A Conservative Suggests We Raise the Capital Gains Tax

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


James Pethokoukis asks:

Should we eliminate corporate income taxes and raise capital gains taxes?

Hmmm. I’m guessing he thinks the answer is no. But wait! Maybe not:

I have already suggested that Mitt Romney propose axing the corporate tax. Combining that with an increase in the capital gains tax—a tax hike on Romney himself—might be a doable compromise….How about this: A top tax of 28%—back to where it was in 1986 under bipartisan tax reform and close to Obama’s Buffett Rule—on all income along with an elimination of corporate income taxes? Any takers? Any suggested modifications?

Although I’m not ready to jump on this specific bandwagon quite yet, I’d be willing to talk. There are a bunch of practical problems with eliminating the corporate income tax, but it’s possible they could be overcome. As for the 28% top rate — well, let’s just take that as an opening bid. I doubt you could lower it that much. In fact, I’m not sure you could lower it at all, since higher taxes on investment income might not make up for the loss of corporate income tax revenue. What’s more, capital gains and dividend taxes are going to be raised automatically at the end of the year if the Bush tax cuts aren’t extended, so offering to raise them now isn’t really much of a concession.

Despite all that, I continue to think this has possibilities. The corporate income tax isn’t just insanely complicated, it’s also impossible to prevent it from becoming an endless honeypot of corporate subsidies and payoffs. Getting rid of it entirely is probably the only way to put an end to this.

Politically, the biggest problem with this proposal is that once the corporate income tax is gone, it would be gone forever. It’s just too hard to bring it back to life. Conversely, reducing the capital gains tax is simplicity itself. So a likely outcome of all this is that the corporate income tax would go away, and ten years from now we’d be back to the same old low rates on capital gains and dividends because — oh, you know the drill. High investment taxes are hurting capital formation, punishing the job creators, stifling investment, crushing the economy, blah blah blah.

Still, it’s worth a conversation even if it is pie in the sky. I’d be pretty interested in seeing some neutral revenue and distributional analysis of the whole thing.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate