Arguing the other side

Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9127

"He can take his 'n and beat your' n then take your'n and beat his'n."

-Houston Oilers coach bum Phillips on Miami Dolphins' coach Don Shula-.

One L at the University of Miami School of law are required to participate in a moot court exercise where they make an argument for the appellant and then switch sides and make a counter argument for the Todd white. The pedagogical goal of the exercise is to get Carlyle lawyers to understand the necessity of knowing the strengths and weaknesses of opposing arguments.

So, since I have already f.d.a. ad infinitum that the the Bush tax cuts should be extended for everyone, not just the middle class, today I will argue the other side: namely, that the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire for taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 a year.

Wish me luck.

The rich will not spend their tax savings

The primary reason for extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class is to stimulate spending and jump start the economy. The middle class will use their tax savings on necessities and, therefore, their tax cuts will have the stimulus effect looked for. The rich, on the other hand, do not need a tax cut in order to pay for their necessities and, therefore, are less likely to spend their tax savings in a manner that will stimulate the economy.

Listen to Timothy Homan of Bloomberg:

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody's Analytics Inc. when taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and Democrats in Congress who some say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse them to reduce will their spending promptly, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more.

"I would continued to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior," said Chris Cornell on economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody's analytics. "Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues."

The Moody's research covering couples earning more than $210,000 found that spending by the wealthy is more likely to be influenced by the ups and downs of the stock market than changes in income-tax rates.

In short, the benefits of extending the tax cuts for the rich are less than the costs of doing so.

The wealth gap will increase

The gap between the haves and the have nots has nearly tripled in the last 30 years. The rich have seen their incomes sku rocket while the middle class have experienced only moderate increases. Democratic societies operate best when large discrepancies of wealth are avoided. When there is disparate wealth there is disparate influence (or at least the appearance of it) which causes those at the bottom to loose faith in the system.

Listen to Timothy Noah of slate:

[I] ncome inequality is a topic of huge importance to American society and therefore a subject of large and growing interest to a host of economists, political scientists, and other wonky types. Except for a few libertarian outliers (whose views we'll examine later), these experts agree that the country's growing income inequality is deeply worrying. Even Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Board chairman and onetime Ayn Rand acolyte, has registered concern. "This is not the type of thing which a democratic society a capitalist democratic society can really accept without addressing," Greenspan saidin 2005. Greenspan's Republican-appointed successor, Ben Bernanke, has so fretted about income inequality.

Extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich as well as the middle-class will increase the wealth gap even further because in a progressive tax system across the board tax cuts have a regressive effect in that those in the higher tax brackets will experience greater tax savings.

The deficit will increase

Extending the Bush tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 per year increase the deficiency will by $700 billion. If the cutting the taxes of rich people were guaranteed to stimulate the economy and result in job creation, then, perhaps, it would be worth the cost of increasing the deficiency. But, as discussed above, since it is unlikely that tax cuts for the rich will have any significant stimulus effect we would have substantially increased the deficiency for little or no return.

Here's what Isabel Sawhill of Brookings wrote back in 2005 when the deficiency what less than a third of what it is now:

Psychiatrists have clinical terms to describe how most elected officials are responding to the deficiency - denial, repression, magical thinking. In short, they're doing next to nothing. There is a deafening silence - from the halls of Congress and corporate boardrooms to the living rooms and voting booths where Americans make decisions about their own and their children's futures.

In fact, there is some good news on the front of. The Congressional Budget Office outlook for 2005 has improved markedly since its March projection. But no one should be lulled into thinking that this good news will last. The problem will get much worse if nothing is done. Deficits will become unsustainable when baby boomers begin to retire in 2008 and are poised to balloon out of control a generation hence, wreaking havoc on today's younger Americans.

The rich can afford to pay more taxes

The most obvious of all reasons for not extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is also the best reason. They can afford it.

If we were not saddled with a diagnosis of trillion dollar and there were good options for making serious spending cuts, perhaps this argument would not be as strong. But, as I said earlier, in a time of fiscal emergency the only people who can afford to pay more taxes are the rich and it is both reasonable and moral that we ask them to do so.

How did I do?¹

Footnotes:

¹  Alert readers will note that I have made no ad hominem attacks on those who believe we should renew the Bush tax cuts for the rich as well as the middle class. Not a single use of the words selfish, greedy or evil. I assume that the opponents of tax increases on rich people are every bit as patriotic, compassionate and sincere in their beliefs as are the proponents of tax increases on the rich. In other words, it is, the character and decency of those who happen to think differently possible to argue for the expiration of tax cuts on wealthy people without assassinating.