A Curmudgeon's Notebook: Capital Gains, Economy and Income Inequality

2012 February 14
Click History for a list of changes and updates.

The effects of capital gains tax rates on the growth and the economy have been ongoing subjects for many economists, with many papers. More recently with the Bush tax cuts and their possible expiration, more emphasis has been given to the subject. Very recently, the effects of the preferential tax rates on capital gains, carried interest and other preferential income has been given much attention.

The Congressional Budget Office summarized its analysis in a 2009 Sep 25 letter to a member of Congress:

"When assessing the impact of the increased tax rates on economic growth, it is important to keep in mind that taxable capital gains account for a small portion of all capital income. Much capital income is paid as dividends, interest, rent, and proprietors’ profits. In addition, most capital gains are not taxable because they are held in tax-exempt accounts or are held until death. As a result, CBO does not anticipate that the pending increase in the capital gains tax rate alone will have a large enough impact on the rate of return to capital overall to change significantly the magnitude of saving and capital investment. The higher capital gains taxes could have an additional effect by discouraging innovation and risk-taking, but there is insufficient evidence on which to base a quantitative estimate."

This paragraph identifies the many effects of capital gains tax rates on growth and the economy, and may account for the differences of opinion regarding preferential tax treatment. A recent analysis shows that changes in investment track the business cycle, not decreases in the capital gains tax rates.

On the other hand, the effects of lower tax rates for capital gains, carried interest and other preferential income on income equality exist in the data. Currently, the income inequality for the top 1% is the largest since 1929. The income inequality was stable from 1950 to 1980 with the top 1% earning 10% of the total income. Since 1980, the number has increased to 20%.

If the benefits to the economy are uncertain, but the benefits to the wealthy are significant, can the preferential tax rates be justified?

The continuation of this post provide some information concerning the subject with the objective of contributing to the dialogue. For a quick look at some of the relevant charts, see Mind-Blowing Charts From the Senate's Income Inequality Hearing for a collection of charts on inequality — some of which are shown below.

Don Nordeen
==========
Continue reading Capital Gains, Economy and Income Inequality.

Key Words: capital gains, dividends, carried interest, income inequality, economy, tax reform

Click Continue for Post Continuation plus Comments. Or Click Show All for Above plus Post Continuation and Comments.

Capital Gains, Economy and Income Inequality (continued)

Other posts on tax reform include:

and are part of the basis for this post.

Introduction
Many, many factors affect the economy, growth, GDP, jobs, trade, wealth accumulation, and other effects. These obviously interact with one another, making individual effects difficult to determine from the economic results. Some of those factors and their consequences are discussed in an column by Phillip Meyers [1], Robert Reich [10], and Diamond and Saez [12].

Preferential Tax Treatments
These appear in many forms with the most discussed being capital gains. Others include carried interest, tax expenditures, tax shelters, gifts, inheritance, tax forgiveness, tax avoidance through trusts, ... .
There are many factors in selecting the tax rates for various types and levels of income. Principal among them are to assist the economy and fairness of the tax code.

Effects on Economy, Jobs, GDP ...

The public-policy justification for lower tax rates on capital gains, carried interest, and other special incomes is to promote investment, which in turn increases jobs, economy and the GDP.
There is no consensus on the magnitude of the effects of the lower rates. The question is specifically addressed in a CBO letter [2].
What is certain is that a decrease in tax rates on capital gains results in less capital gains taxes collected before the change and more after the change. An increase in tax rates results in more capital gains taxes before the change and less after the change.

Other Consequences

An effect, however, is that the lower tax rates result in greater wealth accumulation primarily by the wealthy. This also applies to tax expenditures who have the wealth to take advantage of the tax preferences.
There is no consensus on the magnitude of the effects of the lower rates. The question is specifically addressed by a CBO letter [2].
Many of the disparities in taxes paid by the wealthy and the those with middle incomes are related to the capital gains.
The primary beneficiaries of the preferential capital-gains tax rate are the wealthy.
Such disparities create distrust and perceived or actual unfairness in the tax code.
Moreover, reduced tax rates for capital gains create the many "tax shelters" that attempt to convert ordinary income to capital gains income.
Such tax avoidance activities are not value added for the country.
Further, lower capital gains taxes influence executive compensation which can result in very large compensation for executives.
With lower marginal tax rates and elimination of double tax on dividends, the effect of elimination of the lower tax rates for capital gains is reduced.

