Bill McBride greift auf Calculated Risk vor dem Hintergrund der Diskussion um die "fiskalische Klippe" in den USA die Frage der Effekte einer Erhöhung des Spitzensteuersatzes auf.
"Probably the most controversial issue, and least economically important (minimal drag on economy) is raising the top marginally tax rate. High income earners have a propensity to save, and raising their marginal rate a few percentage points will not have much impact on the economy - but it will significantly reduce the deficit. [...]One of the arguments against raising the top tax rate is that it will be a disincentive to start new companies. Wrong again. Note the top marginal tax rate in the 1970s - it was 70%. That was when Bill Gates started Microsoft, Steve Jobs started Apple and ... many others (Thomas Peterffy, who founded Interactive Brokers and ran many political ads recently started his company in 1977 with a 70% top tax rate). I've met with many entrepreneurs over the years, and none of them even mentioned the top personal tax rate - they were too focused on their company, products and market."
Dazu passt auch ein Paper, das ich hier sowieso immer schon mal verlinken wollte. Und zwar "The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations" von Peter Diamond, seineszeichens Nobelpreisträger und u. a. Experte für optimale Steuersysteme, und Emmanuel Saez. Darin kommen sie zu dem Schluss:
"We obtain three policy recommendations from basic research [...]. First, very high earners should be subject to high and rising marginal tax rates on earnings. Second, low income families should be encouraged to work with earnings subsidies, which should then be phased-out with high implicit marginal tax rates. Third, capital income should be taxed."
(Hier ein Link zu einem Artikel der beiden zu dem Thema im WSJ, der das Ganze etwas weniger technisch erläutert.)