This morning’s Wall Street Journal makes the case for inflationInflation is when the general price of goods and services increases across the economy, reducing the purchasing power of a currency and the value of certain assets. The same paycheck covers less goods, services, and bills. It is sometimes referred to as a “hidden tax,” as it leaves taxpayers less well-off due to higher costs and “bracket creep,” while increasing the government’s spending power. -indexing capital gains in the federal individual income taxAn individual income tax (or personal income tax) is levied on the wages, salaries, investments, or other forms of income an individual or household earns. The U.S. imposes a progressive income tax where rates increase with income. The Federal Income Tax was established in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment. Though barely 100 years old, individual income taxes are the largest source of tax revenue in the U.S. code. From the piece:
Income tax bracketsA tax bracket is the range of incomes taxed at given rates, which typically differ depending on filing status. In a progressive individual or corporate income tax system, rates rise as income increases. There are seven federal individual income tax brackets; the federal corporate income tax system is flat. have been adjusted for the cost of living ever since the Reagan taxA tax is a mandatory payment or charge collected by local, state, and national governments from individuals or businesses to cover the costs of general government services, goods, and activities. cuts of 1981 — a historic pro-growth victory. But capital gains continue to suffer from an inflation tax, which yields a windfall profit for the government but reduces the value of holding long-term capital assets.
This situation stretches back to 1913, when the Treasury Department decided to define the word “cost” in the tax code as meaning historical dollars, rather than current dollars. Capital gains taxes are due whenever an asset yields a nominal gain, even if the investment is a loser in real terms. So an investor who purchased a stock for $10 in 1956, and sold it for $20 today, would still pay a 15% capital gains taxA capital gains tax is levied on the profit made from selling an asset and is often in addition to corporate income taxes, frequently resulting in double taxation. These taxes create a bias against saving, leading to a lower level of national income by encouraging present consumption over investment. on the transaction, even though adjusted for 50 years of inflation he’d be a net loser.
From 1979 to 1994, roughly 33% of the increase in shareholder wealth, or some $1.5 trillion, was due to inflation. This means Americans are paying far higher capital gains tax rates than advertised. A 1993 study by then Federal Reserve Board Governor Wayne Angell calculated that the average real tax rate on investments from 1972 to 1992 in Nasdaq stocks was 68%. It was 101% in the S&P 500, 123% in the NYSE, and 233% in the Dow Jones Industrials. On three of the four major indexes, the average taxes were higher than the actual return. (Full piece here.)
As we’ve written before, taxing the nominal value of capital gains rather than real inflation-adjusted values can lead to effective tax rates on investments that are dramatically higher than statutory rates—often taxing away the full real value of capital gains and more, with rates in excess of 100 percent in some years.
However, capital gains isn’t the only aspect of the federal tax code that’s not inflation adjusted. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is based on nominal values, as is the deductibility of interest expenses—that is, nominal interest is deductible for businesses as well as real interest paid—and many other aspects of the tax code. Taken together, the task of fully adjusting the income tax for inflation is a tall order indeed.
There are at least two big issues Congress will be forced to wrestle with if they decide to index capital gains for inflation. First, indexing has the potential to greatly complicate the federal tax filing process if not done properly. Anyone who doubts that need look no further than the staggeringly complex process by which federal income tax brackets are adjusted each year, which in principle appears simple. And secondly, some economists have pointed out that a tax code that’s only partly indexed for inflation can create problems of its own, which may be a remedy worse than the disease. Partial indexing—as opposed to wholesale indexing of the entire tax code—could lead some assets to become tax-preferred compared with those that aren’t indexed, potentially creating large economic distortions as a side effect.
Of course, one possible solution that’s been suggested would avoid much of the need for inflation indexingInflation indexing refers to automatic cost-of-living adjustments built into tax provisions to keep pace with inflation. Absent these adjustments, income taxes are subject to “bracket creep” and stealth increases on taxpayers, while excise taxes are vulnerable to erosion as taxes expressed in marginal dollars, rather than rates, slowly lose value. altogether—movement away from the taxation of Haig-Simons income, and toward the taxation of consumption instead.
Share this article