Critical Questions: Are the benefits to the economy sufficient to justify the disproportionate benefits for the wealthy? Are preferential tax rates necessary as an incentive for capital investment? If so, should the preference be as large as exists today?

Do lower tax rates on capital gains, carried interest, and other special incomes affect the economy, if so, to what degree and under what conditions?
The economic literature indicates disagreement on whether or not there is a significant benefit to the overall economy from the preferential tax rates on certain types of income and various tax loopholes. A reasonable conclusion is that the overall effect is small.
The question is specifically addressed in a letter from CBO the Representative Bilbray in 2009 [2]. Excerpts explain the scope of CBO's analysis and the overall conclusion.

"I am pleased to respond to your questions about recent changes in the composition of federal revenues, the effects of scheduled increases in tax rates on capital gains, and the effects of recent changes to private-sector risk models."
• • •
"When assessing the impact of the increased tax rates on economic growth, it is important to keep in mind that taxable capital gains account for a small portion of all capital income. Much capital income is paid as dividends, interest, rent, and proprietors’ profits. In addition, most capital gains are not taxable because they are held in tax-exempt accounts or are held until death. As a result, CBO does not anticipate that the pending increase in the capital gains tax rate alone will have a large enough impact on the rate of return to capital overall to change significantly the magnitude of saving and capital investment. The higher capital gains taxes could have an additional effect by discouraging innovation and risk-taking, but there is insufficient evidence on which to base a quantitative estimate."

Note the many factors involved with capital income: dividends, interest, rent, and proprietors’ profits. Other tax rates typically apply. The letter does not discuss the double taxation of all forms of capital income. The double taxation can be eliminated on all but capital gains by making the other capital income deductible where paid and taxable where received. The would also eliminate most of the taxable differences between equity and debt financing.
The argument is often made that a lower capital gains tax rate is needed to spur investment. If so, investment should increase at a faster rate when capital gains rates are low. Consider the following from Jared Bernstein's Weblog [3]:

"Paul K[rugman] has nice post up on the history of capital gains tax rates, pushing back on a David Frum argument that there’s an historical precedent for keeping them very low. Allow me to add this figure from an old post of mine, which adds real business investment to the picture.


Sources: NIPA, CTJ Jared Bernstein, Capital Gains: Let’s Rumble, Jan 18, 2012

Sources: NIPA, CTJ"

Bernstein writes:

"Plotting the top cap gains rate against real business investment doesn’t show much (biz investment is in natural logs to show proportional growth over this long time series). The cap gains rate bounces around based more on politics than policy, while investment pretty much grows with the cycle. Hard to see anything in the picture supporting the view that either the level or changes in cap gains taxes play a determinant role in investment decisions."

The chart does not show that investment increases at a faster rate when capital gains rates are low. Reading the entire post at Jared Bernstein's Weblog is recommended.
(added 2012 Mar 22)>>>Capital gains tax rate, realized gains and tax collection are shown in the chart below. The realized gains and tax collection are shown as a % of GDP to reduce the effect of overall economic growth. Realized capital gains are highly influence by changes or pending changes in the capital gains tax. Capital gains tax collection does not show any obvious correlation between capital gains tax collection and capital gains tax rate. The tax collections are affected by many factors including the business cycle.

