Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obama to Venture Capitalists: Drop Dead!
The Obama administration's new budget proposes changing the way
that venture capital is taxed. As BusinessWeek
reports:
In [the] search for funds, the Administration is also reigniting what promises to be another tough battle: It has reintroduced a proposal to tax the "carried interest" income earned by executives at hedge fund and private equity firms at the regular income tax rate rather than at the lower 15% capital gains rate they pay on such earnings today.
The change would also apply to partnerships in real estate, energy, and other fields that use a similar legal structure, but the lion's share of the revenue targeted would come from financial industry players.
Administration officials estimate the carried interest change could bring in $7 billion in revenues in 2011 and 2012, but they won't get that kind of dough without a fight. Private equity, hedge fund, and venture capital firms argue that boosting the tax rates on carried interest—which encompasses the returns they make for managing investments in companies and other assets—will discourage the long-term investments the economy needs.
Carried interest generally means the shares or an option on shares taken by the venture capitalist in the company in which he or she is investing as part of the financing agreement. The stake taken is often 20 percent.
Numerous economic studies have found that taxing capital is far less efficient way of raising revenues than taxing consumption or payroll. As a 2007 review study by the Fraser Insitute explains tax efficiency:
The costs associated with taxation extend far beyond the amount of tax collected. First, there are significant incentive-based costs, which are generally referred to as efficiency costs. These costs emerge because taxes alter relative prices and thus the incentives for productive behavior and affect a wide range of decisions regarding savings, investment, effort, and entrepreneurship. These costs vary widely by the type of tax.
One main method for quantifying these costs is referred to as the marginal efficiency cost (MEC). It calculates the cost of raising one additional dollar of tax revenue using different types of taxes. Estimates of the marginal efficiency costs of both American and Canadian taxes indicate that consumption and payroll (wage and salary) taxes are much less costly (and thus more efficient) than taxes on capital or the return to capital. For example, a study by the Department of Finance for the OECD (1997) concluded that corporate income taxes imposed a marginal cost of $1.55 (MEC) for one additional dollar of revenue compared to $0.17 for an additional dollar of revenue raised through consumption taxes.
Similarly, one of the most widely cited calculations of marginal efficiency costs (MEC) is that by Harvard Professor Dale Jorgensen and his colleague Kun-Young Yun (1991). Their estimates of the MEC of select US taxes indicate significant variation in the economic costs of different taxes and support the Canadian findings. Specifically, capital-based taxes (MEC = $0.92) and corporate income taxes (MEC = $0.84) were shown to impose much higher costs than other, more efficient types of taxes such as the sales tax (MEC = $0.26).
If the OECD calculation is correct, taxing capital means that it costs the economy more to raise an additional dollar of tax revenue than the government takes in. The feds may end up enacting that old joke about the stockbroker who keeps investing his clients' money until it's all gone.
|2.27.09 @ 12:02PM|#
That last point may not be a negative to Obama. During the
campaign he said something about raising capital gains taxes for
"fairness," even if it brought in less revenue.
We are so screwed.
kilroy|2.27.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Which is exactly argument for why all taxes should be consumption taxes ala the FairTax.
|2.27.09 @ 12:05PM|#
For example, a study by the Department of Finance for the
OECD (1997) concluded that corporate income taxes imposed a
marginal cost of $1.55 (MEC) for one additional dollar of revenue
compared to $0.17 for an additional dollar of revenue raised
through consumption taxes.
But the Community benefits more from the fairness effect of taxing
capital. You just have to belieeeeve.
|2.27.09 @ 12:06PM|#
As someone who has been involved in startups courting venture capital, and plans to again, this is awful. It can be hard enough to get the funding, and they want to make it harder? Yeah, let's make it more difficult for the next Google to get off the ground.
Seward|2.27.09 @ 12:10PM|#
This will inhibit productivity; and productivity is what makes a nation's population rich, not "fairness" in distribution. We want a bigger pie, not a more evenly divided pie.
|2.27.09 @ 12:13PM|#
Ahhh, the perfect storm. The whims of the most popular president
in the history of the universe will be backed by the average
voter's ignorance based perception that the wealthy are a bunch of
uber greedy mooger foogers. We have a culture of lazy,
underachieving, dullards that have no interest in the real workings
of the economy. Our eyes glaze over at any sign of details and we
simply stick out our hands at the promise of free money from the
rich. One hand to vote with and the other to sign the checks.
I predict that if the republicans fight the gravy train, they will
all be sent home in 2 years and the Obamachine will roll on
unimpeded for the next 2 or 3 decades.
The good news: after the complete destruction of america as we know
it, the folks might be ready for a more libertarian government to
assume control.
May Joe Pesci have mercy on us all.
Warty|2.27.09 @ 12:20PM|#
See, brotherben, this is why nihilism is your best bet. At least it's an ethos.
|2.27.09 @ 12:22PM|#
As someone who has been involved in startups courting
venture capital, and plans to again, this is awful. It can be hard
enough to get the funding, and they want to make it harder? Yeah,
let's make it more difficult for the next Google to get off the
ground.
