Archives: Articles

Although the United States economy is in good shape—with essentially full employment and an inflation rate close to 2%—a world of uncertainty makes it worthwhile to consider what could go wrong in the year ahead. After all, if the US economy runs into serious trouble, there will be adverse consequences for Europe, Japan, and many other countries.

Economic problems could of course originate from international political events. Russia has been acting dangerously in Eastern and Central Europe. China’s pursuit of territorial claims in the East and South China Seas, and its policies in East Asia more generally, is fueling regional uncertainty. Events in Italy could precipitate a crisis in the eurozone.

But within the US, the greatest risk is a sharp decline in asset prices, which would squeeze households and firms, leading to a collapse of aggregate demand. I am not predicting that this will happen. But conditions are becoming more dangerous as asset prices rise further and further from historic norms.

Equity prices, as measured by the price-earnings ratio of the S&P 500 stocks, are now nearly 60% above their historical average. The price of the 30-year Treasury bond is so high that it implies a yield of about 2.3%; given current inflation expectations, the yield should be about twice as high. Commercial real-estate prices have been rising at a 10% annual pace for the past five years.

These inflated asset prices reflect the exceptionally easy monetary policy that has prevailed for almost a decade. In that ultra-low-interest environment, investors have been reaching for yield by bidding up the prices of equities and other investment assets. The resulting increase in household wealth helped to bring about economic recovery; but overpriced assets are fostering an increasingly risky environment.

To grasp how risky, consider this: US households now own $21 trillion of equities, so a 35% decline in equity prices to their historic average would involve a loss of more than $7.5 trillion. Pension funds and other equity investors would incur further losses. A return of real long-term bond yields to their historic level would involve a loss of about 30% for investors in 30-year bonds and proportionately smaller losses for investors in shorter-duration bonds. Because commercial real-estate investments are generally highly leveraged, even relatively small declines in prices could cause large losses for investors.

The fall in household wealth would reduce spending and cause a decline in GDP. A rough rule of thumb implies that every $100 decline in wealth leads to a $4 decline in household spending. The return of asset prices to historic levels could therefore imply a decline of $400 billion in consumer spending, equal to about 2.5% of GDP, which would start a process of mutually reinforcing declines in incomes and spending leading to an even greater cumulative impact on GDP.

Because institutional investors respond to international differences in asset prices and asset yields, the large declines in US asset prices would be mirrored by similar declines in asset prices in other developed countries. Those price declines would reduce incomes and spending in other countries, with the impact spread globally through reduced imports and exports.

I must emphasize that this process of asset-price declines and the resulting contraction of economic activity is a risk, not a prediction. It is possible that asset prices will come down gradually, implying a slowdown rather than a collapse of spending and economic activity.

But the fear of triggering a rapid decline in asset prices is one of the key reasons why the US Federal Reserve is reluctant to raise short-term interest rates more rapidly. The Fed increased the overnight rate by just 0.25% in December 2015 and is likely to add just another 25 basis points in December 2016. But that will still leave the federal funds rate at less than 1%. With the inflation rate close to 2%, the real federal funds rate would still be negative.

Market participants are watching the Fed to judge if and when the process of interest-rate normalization will begin. Historical experience implies that normalization would raise long-term interest rates by about two percentage points, precipitating substantial corrections in the prices of bonds, stocks, and commercial real estate. The Fed is therefore trying to tamp down expectations concerning future interest-rate levels, by suggesting that changes in demography and productivity trends imply lower real rates in the future.

If the Fed succeeds, the decline in asset prices may be diminished. But the danger of sharp asset-price declines that precipitate an economic downturn should not be ignored.

© 2016 Project Syndicate.

The individual income tax has never taxed the very wealthy much. Donald Trump may have claimed huge losses starting in the early 1990s, but, like other rich investors, he wouldn’t have paid much tax regardless. Despite paying some tax, Warren Buffett’s release of his 2015 tax return affirms that conclusion.

There are two major reasons: first, paying individual income taxes on capital income is largely discretionary, since investors don’t pay tax on their gains until they sell an asset. Second, taxpayers can easily leverage capital gains and other tax preferences by borrowing, deducting expenses, and taking losses at higher ordinary rates while their income is taxed at lower rates. Such tax arbitrage is, in part, what Trump did.

To be fair, some, like Buffett, live modestly relative to their means and still contribute most of what they earn to society through charity. Some pay hefty property and estate taxes and bear high regulatory burdens. And salaried professionals and others with high incomes from work, whether wealthy or not, may pay fairly high tax rates on their labor income. Still, there are many ways for the wealthy to avoid reporting high net income produced by their wealth.

The phenomenon is not new. In studies over 30 years ago, I concluded that only about one-third of net income from wealth or capital was reported on individual tax returns. Taxpayers are much more likely to report (and deduct) their expenses than their positive income. In related studies, I and others found that rich taxpayers reported 3% or less of their wealth as taxable income each year.

But your favorite billionaire did not get that way by earning low single-digit returns to his wealth. Buffett’s 2015 adjusted gross income (of $11.6 million) would be around one-fiftieth of one percent of his wealth, which in recent years has been estimated to be near to $65 billion. Yet, over the past five complete calendar years, Buffett’s main investment, Berkshire Hathaway, has returned an average of over 10% annually.

The wealthy effectively avoid paying taxes on those high returns either by never selling assets and thus never recognizing capital gains, deferring income long enough that the effective tax rate is much lower, or by timing asset sales so they offset losses, as Trump likely has been doing to use up his losses from 1995.

When you die, the accrued but unrealized gains generated over your lifetime are passed to your heirs completely untaxed, though estate tax can be paid by those who, unlike Buffett, don’t give most away to charity.

“Tax arbitrage,” the second technique, is simple in concept though complex in practice. It allows an investor to leverage special tax subsidies just as she’d arbitrage up any investment—in this case, to yield multiple tax breaks. If you buy a $10 million building with $1 million of your own money and borrow the other $9 million, you’d get 10 times the tax breaks of a person who puts up $1 million but, because she doesn’t borrow, buys only a $1 million building.

The law limits the extent to which most people can use deductions and losses from one investment to offset income from other efforts, but “active” investors are exempt from most of those restrictions. In real estate it is quite common for the active individual or partner to use the interest, depreciation, and other expenses from a new investment to generate net negative taxable income to offset positive income generated by other, often older, investments.

The main trick is simply to let enough income from all the investments accrue as capital gains. For example, take a set of properties that generate $1 million in rents and $500,000 in unrealized appreciation. If expenses are $1,200,000, net economic income would be $300,000 ($1,000,000 plus $500,000 minus $1,200,000); but net taxable income would be a negative $200,000 ($1,000,000 minus $1,200,000) since the unrealized appreciation is not taxable income.

Real estate owners enjoy other tax benefits as well. They can sell a property without declaring the capital gain by swapping the asset for another piece of real estate—a practice known as a “like-kind” exchange. Often, when a property exchanges hands it ends up being depreciated more than once.

At the end of the day, tweaks to the individual income tax system, including higher tax rates, are unlikely to increase dramatically the taxes paid by the very wealthy. Instead, policymakers need to think more broadly about how estate, property, corporate, and individual income taxes fit together and how to reduce the use of tax arbitrage to game the system.

The Government We Deserve is a periodic column on public policy by Eugene Steuerle. A former deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury, he is an Institute fellow and the Richard B. Fisher Chair at the nonpartisan Urban Institute.