Chart derived from data in
Federal Capital Gains Tax Collections, 1954-2008,
Tax Foundation, 2010 Sep 14 (accessed 2012 Mar 22)

What the chart does show is that changes or pending changes in capital gains tax rate produce a change in capital gains tax collections. Collections increase in advance of pending increase in capital gains tax rate and after a lowering of capital gains tax rate. <<<
This writer was unable to find a definitive analysis that showed a significant effect of lower capital gains tax on the economy, jobs, and GDP. Many make such claims, but do not provide facts to support their claims. See, for example, what Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School and was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, wrote in 2010 [4]:

"Think of the economy as a pie split among workers, savers and the government, with the government's slice fixed. The savers' slice will equal the after-tax return on each unit of the capital stock, and what's left goes to workers as after-tax wages. The fairness advocates in effect claim that low tax rates on dividends and capital gains increase the share of the pie that goes to high-income savers. But the low tax rates increase the absolute size of the workers' slice by making the entire pie bigger. That's because low tax rates encourage capital accumulation, productivity and wage growth."Excerpts explain the scope of CBO's analysis and the overall conclusion

Writing in 2010, Mr. Hubbard should have been able to show a large increase in investment after the reduction in capital gains tax rate to 15% in 2003. Mr. Bernstein's chart above shows that this did not occur.
(added 2012 Apr 06)>>>Another recent op-ed by in the 2012 Apr 05 Wall Street Journal advocates of lower marginal tax rates, Gramm and McMillin: The Real Causes of Income Inequality, appears to justify the increase in income inequality by stating "Any analysis of taxes paid in high tax-and-spend countries shows that the U.S. has the most progressive income tax system in the world." However, the justification for the "more progressive" conclusion appears to be based on the large income inequality which results in more taxes being paid by the top 1% even with the lower rates. <<<

Do lower tax rates on capital gains, carried interest, and other special incomes affect income inequality, if so, to what degree and under what conditions?
The economic literature provides a clear answer to this question: Yes, and the overall change is large.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between
1979 and 2007, CBO, October 2011

A consensus exists that the inequality in income has increased during the last 20 years. The chart to the right is from an analysis by CBO. The "shaded vertical bars indicate the duration of recessions. (A recession extends from the peak of a business cycle to its trough.)" See Journalist’s Resource: Analysis of CBO data on trends in distribution of income for a summary of the CBO report. One of the key findings reported is:

"Federal taxes and assistance programs have historically tended to flatten income inequities by boosting the earnings of households in the lower quintiles while levying higher tax rates for higher earners. This dynamic shifted between 1979 and 2007, as changes in the tax system favored higher earners."

See Income inequality in America, published by The Economist for a discussion of data supplied by the CBO. Also see Incomes: Inequality street — "Income inequality is rising in rich countries", Dec 5th 2011, The Economist online.
Changes in the tax code concerning lower tax rate on certain types of income appear to be one of the many reasons — perhaps a principal reason — for the increased inequality.
The relationship between income inequality and capital gains tax rate has been investigated by many researchers. The chart below, developed by Brian Rogel, illustrates the relationship. For an expanded view of the chart, click on the chart below, and then click on the new chart.

The capital gains tax and income inequality infographic.

Trend line depicts average income of top 0.01% of US families as a multiple of average
income of bottom 90% of US families. Scale is 0 to 1000.

While many factors may affect the results in Rogel's chart, the effect of changes in the capital gains rate appears to be a significant factor. Rogel's chart and other analyses (See The Economist chart above.) indicate that the income inequality is now about the same as it was in 1929.
The primary data source for various papers on income inequality has been provided by Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty [11]. This NY Times article provides links to three graphics showing various aspects of tax policy and income equality.

Taxing the rich in America:
The politics of plutocracy,
The Economist, 2012 Jan 21 print edition

The Economist has also noted that the occupations for the top income earners have changed [5], [6]:

"The wealthiest 1% of Americans not only get more of the pie; they are increasingly creatures of finance."
"The richest 1% earn roughly half their income from wages and salaries, a quarter from self-employment and business income, and the remainder from interest, dividends, capital gains and rent. According to an analysis of tax returns by Jon Bakija of Williams College and two others, 16% of the top 1% were in medical professions and 8% were lawyers: shares that have changed little between 1979 and 2005, the latest year the authors examined (see chart). The most striking shift has been the growth of financial occupations, from just under 8% of the wealthy in 1979 to 13.9% in 2005. Their representation within the top 0.1% is even more pronounced: 18%, up from 11% in 1979." (underline emphasis by this writer)

A factor concerning the increased incomes in financial occupations is likely the taxation of carried interest and capital gains rate.

