ShareThis Page
John Stossel: How much is enough taxes? | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: How much is enough taxes?

871106_web1_725602-ee3edc68f95a4b90a1e749a5f8ed3400
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez waves to the crowd after speaking at a rally in New York Jan. 19.

Do you pay enough taxes? What is enough?

When asked on “60 Minutes,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., didn’t seem to have a specific tax rate in mind, but then she said, “back in the ’60s … you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent.”

Suddenly, 70 percent tax rates are a progressive plan, although Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., added, “We’ve had it as high as 90 percent.”

She’s right.

That was the top tax rate when I was a kid, and today, many Democrats say if we’d just raise rates on rich people, government would have plenty of money to pay for our wonderful programs.

But it’s a myth. What progressives don’t say, perhaps because they don’t know it, is what economic historian Dr. Phillip Magness explains: “No one actually paid anywhere close to those rates.”

For more than a decade, Magness has researched old taxes.

He discovered that America’s 90 percent tax bracket didn’t bring in much extra money. That’s because rich people found loopholes.

Then, because of that, and because the high tax rates discouraged work, President Kennedy backed a bill that lowered the top rate to 70 percent.

But it turned out that the 70 percent rate wasn’t very real either.

“A millionaire on average would pay 41 percent,” says Magness, because of “all these deductions and exemptions and carve-outs that are intentionally baked into the tax code.”

Today, our top tax rate is 37 percent. A dozen years after Kennedy’s tax cuts, President Reagan proposed reducing the 70 percent rate, saying, “Our tax system could only be described as un-American.”

“Democrats actually agree with him,” recounts Magness. “Reagan goes to the table and says, ‘Let’s make a deal … cut the rates … and in exchange, we’ll consolidate the tax code.”

They did.

Surprise — the lower rates brought in just as much money.

It turns out that tax revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product stays about the same no matter what the top bracket is. Higher tax rates don’t necessarily get rich people to pay more taxes.

“They’ll change where they earn their income,” economist Art Laffer told me about what he’d once said to Reagan. “They’ll change how they earn their income. They’ll change how much they earn, when they receive the income. They’ll change all of those things to minimize taxes.”

President Trump, who in some years paid zero income tax, understands that. Before he became president, I asked him about a proposed tax hike. “Look, the rich people are going to leave — and other people are going to leave!” he told me. “You are going to end up with lots of people that don’t produce. And then, that’s the spiral. That’s the end.”

That happened in Europe, recounts Magness: “France attempted a massive tax on its wealthiest earners. … The business people left in a mass exodus from the country.”

But today’s progressives are selective when they look at history. On TV, Ocasio- Cortez said, “Under Republican administration … Dwight Eisenhower, we had 90 percent marginal tax rate.”

I asked Magness what would happen if the United States were to return to those rates — while also eliminating the deductions that came with them.

“You’re asking for an economic disaster,” he answered. “I ask the question: Do we leave (wealth) in the private sector where the market decides? Or do we subject it to corrupt politicians?”

Please, let’s leave most of America’s wealth in private hands.

John Stossel is author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

John Stossel is author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.