I'm in a similar situation - was hoping to start a rapid
prototyping shop for microfludics/quantitative biology next year
when my contract is up. This sort of thing is bad for me and
potential customers. Well, hope there will be money left in
singapore/switzerland/scandinavia, but a post-doc is more
likely!
|2.27.09 @ 12:26PM|#
Well, in these few short weeks, I've seen enough to know that I'll be voting straight gridlock ticket come 2010.
Reinmoose|2.27.09 @ 12:26PM|#
I can't help but feel like I'm watching the beginning of the
apocalypse sometimes. It'll be interesting to watch this,
helplessly, over the next several decades.
Pat of me feels like just going out and spending all of my money in
anticipation that it won't be any good anymore, and the other part
of me wants to hoard it.
ARGGG
|2.27.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Pat of me feels like just going out and spending all of my
money in anticipation that it won't be any good anymore
Go out with a bang, moose.
Charlie: If we were gonna kill ourselves, it would be awesome,
right?
Mac: Yeah. Yeah, if we were gonna kill ourselves, it would be with
class, right? I mean, because if we-
Charlie: Of course it would be with class! What do you think, I'm
not gonna die with class?
Mac: Maybe some type of explosion?
Charlie: Of course there's gonna be an explosion! You think I'm not
gonna explode?
Mac: I'm thinking, Charlie, it would be some kind of blaze of
glory.
Charlie: Of course it's gonna be a blaze of glory! I'm going down
right now. (squirts lighter fluid on his arm)
Hugo Obama|2.27.09 @ 12:43PM|#
"We are so screwed."
Now I know some people think this, but what they don't see is that
ultimately, when all of my plans come together, we will be living
in what could rightly be called the "Utopian States of America
(USA). But it's going to take time. A long, long time. Because it
took a long, long time to get to where we are today.
So today, I am sending legislation to Congress proposing that we
repeal the 22nd Ammendment, which will enable me to shepherd this
nation for as long as is needed.
Xanthippas|2.27.09 @ 12:43PM|#
If OECD is correct, that means we should eliminate all capital and corporate income taxes, in favor of more efficient sales taxes. Which is fine, if you want a completely regressive tax policy.
Chris|2.27.09 @ 12:44PM|#
I can't believe that Reason, of all places, is pushing this bullshit that taxing income as, would you believe it, income instead of the capital gains it obviously isn't is some kind of travesty. What happened to your principles?
robc|2.27.09 @ 12:52PM|#
Sales tax isnt necessary regressive.
If a poor person saves 10% of their money and a rich person spends
100% of their money (or, quite often, 125%), then the tax is
progressive.
Your savings rate determines your tax rate.
|2.27.09 @ 12:59PM|#
"Which is fine, if you want a completely regressive tax
policy."
There are ways around that and you know it.
¢|2.27.09 @ 1:03PM|#
Well, hope there will be money left in
singapore/switzerland/scandinavia, but a post-doc is more
likely!
Doing exactly what the incentives have been perverted to
make you do is no way to live.
When life gives you lemons, stuff your bra with them and become a
tranny hooker.
If OECD is correct, that means we should eliminate all capital
and corporate income taxes, in favor of more efficient sales taxes.
Which is fine, if you want a completely regressive tax
policy.
It already is. If you have a job, your tax rate is higher than any
billionaire's, because above a certain minimum, his tax exposure is
up to him. A no-exceptions sales tax, in the absence of
all others, would put everyone in the same position. That's why it
won't happen.
robc|2.27.09 @ 1:04PM|#
There are ways around that and you know it.
The obvious being what KY (and other states) do. Dont tax
unprepared food. Groceries are sales tax free. Since poor people
spend a larger % of their income on groceries, it gets rid of the
regressivity.
Rimfax|2.27.09 @ 1:14PM|#
While I can begin to grasp how the motivations promoted by
certain taxes lead to different efficiencies, I can't grasp how
taxing hundreds of thousand of entities on their annual bottom
lines (corporate taxes) doesn't cost, in terms of labor and
oversight, monumentally less than taxing hundreds of millions of
entities on their annual bottom lines (income taxes) or hundreds of
millions on tens of billions of overall transactions per year
(sales taxes).
No agenda here, just curious.
|2.27.09 @ 1:16PM|#
robc, here in Alabama, the legislature has been foghting over a bill to do away with sales tax on groceries. You stated the argument of it benefitting the poor. The rub is this. The bill makes up for lost tax revenue by removing a state tax exemption for federal taxes paid. There would be a net gain in revenue, all from higher wage earners, (above EITC level,) so it is poo-pooed as a tax increase. What makes it so interesting is that the Obama campaign resulted in a lot more poor people voting. That changes the pressures on lawmakers in Montgomery.
stuartl|2.27.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Uh, oh. Normally start-ups are one of the drivers that help pull
us out of recessions. Maybe I was wrong yesterday when I chastised
Warren for being too pessimistic.
Ron, are you still happy you helped "punish" the Republicans?
Reinmoose|2.27.09 @ 1:23PM|#
NY doesn't have taxes on groceries, but they're looking at adding it for hair cuts
robc|2.27.09 @ 1:26PM|#
brotherben,
KY has the advantage of "always"* having had the grocery exemption.