Inequality: The gap widens, again,
The Economist, 2012 Mar 10 print edition

(added 2012 Mar 13)>>> The Economist updated the Income Inequality chart in their 2012 Mar 10 print edition shown at the right. The data have been updated from the chart above right.

"New income data from Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley, ... reveal a rebound in the fortunes of the rich. From 2009 to 2010, the top 1% of earners enjoyed an 11.6% rise in income while the rest of the workforce saw a gain of just 0.2%."

See Appendix A and reference [9] for different graphical presentations of the updated income data. <<<
(added 2012 Mar 09)>>> Another analysis published in the Wall Street Journal, Allan Meltzer: A Look at the Global One Percent, 2012 Mar 09, includes a chart from another source for several countries that is similar to The Economist charts above. The opinion does not provide any factual information regarding the effect of tax policy on income inequality. <<<
The House Budget Committee analysis of the CBO reports, A Deeper Look at Income Inequality, uses Figure 2 (below) from the CBO Summary - Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007, and introduces additional factors but does not change the fundamental conclusion of the CBO concerning income inequality, nor provide a fairness justification for the increase in income inequality. With regard to the % of income taxes paid by the top 1%, the House Committee report states at page 10:

"Other income-tax changes: In 1979, the top marginal federal tax rate was 70 percent, and the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 1 percent was 18.3 percent. By 2007, the top marginal federal tax rate had fallen to 35 percent – yet the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 1 percent was 39.5 percent.
Put another way, over the period covered by the CBO’s study, the top marginal federal tax rate was cut in half, and the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent more than doubled. Much of this increase was attributable to rising incomes for the top 1 percent (see “Rising incomes” below), so that the total amount of income exposed to the top rate was rising even as that rate was falling, and this rise is partly responsible for the increase in the progressivity of the federal income tax."

In many places, the Committee report states that a higher % of income taxes are paid by the top 1% mostly because of much higher incomes, but never discusses the fairness of the resulting income inequality. Interestingly, the report does not even use any of the terms, capital gains, carried interest and dividends, which other papers discuss as significant factors in the increase in income inequality.

Summary - Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007,
CBO, October 2011 at p3

Figure 2 is the above chart that shows the shift in "shares of market income" from the lower income groups to the highest quintile (top 10%), more specifically to the top 1%.
The Congressional Research Service, which provides "policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation", has written [7]:

"Changes in income from capital gains and dividends were the single largest contributor to rising income inequality between 1996 and 2006. Changes in tax policy also made a significant contribution to the increase in income inequality, but even in the absence of tax policy changes income inequality would likely have increased. Although earning inequality increased between 1996 and 2006, changes in wages and salaries appear to have had little effect on the increase in overall income inequality."

The summary of this study is presented by Jared Bernstein in graphical form. See [13], [14].

Summary Remarks
The purpose of this post is not to define specific changes in the tax code, but rather to provide information and study for further discussion. See On the Agenda for Congress: Tax Reform Plus for my thoughts on that subject.
On a general basis, the House Republican plan states their objective:

"America’s tax code has grown too complicated and cumbersome. We need a tax code that is flatter, fairer, and simpler to ensure that everyone pays their fair share, lessen the burden on families, generate economic expansion, and create jobs by making America more competitive."

This general objective should have bipartisan support; however, the dividing issue is likely the definition and meaning of "fairness". Leadership requires that the Republicans define what they mean by "fairer" and "everyone pays their fair share".
With a "flatter, fairer, and simpler" tax code, the marginal rates can be reduced if the loopholes and tax preferences are eliminated as The Economist states [8]:

"It is silly to have a high tax rate while simultaneously giving people many ways to avoid paying it. So the first task of tax reformers must be to minimise such opportunities by having a broader tax base, better enforcement and similar tax rates for different kinds of income."

