Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Majority of Americans Fail to See Link between Taxes and Investment

Emily Ekins | 2.22.2013 10:41 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

According to the latest Reason-Rupe poll, most Americans do not believe raising taxes on the rich will impact investment or the rate of technological progress. This explains why 66 percent approve of raising taxes on the wealthy, since they see little cost in doing so.

It will be an uphill battle to convince Americans that hiking taxes even on the rich will actually impact all of us because it will slow the rate of technological innovation and thwart new jobs associated with innovation.

Specifically, only 35 percent of Americans think raising taxes on the wealthy will reduce the pool of funds available to invest in new companies, for instance the money that started companies like Facebook, YouTube, and PayPal. This is particularly troubling because less investment money available invariably means fewer startups and less technological innovation. This is essentially what Edward Conard tried to explain in his book, Unintended Consequences.

Warren Buffet's anecdote-based pontification persistently overlooks this fact that tax rates affect more than individual investors' decisions, but the aggregated sum of money available to be invested in business startups. On-the-ground entrepreneurs see tax policy differently than does Mr. Buffet. For instance, the Washington Post interviewed Christopher Hum, CEO and co-founder of Mercantile Capital Corporation, during which he explained:

"When income tax rates are higher, or even raised from current levels, the "pool" of potential startup dollars, especially early stage capital from angel investors, is greatly diminished…the more income startup investors keep the more they'll have to invest [in startup companies].

Likewise, Eric Corl, president and co-founder of Fundable LLC explained "any tax incentives that can reduce tax burdens for…investors will help foster more entrepreneurship."

A majority (68 percent) of Americans also do not believe raising top rates will cause high-earners to reduce the amount they work and invest. Instead, only 21 percent of Americans and 41 percent of Republicans believe higher rates will cause high earners to work and invest less.

Without understanding the economic consequences of raising taxes on capital gains and upper income households directly, it's understandable that three-fourths of Americans believe raising taxes on the wealthy will not impact the rate of technological progress. Republicans are the most likely (25 percent) to believe raising taxes on the wealthy will reduce the rate of technological innovation, still two-thirds think it will have no significant impact.

One can reasonably assume most Americans like technological progress, as it offers cures for diseases, more efficient household and business tools, more productive and fulfilling careers, and an overall enhanced quality of life. Americans also do not believe that increased government revenues through higher taxes will drive the technological growth they desire. Instead, 66 percent of Americans think private sector investment is more important than government investment for technological innovation. In sum, Americans like innovation and the private sector investment that moves it forward. What is missing is their understanding of the link between tax structure and investment.

Americans need to understand that raising taxes reduces the pool of funds available to the private sector for investment in new companies. This is especially true when the increased taxes fall on the wealthy, who tend to save/invest incremental income rather than consume it. Less money available for funding startups invariably means fewer startups. This should deeply trouble anyone concerned about fixing unemployment, since startups have historically been the most important source of job creation.

In sum, this means the kid working out of his garage or living room might not get the funding he needs to launch his tech business, and the computer science student many have a harder time finding a programming job for which she trained. With fewer good ideas getting off the ground, this will necessarily slow the rate of technological innovation and progress.

It is no doubt tempting for the middle class to look to the wealthy to solve the budget deficit—after all, raising taxes on the One Percent doesn't appear to affect the rest of us. But such thinking is misguided. While hiking the tax bill on the wealthy will not affect the middle class's tax filings directly, it will prevent entrepreneurs from getting the seed money they need to get their businesses off the ground. And without well-funded entrepreneurs opening their doors for business, the would-be programmers, marketers, accountants, secretaries and janitors will have to keep looking for a job.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Only 27 Percent Think it is Too Easy to Vote

Emily Ekins is a research fellow and director of polling at the Cato Institute.

PoliticsScience & TechnologyEconomicsPolicyReason-Rupe SurveysTaxesCapital GainsInvestmentWealthJobsEconomic GrowthTechnology
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (60)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

    Most Americans are morons. Look at the people they elect to steal from them.

    1. Almanian!   12 years ago

      This

  2. KDN   12 years ago

    This is your daily reminder that we are still doomed.