No need to offset anything.
*As long as I can remember, so 30+ years now. In my lifetime, they
changed the sales tax from 4 to 5 then to 6 percent and the grocery
bit was already in place.
Reinmoose|2.27.09 @ 1:27PM|#
and everyone knows poor people never get hair cuts or grooming
services
good god
robc|2.27.09 @ 1:27PM|#
KY doesnt have sales tax on booze (due to an 11% excise tax), but it goes into effect April 1st (the excise tax isnt going away). Yeah for regressive taxes!!!
|2.27.09 @ 1:31PM|#
I heard a headline on the radio that Wa. state is trying to pass a huge tax on porn. I haven't bothered to look into it yet.
|2.27.09 @ 1:56PM|#
stuartl: Yes. The Congressional Republicans have (at least rhetorically) remembered that they are supposed to be against big government. The really really sad part is that they are 8 years too late.
|2.27.09 @ 2:19PM|#
One of the biggest criticisms of taxation is that it distorts
investments. This is also seen as a positive of flat taxes. So why
is it bad to tax their income the same as other people's
income?
Besides, this doesn't effect taxes on investments, but rather taxes
on compensation for VC execs. The vast majority of investment
capital in VCs come from the limited partners, not the VC execs. So
it's not going to effect the investments made by LPs. This effects
the salaries of the executives, not the returns of the
investors.
|2.27.09 @ 2:26PM|#
Your point doesn't make much sense. The whole argument about carried interest is whether it should be characterized as normal or capital income. Since it is being earned primarily from working, it seems to be a lot closer to wages than investment income.
Kolohe|2.27.09 @ 2:33PM|#
I agree with Adam @2:26
It had always seemed to me that the 'carried interest' that hedge
fund managers (as opposed to investors) were receiving was a lot
closer to management fees (i.e. earned income) than capital gains.
At the very least, closer to dividends.
They were being very shady over the last few years with the tax
treament of hedge fund earnings and imo the closing of this
loophole will do more good than harm.
|2.27.09 @ 3:14PM|#
I think the conceptual problem people have with taxes on capital
gains is that they don't understand that capital gain isn't a sure
thing like wages or salaries. They don't understand that each
investment is risk that could easily end up loosing money. Since
they don't see investing as risky, they can't understand why
lowering the rate of return will make people less likely to invest.
After all, if you raise taxes on a wage earner, they don't work
appreciably less so they see no reason why an investor would not
continue to invest at the same rate as taxes go up.
Unfortunately, they forget that good investments pay for bad
investments. The cutting edge investments that create real economic
breakthroughs e.g. personal computers in circa 1980, are all very
risky. Investors have to be able to make a good rate of return on
the experimental investments that work in order to pay for the ones
that don't. That 15% off the top of successful investments is 15%
that can pay for an experimental investment.
|2.27.09 @ 3:17PM|#
Tax efficiency? Someone posits that taxes are enacted in this
country on efficiency grounds?
I might believe this, if, instead of being run by an elected
government, our country were actually run by a 12-year-old playing
a better-executed version of Hearts of Iron
II.
|2.27.09 @ 3:52PM|#
Shannon,
You show that straw man who's boss. For fuck's sake, who the hell
argues that capital gains is guaranteed? Is income guaranteed?
Output from labor isn't guaranteed either. Because there are a few
hundred thousand laid off employees that beg to differ on that. If
you want a guaranteed return, you invest in treasuries. That's why
their RoR is called the "risk free rate". You take more risk, you
get a higher reward.
People are investments too Shannon. People designed those personal
computers and internet applications. The guys that develop
pharmaceuticals get paid and taxed under income. Human capital is
just as vital as investment capital for advancing out economy. In
your world, where do these investments come from, piles of
money?
The distortion caused by taxing investments differently than
capital is the effects on the production function. Let's assume a
simple Cobb-Douglas. Without taxes it's Y=A*L^a*K^b. So the amount
of investment in either is based on output elasticities. However,
if you tax capital gains at 15% and income at 35%, then
Y=A*.65L^a*.85K^b. So investment in capital vs. labor will be the
most efficient output based on taxes combined with output
elasticity. Ideally, the inputs into labor and capital should be
based on where it's best deployed, not where the taxes push you
to.
LarryA|2.27.09 @ 3:54PM|#
will discourage the long-term investments the economy
needs
It will only discourage private investment. Government investment
will step up to fill the void. For Obama this is a feature, not a
bug.
DannyK|2.27.09 @ 9:48PM|#
Hedge fund managers give a lot of money to congress, and so get to keep their favorable tax treatment. I don't see anything more complicated than that going on here.
Anonymous|2.28.09 @ 4:57AM|#
Seward @ February 27, 2009, 12:10pm: We want a bigger pie,
not a more evenly divided pie.
For people who believe that economies are zero-sum, then the big
can not grow. Then "earning" money is really stealing money,
because an imbalance of nominal value creates an imbalance of
wealth, which is abhorrent in a system where the finite wealth
should be evenly distributed.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245