With lower rates, the tax preferences on special types of income can be eliminated. Business can be made more competitive by eliminating the double taxation on the various types of business income by making the income deductible where paid and taxable where received.
An overall conclusion by the Economist [6], which this writer supports except for a phase-out of the mortgage interest deduction, is:

"Follow the money
However, restoring the top income tax rates, as Mr Obama proposes, is not the best way of extracting extra revenue from the rich. It would raise revenues of about 0.3% of GDP and do nothing to make America’s grotesquely complicated tax system more efficient. It would be far better to close or limit loopholes and deductions, currently worth up to 7% of GDP, which distort behaviour (by, for example, encouraging people to take out big mortgages) and mostly benefit the affluent. Some deductions, including mortgage relief, would have to be phased out in stages; but many could go immediately. In a similar way, equalising the rates on capital, dividends and ordinary income would make it possible to lower America’s corporate tax rate, currently one of the rich world’s highest.
The result would be lower rates, more revenue and a more efficient and progressive tax system. If that’s where the debate about wealth ends, it will have been worth it."

   A phase-out of the interest deduction could cause a large shift in investment and lending since all interest income is taxable. As with other investment income, interest should be deductible where paid and income where received.
   Many tax expenditures disproportionately benefit the wealthy because they have the financial capability to take advantage of the tax avoidance.
   See Mind-Blowing Charts From the Senate's Income Inequality Hearing for collection of charts on inequality — some of which are shown above.

Other Posts on Tax Reform

Also See Appendix A for more information and charts showing income inequality and the trends.

__________

Endnotes

[1] Philip Meyer, Income inequality does matter, USA Today, 2012 Mar 28, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-03-27/income-inequality-wealth-taxes/53810288/1 (accessed 2012 Mar 28). Philip Meyer is professor emeritus in journalism at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.

[2] Letter, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office to the Honorable Brian P. Bilbray, September 25, 2009, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10629/09-25-Letter_Bilbray.pdf (accessed 2012 Jan 24).

[3] Jared Bernstein, Capital Gains: Let’s Rumble, 2012 Jan 18, http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/capital-gains-lets-rumble/ (accessed 2012 Jan 30).

[4] Glenn Hubbard, Fairness and the Capital Tax Fetish, Wall Street Journal, August 9, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703700904575391463715177240.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop (accessed 2012 Mar 02) Mr. Hubbard is dean of Columbia Business School and was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.

[5] Anonymous, Income inequality: Who exactly are the 1%?, The Economist, 2012 Jan 21, http://www.economist.com/node/21543178 (accessed 2012 Feb 08).

[6] Anonymous, Taxing the rich in America: America’s rich should pay more, but there is no need to raise their income-tax rates, The Economist, 2012 Jan 21, http://www.economist.com/node/21543165 (accessed 2012 Feb 12).

[7] Thomas L. Hungerford, Changes in the Distribution of Income Among Tax Filers Between 1996 and 2006: The Role of Labor Income, Capital Income, and Tax Policy, Congressional Research Service, December 29, 2011, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42131.pdf (accessed 2012 Feb 05) at p14.

[8] Anonymous, Optimal tax rates: How to raise the highest rates without doing too much damage, The Economist, 2012 Jan 21, http://www.economist.com/node/21543184 (accessed 2012 Feb 12).

[9] Chad Stone et al, A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, updated 2012 Mar 05, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629 (accessed 2012 Apr 11).

10] Robert Reich, Income inequality highlighted on Tax Day, The Christian Science Monitor, 2012 Apr 17, http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2012/0417/Income-inequality-highlighted-on-Tax-Day (accessed 2012 Apr 17). "Income inequality is at its worst in nearly a century, with the highest earners paying low tax rates in the face of a massive federal deficit and crumbling public services. To lessen income inequality, we must curb the political power of the very rich."

[11] Emmanuel Saez, and Thomas Piketty, For Two Economists, the Buffett Rule Is Just a Start, The New York Times, 2012 Apr 17, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/business/for-economists-saez-and-piketty-the-buffett-rule-is-just-a-start.html?_r=1&ref=us (accessed 2012 Apr 17).

[12] Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, Diamond and Saez: High Tax Rates Won't Slow Growth , Wall Street Journal, 2012 Apr 17, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303425504577353843997820160.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop (accessed 2012 Apr 24). "We're not close to the top of the Laffer Curve. Raising tax rates is part of a sensible deficit reduction strategy."