  3. Marshall Gill   12 years ago

    I call it the 50 mattress economic theory. Billionaires sleep on fifty mattresses filled with cash. If you take away one, or twenty, of Bill Gates cash mattresses, no one will notice. A win-win for everyone!

    /Leftard

  4. John   12 years ago

    According to the latest Reason-Rupe poll, most Americans do not believe raising taxes on the rich will impact investment or the rate of technological progress.

    A hundred years of liberals running the education system will do that.

    1. Marshall Gill   12 years ago

      Indoctrination, not education, John. Just look at Tony.

      1. John   12 years ago

        True. It is funny that three minutes after I post that, Tony jumps in to show just how true it is. He is really a selfless guy in that way.

  5. The Sego Sago Kid   12 years ago

    Alternate headline: Majority of Americans Fail to See Link Between Poor Economy and the Retards They Continuously Vote Into Office

  6. Tony   12 years ago

    Considering scientific and technological breakthroughs happen via government funding more often than not, the thinking seems not to be misguided at all.

    Not everything good in the world is going to make a profit for someone by the end of the next quarter. But the breakthroughs that happen by mostly government-backed basic scientific research and development of technologies can lead to new private enterprises, and it's happened over and over--and I would suggest is the most important economic story of the United States.

    1. Night Elf Mohawk   12 years ago

      Considering scientific and technological breakthroughs happen via government funding more often than not...

      Citation needed.

      1. robc   12 years ago

        He cant cite it because it is blatantly false.

      2. Tony   12 years ago

        If you want to learn something new about the universe, perhaps even something that can eventually be commodified, you need the type of research done in universities often paid for by government grants.

        If you want to figure out how to addict more children to nicotine, you go to a corporate lab.

        1. Jordan   12 years ago

          Citation still needed.

        2. Sevo   12 years ago

          Tony| 2.22.13 @ 11:04AM |#
          ..."often paid for by government grants."

          Citation needed, asshole. Can't you read?
          And, no, I don't mean 'see the gov't paid some money to some school'; I mean direct pay for result.

        3. Mr Whipple   12 years ago

          Why would I want to learn something new about the universe? Will that "create" goods and services that are in demand and people are willing to spend money on, or would it be purely for my own personal satisfaction? Will it help feed the poor and heal the sick, or do you just want new pictures of Quasars to put on your computer desktop?

          1. sarcasmic   12 years ago

            Welfare for physicists.

            1. fish_remote   12 years ago

              No that's where I work!

      3. Virginian   12 years ago

        My favorite game to play with leftists. Name technology invented by government, and I will name one invented by the private sector. And we'll see who runs out first.

        1. Almanian!   12 years ago

          ...aaaaaaand Virginian wins AGAIN! But the lefties keep playing. Weird.

          1. Virginian   12 years ago

            The funniest is when people say things that I know for a fact to be invented by private sector entities, but they insist it was actually the government.

            I've had leftists tell me that airplanes, communications satellites, even electrical power were all invented by government. Truly, they see the state as god.

            1. robc   12 years ago

              The Wright Bros used roads to get to Kitty Hawk.

              1. Killazontherun   12 years ago

                Roads, in spite of the fact they were invented even before ancient Sumeria rose from its surrounding agrarian civilization, are one of the most complex technologies ever to be discovered. Much too difficult and dangerous to leave in the hands of the private sector which would just exploit the people who need to use them. Besides, no business has enough of an incentive to provide them for customers who want to frequent their shops.

      4. Trespassers W   12 years ago

        Here's a citation to the contrary:

        http://www.amazon.com/The-Econ.....c+research

    2. Sevo   12 years ago

      Tony| 2.22.13 @ 10:54AM |#
      "Not everything good in the world is going to make a profit for someone by the end of the next quarter"

      You're hell on those strawmen, scheisskopf.

      1. Virginian   12 years ago

        Yeah, pharmaceutical companies never spend years getting things tested and approved. They just manufacture pills and throw 'em out there.

