional income. It was a graduated rate, just as we have today. Right. The top rate is only on the last dollar that you earned. But on the last dollar that you earned, if you were very wealthy, the tax rate was virtually in the confiscatory range of 90%. It is not a sacrifice for the industrialist or the wage earner, the farmer or the shopkeeper, the trained man or the doctor to pay more taxes to buy more bonds, to forego extra profits. Rather, is it a privilege?
--:-- Steve Weissman: When exactly do we see the trend start going in the other direction? Is that after World War II? Yes. Ironically, it was a Democrat, President Kennedy, who introduced the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate the economy. This was almost a revolutionary idea. It was a Keynesian idea. Such a bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demands. And it will date that cut in taxes to take effect as of the start of next year, January 1963.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And Republicans, hard as it would be to believe, resisted Kennedy on that because they cared more about the federal deficit. They continued to be cut through the 1960s. But it really wasn't until the advent of Ronald Reagan in 1980 that tax in the income tax rates were reduced dramatically to the range of where they are today.
--:-- Steve Weissman: When I sign this bill into law, America will have the lowest marginal tax rates and the most modern tax code among major industrialized nations. One that encourages risk taking, innovation, and that old American spirit of enterprise.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And at that point, is it tax cuts across the board or is it tax cuts for the rich? The top rates were lowered significantly. But in order to get full congressional support, they also involved steep tax cuts for the middle class and for the poor. You may remember that some years ago when Mitt Romney ran for president against Barack Obama, he complained that only 47% of Americans actually pay income taxes. And he was right about that. The bottom half of Americans don't pay federal income tax. And then there's also something called the earned income tax credit, which is actually a rebate to the very poor in return for the Social Security taxes that they pay.
--:-- Steve Weissman: So the tax cuts on the very rich have always been accompanied by at least some tax cuts on the middle class to make them politically palatable. You cannot sell a tax cut just by saying, oh, let's give a break to the rich. In fact, if you look at the public reaction to the Trump and Republican congressional tax cuts of late 2017, which were enacted at the end of Trump's first year in office, those tax cuts weren't especially popular because they were seen by the public as heavily skewed toward both the rich and to corporations. In fact, they were skewed.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So people are savvy enough about tax cuts to know when they're getting a good deal or not. Does that check out historically? I think it does.
--:-- Steve Weissman: Now we're in a debate, which is that what is the rate where a tax increase becomes counterproductive? Most economists would agree that there is at some point a threshold where if you raise taxes too much it actually hurts the economy. The disagreement is over what that rate is. Do we have any idea? We do not. The consensus among Democratic economists probably is that the top rate could go much higher than it is now, which is in the upper 30s up to maybe the 50s or 60s. But of course, the Republicans say, no, we are pretty much at that rate now in the upper 30s. Anything higher than that is going to disincentivize people to work hard and invest and save and help the economy.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: You mentioned Democratic economists and Republican economists. Is that a thing? Do we not have people who are just trying to figure out how the economy functions without infusing partisan ideology? That's a really good question. You sound like Chief Justice Roberts. There are no Democratic judges. Call the balls and the strikes. We just call balls and strikes. Economics is the study of trade-offs. The most famous trade-off is guns versus butter. If you spend money on defense, there's going to be less money available for social programs and domestic uses. Economists invariably, because of their biases, they analyze the tradeoffs in terms of their own preferences.
--:-- Steve Weissman: You know, everyone in this country seems to associate tax cuts with Republican leaders and tax hikes with Democratic leaders. But you mentioned that one of the biggest tax cuts came from John F. Kennedy. He was the first one to get out there and say, let's cut taxes to stimulate the economy. How is it that one party seemed to become the party of tax cuts and the other became the party of tax hikes? I think because of Reagan. In the 1970s, income taxes or taxes for the first time in a long time and maybe the first time ever became central to American politics.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: I have my veto pen drawn and ready for any tax increase that Congress might even think of sending up. And I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers. Go ahead. Make my day.
--:-- Steve Weissman: And do we have any idea how much the reduction of taxes for high earners over the course of, say, the Reagan presidency, the George W. Bush presidency, now the Donald Trump presidency, has exacerbated the income inequality in the United States? Yes, we do. I think that studies show that every time a tax cut is enacted in a regressive way where the rates, the distribution of the benefits of the tax cut are skewed to the rich, yes, clearly that aggravates the problem of economic inequality.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: As someone who's spent a lot of time looking at the long history of taxes in this country, do you think a 70 percent marginal tax increase for the highest earners could reframe the way Americans think about taxes in this current generation? I think it's starting to generate a useful debate. A few years ago, the French economist Thomas Piketty wrote a very important book called Capital, which proposed an 80% tax rate. I personally don't think that a marginal rate of 70% is very likely to fly politically in this country, but I think it's a useful debate to have because inequality is also an urgent concern for Americans increasingly.
--:-- Steve Weissman: And it is useful to know that there have been times in American history where the marginal tax rate was that high. The argument in favor of raising taxes is always based on the issue of the morality of equality and achieving equality of the burdens of government in our country. Whereas the argument against raising income taxes is also a moral argument that has to do with personal liberty that is very central to our country. And if I could show that the arguments that we're waging today are not that new, I think we can better understand how we can achieve compromises and resolution of these conflicts in the future.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Thanks again to Quip Electric Toothbrushes for supporting the show today. You can go to getquip.com slash explained and find out why over a million people use the Quip. It starts at just $25 and your first set of refills is free. G-E-T-Q-U-I-P dot com slash explained.