Tag Archives: fiscal deficit

Republican Tax Plans: Part 3

Posted on by

The Tax Policy Center has now analyzed the Santorum proposals for what the US tax system should be, and I have added the implied average tax rates to the above diagram for completeness.  Santorum would cut taxes for almost all income groups by even more than his Republican colleagues, except for those making more than $1 million a year whom Gingrich and Perry would tax even less than Santorum.

But the result of all these tax cuts is that Federal Government revenues would fall by an estimated $1.32 trillion in 2015 alone.  This is even higher than the $1.28 trillion in revenue losses under Gingrich.  But total Federal Government discretionary expenditure, on everything, including the military, is projected to be only $1.26 trillion in 2015.  The deficit would rise even if all this government expenditure were cut to zero (and you cannot cut to less than zero).  Yet Santorum says the government deficit is already too high.  He also says military spending should be raised, not lowered.

This is even less serious than the proposals of Gingrich.

The Proposed European Balanced Budget Rules: “How to Create a Depression”

Posted on by

In these days where conservative orthodoxy has gone so far to the extreme right, it is encouraging to see a prominent conservative economist point out what should be obvious:  that adoption of stringent fiscal rules for balanced budgets by Eurozone members, as are being emphatically pushed by Angela Merkel and other Eurozone leaders, could easily cause an economic contraction turn into an economic depression.

Professor Martin Feldstein of Harvard, a prominent establishment figure, has made this point in his posting yesterday on the Project Syndicate web-site here.  The argument is clear and easy to understand, and should be read in its entirety.  I have copied below some of the key sections.  And Professor Feldstein is not a liberal economist:  he was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, was the long-time head of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and was a prominent adviser to President George W. Bush, including as a proponent of Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security.

While the point being made by Professor Feldstein should be obvious, it appears that Eurozone members will soon adopt such balanced budget rules, and some have already adopted variants.  Germany is pushing strongly, and the members are currently in no position to oppose what Germany wants.  Yet implementation of contractionary policies in an attempt to cut fiscal deficits caused by an economic contraction will put economies on a path to depression.  And similar rules are being pushed for the US by prominent Republicans and especially by Tea Party activists.

It is a formula for turning a downturn into a depression, as was done in the 1930s.

______________________________________________________

How to Create a Depression

2012-01-16

European political leaders may be about to agree to a fiscal plan which, if implemented, could push Europe into a major depression.

…

[With the adoption of the Euro] the only countercyclical policy available to France [or any Eurozone member] is fiscal: lower tax revenue and higher spending.

While that response implies a higher budget deficit, automatic fiscal stabilizers are particularly important now that the eurozone countries cannot use monetary policy to stabilize demand. Their lack of monetary tools, together with the absence of exchange-rate adjustment, might also justify some discretionary cyclical tax cuts and spending increases.

…

The European Union’s summit in Brussels in early December was intended to prevent such debt accumulation in the future. The heads of member states’ governments agreed in principle to limit future fiscal deficits by seeking constitutional changes in their countries that would ensure balanced budgets.

…

The most frightening recent development is a formal complaint by the European Central Bank that the proposed rules are not tough enough.  Jorg Asmussen, a key member of the ECB’s executive board, wrote to the negotiators that countries should be allowed to exceed the 0.5%-of-GDP limit for deficits only in times of “natural catastrophes and serious emergency situations” outside the control of governments.

If this language were adopted, it would eliminate automatic cyclical fiscal adjustments, which could easily lead to a downward spiral of demand and a serious depression.  If, for example, conditions in the rest of the world caused a decline in demand for French exports, output and employment in France would fall. That would reduce tax revenue and increase transfer payments, easily pushing the fiscal deficit over 0.5% of GDP.

If France must remove that cyclical deficit, it would have to raise taxes and cut spending. That would reduce demand even more, causing a further fall in revenue and a further increase in transfers – and thus a bigger fiscal deficit and calls for further fiscal tightening. It is not clear what would end this downward spiral of fiscal tightening and falling activity.

If implemented, this proposal could produce very high unemployment rates and no route to recovery – in short, a depression. …

Republican Tax Plans: Part 2

Posted on by

In a post on December 26, I presented the average tax rates that would follow from the tax plan proposals of several of the main Republican candidates.  These were radical proposals, and would move America from the progressive tax structure it has always had (even under Reagan and Bush), to regressive taxes where the rich would pay at a lower rate than the middle class or (in the case of Cain) even the poor.

The calculations were done by the Tax Policy Center, a joint program of The Urban Institute and Brookings, and I simply presented their results graphically.  At the time of my December 26 post, the Tax Policy Center had only worked out (using their Microsimultation tax model:  see my earlier post) the implications of the proposals of Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich.  They have now (as of January 5) also worked out the implications of what Mitt Romney has proposed.  These tax rates are added in the diagram above (in brown).

As I noted in my earlier post, Romney’s proposals are in the same direction as those of Gingrich and Perry, but less extreme.  His plan would still lead to major reductions in the tax rates for the rich, especially the super-rich, although not to as low a rate as what Cain, Perry, and Gingrich have proposed.  And the overall tax rates would at least remain somewhat progressive, in contrast to the proposals of the others, but substantially less progressive than what they would be under either the current law (where the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire as currently scheduled) or even what they would be if the Bush tax cuts are extended.  Under Romney’s proposal, those earning less than $30,000 per year (the very poor) would in fact pay more than they would should the Bush tax cuts be extended, while those earning between $30,000 and $50,000 would pay the same as under Bush.  But above $50,000, the richer one gets the less one would pay under Romney’s plan compared to what one would pay under Bush (and even less compared to what one would pay should the Bush tax cuts not be extended).

With the lower tax rates under Romney, especially for the rich, overall tax revenues would of course fall.  The figures calculated by the Tax Policy Center indicate revenues would be $600 billion less under Romney’s proposal in 2015 alone.  The ten year loss (where ten year figures are what are being used in the fiscal deficit discussions) would be more than ten times this, i.e. more than $6 trillion.  Although a bit less than half the loss under the cannot-be-serious Gingrich plan (which would lose $1.28 trillion in 2015 alone, or a loss that could not be covered even if one cut all federal government discretionary expenditures to zero), Romney never indicates what he would do to make up for this $600 billion annual loss in revenues.  Yet he repeatedly states in his campaign that it is critical to cut the fiscal deficit.

Romney claims to be a good businessman, but a plan that cuts tax revenues by $600 billion a year, equal to close to half of all government discretionary expenditure (including the military), is not serious.