        1. gryphon333   12 years ago

          actually the pharma companies DO get a buttload of NIH funding

    3. Sam Grove   12 years ago

      Not everything good in the world is going to make a profit for someone by the end of the next quarter. But the breakthroughs that happen by mostly government-backed basic scientific research and development of technologies can lead to new private enterprises,

      Tony assumes businesses only worry about the next quarter.(whereas politicians only worry about their next election.

      Also, Tony obviously supports government subsidies to business.

      Who knew?

  7. Auric Demonocles   12 years ago

    Majority of Commenters Fail to See Link between Pictures and Alt-text

  8. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

    Yet when Clinton raised the top rate in 1993 a flood of unprecedented investment activity ensued until the tech bubble burst in 2000.

    1. Spoonman.   12 years ago

      It's almost like a transformative technology happened to be coming into its own around the same time, overshadowing the effects of minor policy changes.

      1. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

        I agree. Thus the folly of assuming that tax rates are solely responsible for capital formation.

        1. Virginian   12 years ago

          But ceteris paribus, lower taxes are better than higher ones. Personally I think the regulatory regime does a lot more to kill growth then the taxes.

          Time is money, and paying the vig is trivial compared to hours and hours of compliance with their stupid little rules.

          1. KDN   12 years ago

            Personally I think the regulatory regime does a lot more to kill growth then the taxes.

            There's definitely a relationship between the two. I'm willing to bet that the inflection point on a country's Laffer curve is highly dependent upon the overall regulatory burden within the country, but I'm not sure if anyone's bothered to research it (or if there's enough data to prove it either way). Might be a good idea for anyone in need of an econ thesis topic.

            1. Sudden   12 years ago

              It would be a difficult effort to quantify. Not all regulations are created equal. Some have relatively small effects and are industry specific while others are economy-wide and have very pronounced effects in terms of time and money spent bringing into compliance.

              1. KDN   12 years ago

                Sure, that's why you focus it on the aggregate regulatory burden. It wouldn't be easy nonetheless, and I think it could be interrelated with how globalized the economy is as well so that's an additional variable to flesh out.

                I kind of wish I went for grad school instead of going into the real world. Studying this seems like a fun way to waste a few years.

                1. Sudden   12 years ago

                  I've always felt the same way. I'm also still young enough (30) where I'm considering dropping out of this shitty ass workforce anyway and getting into an econ master's program. I just can't afford it and don't want student loan debt. If I can find a graduate assistant football coach position though, I'll do it in a heartbeat.

                  1. KDN   12 years ago

                    Sadly it's not something you can have both ways. I'm holding down a real job while getting an MBA / MS-Accounting degree at night (with my employer footing 90% of the bill) and I just can't imagine doing that with something abstract that requires a ton of research and advanced calc classes.

        2. darius404   12 years ago

          Good thing no one's assuming that. Your next non sequitur please.

        3. Mr Whipple   12 years ago

          Tax rates solely curb future price inflation.

          But, there is no inflation, right, so we don't need to raise taxes.

        4. fish_remote   12 years ago

          CHRISTFAG

      2. Killazontherun   12 years ago

        After ending a two decade ban on commercial 'exploitation' of said technology in case anyone forgot.

      3. gryphon333   12 years ago

        a technology that DID start with the military ... just sayin'

        1. Killazontherun   12 years ago

          ARPANET wasn't the first network. It wasn't even the first publicly funded one.

    2. fish_remote   12 years ago

      Yet when Clinton raised the top rate in 1993 a flood of unprecedented investment activity ensued until the tech bubble burst in 2000.<?i

      BUSHPIG~

    3. Calidissident   12 years ago

      The unprecedented investment activity happened mostly in the late 90s (after the tax cut of 97, though that was probably only partially responsible) - the 90s boom was unusual in that the initial recovery wasn't all that strong, but was followed by a major expansion near the end

  9. wareagle   12 years ago

    majority of Americans are self-absorbed pricks. If it's not happening five feet in front of them and affecting them directly and demonstrably, it's not happening. The same folks who think investments are solely for the rich are the ones who ignore that a host of pension funds are tied into those same investments.

