Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

zCreator (< 20)

Decreasing taxes would help decrease national debt.

Recs

6

February 10, 2012 – Comments (9)

I was reading this on Wikipedia today and thought I would share.

 

Mellon plan

Mellon came into office with a goal of reducing the huge federal debt from World War I. To do this, he needed to increase the federal revenue and cut spending. He believed that if the tax rates were too high, then the people would try to avoid paying them. He observed that as tax rates had increased during the first part of the 20th century, investors moved to avoid the highest rates—by choosing tax-free municipal bonds, for instance. As Mellon wrote in 1924:[4]

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business.

If the rates were set more reasonably, taxpayers would have less incentive to avoid paying. His controversial theory was that by lowering the tax rates across the board, he could increase the overall tax revenue.

Andrew Mellon's plan had four main points:

Cut the top income tax rate from 77 to 24 percentCut taxes on low incomes from 4 to 1/2 percentReduce the Federal Estate taxEfficiency in government

Mellon believed that the income tax should remain progressive, but with lower rates than those enacted during World War I. He thought that the top income earners would only willingly pay their taxes if rates were 25% or lower. Mellon proposed tax rate cuts, which Congress enacted in the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926. The top marginal tax rate was cut from 73% to 58% in 1922, 50% in 1923, 46% in 1924, 25% in 1925, and 24% in 1929. Rates in lower brackets were also cut substantially, relieving burdens on the middle-class, working-class, and poor households.

By 1926 65% of the income tax revenue came from incomes $300,000 and higher, when five years prior, less than 20% did. During this same period, the overall tax burden on those that earned less than $10,000 dropped from $155 million to $32.5 million.[5]

Mellon also championed preferential treatment for "earned" income relative to "unearned" income. As he argued in his 1924 book, Taxation: The People's Business[6]

The fairness of taxing more lightly income from wages, salaries or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it; in the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man’s life and it descends to his heirs. Surely we can afford to make a distinction between the people whose only capital is their mettle and physical energy and the people whose income is derived from investments. Such a distinction would mean much to millions of American workers and would be an added inspiration to the man who must provide a competence during his few productive years to care for himself and his family when his earnings capacity is at an end.

Mellon's policy reduced the public debt (largely inherited from World War I obligations) from almost $26 billion in 1921 to about $16 billion in 1930, but then the Depression caused it to rise again. By 1935, Franklin Roosevelt had gone back to high tax rates and wiped out Andrew Mellon's initiatives. The top tax rate went to 80% by 1935 and the federal government increased excise taxes in an attempt to make up for the lost revenue.

 

Excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_W._Mellon

9 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM, wolfman225 (76.30) wrote:

Interesting post.  I'm afraid you've likely started a mini-riot, though.  I predict it won't be long before you get the first comment that it was, in fact, the lowering of the upper tax rates that, if they weren't the root cause of the Depression, at least made it longer and harsher than it needed to be by reason of reducing revenue available to the government to spend on stimulus projects.

Report this comment
#2) On February 11, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Melaschasm (65.10) wrote:

The same thing happened in Russia when Putin was in charge.  They had so much corruption and tax evasion that Putin switched to a 10% flat tax, and the revenue skyrocketed.

When Reagan cut the top marginal rate in half, US revenues doubled in less than 6 years.

One of the things I found interesting is that Mellon favored wages over investment income, while our current system favors investment income over wages.   This is one of the big problems I have when liberals want to increase the taxes on the rich via ordinary income, but leave capital gains at a relatively low rate.  For the most part the 'evil' super rich do not have ordinary income, but rather they have capital gains.

Report this comment
#3) On February 11, 2012 at 8:00 AM, ETFsRule (99.91) wrote:

This seems reasonable in some ways, but not so much in other ways. Tax evasion is a big problem.

One good thing about it is that if we raised capital gains taxes, it would punish people like Paris Hilton, who hasn't worked a day in her life.

On the other hand, if we cut the top marginal tax rate to under 25%, we would lose a lot of revenue from CEO's who "earn" a $50 million bonus every year. This type of thing was not happening during Mellon's lifetime.

"When Reagan cut the top marginal rate in half, US revenues doubled in less than 6 years."

This is simply not true. I assume you're referring to the Tax Reform Act of 1986: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

In the 6 years after it was passed, federal receipts increased by roughly 40%. This was not enough to keep up with expenditures (Reagan was always terrible at managing the federal budget):

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=4X6

Report this comment
#4) On February 11, 2012 at 10:41 AM, wolfman225 (76.30) wrote:

^It's not the President's job to "manage the budget".  The President proposes broad outlines he would like to see as priorities for the upcoming fiscal year.  These proposals are then considered (or not) by the Congress when they debate and write the actual budget.

[As an aside, don't you find it interesting that it's been well in excess of 1000 days since the Democrat-led Senate passed any budget at all, while the Republican majority in the House has proposed multiple spending bills that were summarily dismissed (without a vote) by this same Senate?  I guess it's easier to spend-as-you-go than to be constrained by an actual budget.]

After the Congress eventually passes a budget it then goes to the White House for the President's signature.  Not having the power of a line-item veto, his options are then basically "take it or leave it".  If he's facing an overwhelming vote, putting up a token veto only damages his standing and future ability to get things he wants done. 

I am definitely not a fan of Pres. Obama, but I can't place the full blame for the increased debt/deficits totally at his feet (although, I could wish he would be more active in insisting that the Senate fulfill it's constitutional duty to write and pass a true budget and stop with the CR's).  His policies encouraged the spending, but it's the Congress that approves the expenditures (or not).  By the same token, the deficits during the 80's can't be laid at the feet of Pres. Reagan, since the budgets enacted often bore little resemblance to the one's proposed by his administration.

Report this comment
#5) On February 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, devoish (98.89) wrote:

This is one of the big problems I have when liberals want to increase the taxes on the rich via ordinary income, but leave capital gains at a relatively low rate. - Melaschasm

I do not think that is a "liberal" position. I think that is a Democratic position. But then I think that the Democratic party has moved to the "right" of the Republican Conservatives I grew up with. 

Report this comment
#6) On February 11, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Gyre07 (< 20) wrote:

Ending our miliary presence outside of our borders would go a long way towards getting our budget under control.

Report this comment
#7) On February 11, 2012 at 2:18 PM, outoffocus (26.22) wrote:

I agree that working income (business (w2, sole prop, p-shp, etc) should recieve more preferential treatment than passive income (rentals, investments, etc) because in general only the well off (and seniors) tend to have passive income.  It also reduces the tax incentives to speculate.  We need to rebuild our economy with REAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, not speculation in stocks, bonds, and derivatives (and real estate).

Report this comment
#8) On February 11, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Melaschasm (65.10) wrote:

Devoish, you are right about it being a democrat position, rather than part of the liberal philosophy. 

Report this comment
#9) On February 13, 2012 at 10:16 AM, edwjm (99.74) wrote:

This nation has been exposed to this republican propaganda about tax cuts curing everything including the common cold for over three decades now.  They still want to eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends, and death (estates).  Haven't we had enough of this nonsense?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement