Bernie Sanders' tax legacy

Sanders has introduced many ideas for tax reform, and these ideas might just outlive his candidacy for president.

|
Matt McClain/The Washington Post/AP/File
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders prepares to speak for a video to supporters at Polaris Mediaworks in Burlington, Vt.

Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist Senator from Vermont, surprised almost everyone by waging a very strong campaign for President.  However, it is now clear to almost everyone that he won’t be the Democratic Party’s nominee. 

While it is sometimes hard to notice, this election campaign has been full of interesting ideas, and Sanders has contributed a fair share. Some may even outlive his political aspirations. Here are a few of his best and worst ideas.

  • A carbon tax. Sanders was the first presidential candidate to propose a carbon tax, which is a market-based approach to addressing climate change. The idea is a favorite among economists from across the political spectrum. It might command bipartisan support if the two parties actually could work together and Republicans could cure their pathological aversion to taxes of any kind. Indeed, in 2008, Republican presidential candidate John McCain proposed his own market-based solution to climate change—an emissions trading system.
  • A financial transactions tax. Sanders was also the first presidential candidate to propose a significant tax on securities transactions. (Hillary Clinton proposed a vague but tiny tax on high-frequency trading.) Sanders’s rhetoric suggests that he thinks that Wall Street is the financial equivalent of air pollution, and his proposed tax rate was so high that it would discourage productive as well as unproductive trading and bring in much less revenue than he hoped. Nonetheless, many other countries are considering financial transactions taxes and a well-designed version could be a significant source of revenue in the US without an undue toll on the economy.
  • Huge, transparent tax increases on the rich. While Clinton would raise taxes on high-income households through various minimum taxes and other obfuscations, Sanders gets credit for relative transparency with his straightforward higher tax rates on the rich. No sleight-of-hand and needless complexity. His plan would have raised top tax rates on capital income to 64 percent and on labor income to over 70 percent. The drawback, however, is that such high rates are almost surely unsustainable.

The giant tax increases on capital are the most problematic part of Senator Sanders’s legacy.  While they would make the tax system much more progressive, they would also impose very large economic costs. 

Capital is highly mobile, which makes it harder to tax.  Rates as high as 64 percent would fuel illegal tax evasion—such as not reporting sales of foreign stock—and the growth of legal but inefficient tax shelters.

The low after-tax return to successful entrepreneurial investment could also discourage risk taking.  And—even though we didn’t build this into our revenue estimates—it’s a sure bet that some investors would avoid selling assets and realizing taxable gains in hopes that a future president would lower  capital gains tax rates to levels closer to historical norms.

A future Bernie Sanders might learn a lesson from the Scandinavian countries whose expansive social safety nets served as a model for his spending agenda. Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes know that the only plausible way to raise enough revenue to finance government spending that averages almost 50 percent of GDP is with a very efficient tax system.

Perhaps surprisingly, those nations rely heavily on regressive taxes; for example, they all impose a 25 percent Value Added Tax on consumption. They also levy a so-called dual income tax, which combines a steeply progressive tax on labor income with a low flat-rate tax on capital income, and assess higher payroll taxes than the United States.  Sanders did propose to increase payroll taxes, but his capital income taxes rates would be very high by international standards.

The next Bernie Sanders would do well to look at Scandinavia’s tax systems, not just their spending.  And that might make for a very stark and revealing presidential choice, especially if the next Republican candidate emulates Marco Rubio’s or Ted Cruz’s intriguing proposals for efficient consumption taxes combined with much, much smaller government.

This article first appeared at TaxVox.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Bernie Sanders' tax legacy
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2016/0622/Bernie-Sanders-tax-legacy
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe