The Absurdity of the “Double Taxation” Argument
Unless you’ve been lucky enough to have been bashed over the head with a giant rock and in a coma for the past few weeks, you’ve undoubtedly heard the uproar about Mitt Romney’s sub-14% tax rate. If you haven’t, keep it that way. Close this browser window now and be a better person for not getting sucked in to this disaster of partisanship, hyperbole, and misleading statistics.
First of all, my personal feelings? I understand the rational behind the 15% capital gains tax meant to encourage investment and help grow companies. However, I also agree with Fred Wilson that it’s silly for carried interest to fall in the 15% designation, and with Mark Cuban that high freqency trading shouldn’t count as capital gains income since you’re not actually investing.
Now, on the the ridiculousness of the WSJ oped by John Berlau and Trey Kovacs.
The former Bain Capital CEO and Massachusetts governor caused a brouhaha last week when he estimated the tax rate on his investment income at 15%. “How unfair!” pundits exclaimed, noting that the top marginal rate for wage income is more than 30%.
The tax rate on investors is unfair, but for the opposite reason. Our tax code layers taxation of dividends and capital gains on top of a top corporate tax rate of 35%—which even President Obama acknowledges is one of the highest in the world.
This is ironically the embodiment of the “corporate personhood” legal doctrine otherwise so decried by the left. The law taxes corporations as if they were separate beings from the shareholders who own them and then levies a separate tax on shareholder payouts and gains. This double taxation brings the effective tax rate on investment income to as much as 44.75%.
Well, here are a few problems with that analysis (outside of the common argument by anti-corporate tax folk that “corporations don’t pay taxes anyway, they just pass it on to the consumer!”):
1: It assumes that capital gains income from stock prices matches up 1-to-1 with profit earned. So if the profits for a company were $10 per share, it assumes that the stock price would go up and by exactly $10.
2: It assumes that corporations are actually paying a 35% effective tax rate (hint: they’re not).
So let’s break this down a little using Apple since they just blew the stock market up. A few links that may be helpful: Apple’s Q1 press release, Apple’s 2011 10-K filing, and the Google Finance chart for AAPL.
Now, AAPL just posted a quarterly profit of $13.87 per diluted share. Since the start of their quarter (10/1/2011) shares have risen from $381.32 to a current price of $446.10, or $64.78 in capital gains.
So already stock gains are 467% of profit. Capital gains tax on that $64.78 increase would be $64.78*15% = $9.72 in personal taxes.
Also, according to their most recent 10-K, AAPL’s effective tax rates for 2010 and 2011 were 24.2% and 24.4%. Assuming it stays at 24%, on that $13.87 AAPL is paying $13.87*24% = $3.33 in corporate taxes.
So actually, for that $64.78 gain to the investor, the government as a whole is receiving $13.05 in tax, or 20.15%.
Math is hard.