  10. sloopyinca   12 years ago

    Nice poll, Emily. But if it were up to me, I would have added an option on the "As you may know, taxes were just raised on high earners" question.

    a. Will reduce the amount they work and invest.
    b. Will increase the amount they work and invest.
    c. Will not change the amount they work and invest.
    d. Don't know.

    I think it would give a better representation and at least acknowledge many on the left that say raising taxes will cause the rich to work even harder to make their money.

    Just my two cents.

    1. Brandon   12 years ago

      Of course, I have also been told by some HuffPo commenters that the working rich will just work harder to make up for the lost income from higher taxes. The unspoken conclusion there, of course, is "So we can leech off of them as much as we want." And I see that is actually an option in this poll. Not sure I would even want to know the kind of sadist who thinks like that.

    2. Brandon   12 years ago

      And speaking of which, I just had the following conversation with an idiot on HuffPo yesterday:


      l3randon We already raised taxes.
      posted Feb 21, 2013 at 18:32:09
      Reply | Link

      BDAD Only those who watch Fox believe that to be true.
      posted Feb 21, 2013 at 19:02:40
      Reply | Link

      Yeah, he actually said that.

      1. Virginian   12 years ago

        He probably doesn't pay taxes.

  11. lap83   12 years ago

    Why can't wealthy people just invest with the massive gold-filled vaults they only use to swim in or occasionally ski on with their nephews.

    1. NeonCat   12 years ago

      Considering there are more rich people now than ever, don't these liberals worry about the union construction workers who will be unemployed if giant vault construction is severely curtailed?

      1. Brandon   12 years ago

        Dude, the government will just construct its own giant vaults to make up the shortfall. The People's Vaults, they will call them. Even though the People will not be allowed to use, enter, benefit from, or look upon them, they will have the satisfaction of knowing that their Glorious Leaders are making the greatest possible use of them on the People's behalf in ways that are beyond the common man's comprehension.

  12. sarcasmic   12 years ago

    There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

    --Bastiat

    Opportunity cost is in the realm of the unseen.

    http://www.econlib.org/library.....sEss1.html

    1. Brandon   12 years ago

      Opportunity cost is not always in the realm of the unseen. There is an entire subsection of accounting devoted to measuring and reporting opportunity costs. For businesses. The government, of course, tells these people to fuck off.

  13. Longtorso   12 years ago

    What I've always like to ask the "ROADZ!!!!" crowd - if you think the Internet was created by govt, it was created by DARPA, the military. Should all pacifists get the hell off the Internet then?

    1. Longtorso   12 years ago

      And it would be the US govt, should all foreigners get off and shut up about US govt activities on an Internet it (supposedly) created?

  14. T   12 years ago

    Y'all can stop running polls proving most people are stupid and/or economically illiterate any time now. We get the point. Really, we do.

  15. 16th amendment   12 years ago

    There is at least one more reason for most American's understanding of this. It is the idea that raising taxes encourages investment and actually helps the economy. In the recent presidential election Clinton held many rallies for Obama where he said that they raised taxes in the early 1990's, republicans predicted doom and gloom, and the boom happened.

    My response is that the boom was going to happen anyway. Even if you accept the idea that increased investment in schools and such would lead to growth, it would take a decade or more to materialize. Yet the boom happened right away. And it's only because of the boom that Clinton could get away with raising taxes.

    If we don't have the next big thing, I'm pretty sure all the tax increases will hurt the economy.

  16. AlmightyJB   12 years ago

    They also don't see how every tax increase on the wealthy gets passes on to them one way or another.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Donald Trump Sounds Like a Democrat From the 1980s

Steven Greenhut | 6.13.2025 7:30 AM

The Trump Administration Needs Better Opposition

J.D. Tuccille | 6.13.2025 7:00 AM

Supreme Court Rules, Again, That Different Standards for Discrimination Plaintiffs Are Unconstitutional 

Emma Camp | 6.13.2025 6:45 AM

Review: YouTuber Max Miller Is Recreating Historical Recipes

Matthew Petti | From the July 2025 issue

Review: Schedule I Is a Multiplayer Co-op Black Market Econ Simulator

C.J. Ciaramella | From the July 2025 issue

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!