Sunday, October 26, 2014
7

Why Wealth Taxes Are Not Enough

CAMBRIDGE – Should advanced countries implement wealth taxes as a means of stabilizing and reducing public debt over the medium term? The normally conservative International Monetary Fund has given the idea surprisingly emphatic support. The IMF calculates that a one-time 10% wealth levy, if introduced quickly and unexpectedly, could return many European countries to pre-crisis public debt/GDP ratios. It is an intriguing idea.

The moral case for a wealth tax is more compelling than usual today, with unemployment still at recession levels, and with deep economic inequality straining social norms. And, if it were really possible to ensure that the wealth levy would be temporary, such a tax would, in principle, be much less distortionary than imposing higher marginal tax rates on income. Unfortunately, while a wealth tax may be a sound way to help a country dig out of a deep fiscal pit, it is hardly a panacea.

For starters, the revenue gains from temporary wealth taxes can be very elusive. The economist Barry Eichengreen once explored the imposition of capital levies in the aftermath of World Wars I and II. He found that, owing to capital flight and political pressure for delay, the results were often disappointing.

Italy’s armada of Guardia di Finanza boats would hardly forestall a massive exodus of wealth if Italians see a sizable wealth tax coming. Over- and under-invoicing of trade, for example, is a time-tested way to spirit money out of a country. (For example, an exporter under-reports the price received for a foreign shipment, and keeps the extra cash hidden abroad.) And there would be a rush into jewelry and other hard-to-detect real assets.

The distortionary effects of a wealth levy would also be exacerbated by concerns that the “temporary” levy would not be a one-off tax. After all, most temporary taxes come for lunch and stay for dinner. Fears of future wealth taxes could discourage entrepreneurship and lower the saving rate.

In addition, the administrative difficulties of instituting a comprehensive wealth tax are formidable, raising questions about fairness. For example, it would be extremely difficult to place market values on the family-owned businesses that pervade Mediterranean countries.

Wealth taxes that target land and structures are arguably insulated from some of these concerns, and property taxes are relatively underused outside the Anglo-Saxon countries. In theory, taxing immobile assets is less distortionary, though taxes on structures obviously can discourage both maintenance and new construction.

So what else can eurozone governments do to raise revenue as their economies recover? Most economists favor finding ways to broaden the tax base – for example, by eliminating special deductions and privileges – in order to keep marginal tax rates low. Broadening the income-tax base is a central element of the highly regarded Simpson/Bowles proposals for tax reform in the United States.

In Europe, efficiency would be enhanced by a unified VAT rate, instead of creating distortions by charging different rates for different goods. In principle, low-income individuals and families could be compensated through lump-sum transfer programs.

Another idea is to try to raise more revenue from carbon permits or taxes. Raising funds by taxing negative externalities reduces distortions rather than creating them. Though such taxes are spectacularly unpopular – perhaps because individuals refuse to admit that the externalities they themselves create are significant – I regard them as an important direction for future policy (and I intend to suggest other ideas along these lines in future columns).

Unfortunately, advanced countries have implemented very little fundamental tax reform so far. Many governments are giving in to higher marginal tax rates rather than overhauling and simplifying the system.

In Europe, officials are also turning to stealth taxes, particularly financial repression, to resolve high public-debt overhangs. Through regulation and administrative directives, banks, insurance companies, and pension funds are being forced to hold much higher shares of government debt than they might voluntarily choose to do. But this approach is hardly progressive, as the final holders of pensions, insurance contracts, and bank deposits are typically the beleaguered middle class and the elderly.

There is also the unresolved question of how much the periphery countries really should be asked to pay on their debilitating debt burdens, whatever the tax instrument. Although the IMF seems particularly enthusiastic about using wealth taxes to resolve debt overhangs in Spain and Italy, some burden sharing with the north seems reasonable. As the economists Maurice Obstfeld and Galina Hale recently noted, German and French banks earned large profits intermediating flows between Asian savers and Europe’s periphery. Unfortunately, arguing over burden sharing creates more scope for delay, potentially undermining the efficacy of any wealth tax that might finally be instituted.

Still, the IMF is right – on grounds of both fairness and efficiency – to raise the idea of temporary wealth taxes in advanced countries to relieve fiscal distress. However, the revenues will almost certainly be lower, and the costs higher, than calculations used to promote them would imply. Temporary wealth taxes may well be a part of the answer for countries in fiscal trouble today, and the idea should be taken seriously. But they are no substitute for fundamental long-term reform to make tax systems simpler, fairer, and more efficient.

Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (7)

Please login or register to post a comment

  1. CommentedFranklin Castillo

    Seriously? I don't know if I can trust anything Rogoff writes, particularly on the subject of remedying inequality. He practically sold out his PhD to conservative organizations after the 90% debt-to-GDP pro-austerity fiasco. You've lost all credibility in my eyes, Ken.

  2. CommentedGeorge McEwen

    How can any serious consideration be given to raising of taxes without including the need to address spending.

  3. CommentedJulio Huato

    Well, thank you, Sir, for writing an article about it. *Now* there's a bigger chance that the unexpected tax on wealth be anticipated by the 1% and, as a consequence, that they may take their wealth out and place it in "emergent" countries or stuff it in some hole in the middle of the New Mexico desert (like Breaking Bad's Walter White). Why don't you economists just hush?! ! Man!!!

  4. CommentedJohn McDonald

    The IMF just issued a statement saying that they did not in anyway advocate a wealth tax in the publication the author mentions.

  5. CommentedJose araujo

    Its strange nobody argues against labor taxes on the grounds of labor, especially specialized labor migrating to other countries, yet the social investment made on a worker is much greater than the effort the society made to produce capital…. I honestly don't see in a time of excess savings and capital, what would be the problem of fleeing capital, especially if this was used across Europe and implemented along some capital restrains. Today’s problem is that capital is not being put to good use. Capitalists are acting like renteers and extracting value without providing anything useful.

      CommentedJohn McDonald

      Fleeing capital does not refer so much to people investing elsewhere (which many already do), but simply getting their money out of the country where it cannot be taxed.

Featured