[13] Jared Bernstein, Dividends, Capital Gains, and the Growth of Income Inequality, 2012 Jan 02, http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/capital-gains-lets-rumble/ (accessed 2012 Apr 29).

[14] Jared Bernstein, Another Excellent Inequality Study, 2012 Jan 01, http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/another-excellent-inequality-study/ (accessed 2012 Apr 29).

Appendix A — More Information and charts on Income Inequality

Washington Post Story — Rich pull away from the rest of America
An interactive graphic is provided at (Not) spreading the wealth, Washington Post, June 18, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/income-inequality/ (accessed 2012 Mar 20). It shows the large increase in income inequality beginning in the early 1980s — about the same time as the decrease in marginal tax rates for high incomes and lower capital gains rates.

Free Exchange — Economics, The Economist

Income inequality: Growing apart

Mar 5th 2012, 17:57 by R.A. | WASHINGTON

"EMMANUEL SAEZ has updated his well-known series on income shares of top earners through 2010. Here's a look at the latest numbers:

The share of income going to the top 1% rivaled that of the Gilded Age prior to the crisis. When it dropped precipitously in the recession, some observers mused that a structural break may have occurred. As of 2010, however, this seems not to be true. Including capital gains, the income shares of the top 10% and the top 0.01% are nearly back to Gilded Age highs (though still some way away from the highs immediately prior to the recession."

Information Prepared by Steve Rattner

The charts to the right have been copied from the video clip (beginning about 2:20) of the 2012 March 16 Morning Joe program. The reference noted is the same reference used in articles noted in the main body of this post. However, the charts consider the change in share of income, not the share of income. Note in the second chart the % of income change going to the top 0.01% [top 0.1% ???] in 2010.

Mr. Rattner suggests a number of causes:

knowledge economy that has downplayed the value of unskilled work
downward pressure on wages in manufacturing related to global competition
tax policy (capital gains taxed at 15%, etc.)

He also observes that the trend in income inequality is a global trend.

He suggests a that a combination of changes are needed:

change tax policy
education and training to help people achieve higher incomes
spending programs to help those at the bottom
invest in the future, infrastructure

Carried interest is very similar to capital gains. See Romney Should Showcase Leadership and End Carried Interest: View

Also

Why Carried Interest Is A Worse Scam Than You Think

Romney returns show low tax rate; questions linger
By Steve Holland and Kim Dixon
TAMPA, Fla./WASHINGTON | Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:18pm EST
(Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney bowed to political pressure and gave the public a glimpse inside his personal fortune on Tuesday, releasing U.S. tax returns showing he pays a lower effective tax rate than many top wage-earners.

Private equity, Monsters, Inc?, Private-equity firms may make the economy work better, but their bosses get too much cash, The Economist, Jan 28th 2012 | from the print edition

Optimal tax rates, Soak or swim, How to raise the highest rates without doing too much damage, The Economist, Jan 21th 2012 | from the print edition

History : Changes are usually identified in the text with the date which facilitates searching by date. Edits are usually noted by add and ~~delete~~ changes.

2012 Apr 24 — added reference and link to article by Diamond and Saez.
2012 Apr 17 — added reference and link to article on economic researchers Saez and Piketty.
2012 Apr 17 — added reference and link to op-ed by Robert Reich.
2012 Mar 28 — added reference and link to column by Phillip Meyers.
2012 Mar 22 — added chart on capital gains tax collection.
2012 Mar 16 — added charts from Steve Rattner to Appendix A.
2012 Mar 13 — added chart and link to updated data on income inequality.
2012 Mar 09 — added link to WSJ opinion on the global 1%.
2012 Mar 02 — added reference to and quotation from Glenn Hubbard.
2012 Feb 19 — added chart showing shares of market income.
2012 Feb 13 — Initial Post

Links: Capital Gains, Economy and Income Inequality at [http://curntbk.blogspot.com/2012/02/capital-gains-economy-and-income.html]

A Curmudgeon's Notebook

February 13, 2012

Capital Gains, Economy and Income Inequality

Private equity, Monsters, Inc?, Private-equity firms may make the economy work better, but their bosses get too much cash, The Economist, Jan 28th 2012 | from the print edition

No comments:

Post a Comment