Tag Archives: job creation

Taxes are the Lowest in Over a Half Century: But Low Taxes Have Spurred Neither Growth nor Jobs

Posted on by

US Federal Government Revenues as Share of GDP, 1960-2011, Federal Taxes, Federal Receipts

A.  Introduction

Personal income tax returns in the US were due last week.  With taxes on most people’s mind, blog postings on taxes in the US are perhaps timely.  This initial post will focus on how much has been paid in taxes in recent years, and whether there is any evidence for the assertion that high taxes have slowed economic growth and job creation.  Although it may not feel like it to those have just paid their taxes, the share of taxes in GDP has been at record lows during the Obama administration.  Subsequent posts will look at some of the idiocies in the tax code that we as filers face each year, and then at reforms to the tax code, both relatively straightforward (within the current basic structure) and more fundamental.

B.  Taxes Have Been at Historic Lows

As noted in a recent posting on this blog, Mitt Romney has repeatedly asserted that high taxes under Obama, due to tax increases under Obama, have led to the disappointing recovery from the 2008 economic collapse.  Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, has stated repeatedly in recent years (here is one example) that the US fiscal problem is “because we spend too much, not because we tax too little”.  And the new Republican term for the super-rich is that they are the “job creators”, and that therefore taxes on them need to be kept low and cut even further so that they will then “create” new jobs through some kind of trickle-down process.

Yet taxes as a share of GDP are the lowest in over a half century in the US (and in fact since 1950).  The graph at the top above shows total federal government revenues as a share of GDP, going back a half century to 1960.  Taxes (from all sources, not just individual income taxes) averaged almost 18% of GDP over this period, but began a clear downward trend from 2001.  The data is from the historical tables made available by the Office of Management and Budget, with data that goes all the way back to the founding of the republic in 1789.

The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 account for the change in trend.  With this change in trend, coupled with the effects of the 2008 economic collapse and then the further tax cuts (not tax increases) signed into law by Obama (discussed below), taxes as a share of GDP reached a low of just 15.1% of GDP in FY2009.  And with the tax cuts under Obama, taxes as a share of GDP remained at just 15.1% in FY2010, at 15.4% in FY2011, and are projected to be just 15.8% of GDP in FY2012.

Such a low tax take is unprecedented in the post-World War II United States.  Since 1950, taxes were never below 16% of GDP for any individual yearn prior to 2009, despite a number of economic downturns, much less so low for four years straight.  It is hard to see how our problems are from taxing “too much” when taxes are the lowest they have been in over 60 years.

Taxes collected in FY09 were low in part due to the 2008 economic collapse.  But the economy has been in recovery since the middle of CY2009, albeit weakly.  Despite this recovery, and in contrast to the experience in previous cyclical downturns, fiscal revenues have remained at record lows.  Average fiscal revenues over the three year period of the year of the economic trough plus the following two years were only 15.2% of GDP in the current downturn.  The similar average fiscal revenues over such three year periods in the other five economic downturns of the past four decades were 17.9% of GDP.  Cyclical factors cannot explain the current extremely low levels of taxes as a share of GDP.  Rather, taxes have been so low due to the downward structural trend that began with the Bush tax cuts, compounded then by further tax cuts signed by Obama.

As was noted in the earlier posting on this blog on Romney’s economic policy address, between February 2009 and February 2012 Obama signed into law almost $1.5 trillion of tax cuts.  For convenience, here is the table shown in that post, although with the Payroll Tax cuts now consolidated into one line:

 

Tax Cuts Signed Into Law by Obama    
  Date Signed Amount ($b)
A.  Tax Provisions in 2009 Stimulus Package 2/17/09 $420.0
B.  2010 Tax Cut Package, excl Payroll Tax Cut 12/17/10 $769.3
C.  2011 and 2012 Payroll Tax Cuts 12/17/10, 12/23/11, and 2/22/12 $227.1
D.  Other – Various Dates in 2009 and 2010 various $64.2
TOTAL   $1,480.6

The $1.5 trillion cost estimate is from figures posted by the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which in turn came from estimates obtained from either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation of the US Congress.  One can also obtain from these sources estimates of how much of the tax cuts would occur by fiscal year, and the estimate, when added up, is that $1.4 of the $1.5 trillion in cuts were in fiscal years 2009 to 2012.  These are estimates, made before the fact and subject to uncertainty, but suffice for the basic point here.

Taking these tax cuts as estimated by fiscal year, expressed as a share of GDP, one finds:

      Impact of 2009-2012 Obama Tax Cuts
Taxes/GDP:  Actual 2009-2012 Tax Cuts Enacted Taxes/GDP If No Tax Cuts
FY09 15.1% 0.8% 15.8%
FY10 15.1% 2.1% 17.2%
FY11 15.4% 2.9% 18.3%
FY12 proj. 15.8% 3.2% 19.1%

The tax cuts were large, especially from FY2010 onwards.  While taxes as a share of GDP would still have been a relatively low 15.8% of GDP in FY2009 (reflecting the downturn which reached its trough that year), taxes in the subsequent years would have been close to what they have normally been since 1960 (an average of almost 18% of GDP).  That is, while taxes as a share of GDP were low in FY2009 largely due to the downturn, they have since remained at historically low levels largely due to the tax cuts signed by Obama.

Critics will of course state immediately that without the tax cuts signed by Obama, GDP recovery would have been even slower.  This is true, given the recession.  But a reduction of GDP of two or three percent or more, while of course not to be welcomed, would not have had a major impact on these figures on GDP shares of taxes.  The denominator would have just been reduced from 100% to 98 or 97%.  Furthermore, a reduction in the denominator would (by simple arithmetic) have raised, not lowered, the GDP shares of taxes.

While a more complete modeling exercise would have been desirable, it would still have been a model and subject to all the limitations and criticisms any model will have.  The point being made here is just the simple one that the tax cuts signed by Obama were big, and that they were the primary factor leading to the historically record low shares of taxes in GDP during Obama’s term, especially from FY2010 onwards.

C.  Do Lower Taxes Lead to Faster Growth in GDP or Jobs?

Mitt Romney and the Republican Party leaders also repeatedly assert that cuts in taxes, including on the rich, will lead to faster growth in both output (GDP) and jobs.  The super-rich now have the new name of “job creators”.  But is there any historical evidence to support this?

The following table shows for the US by decade, since the 1960s, the average collection of taxes as a share of GDP, growth in GDP and in jobs over the decade, and the average highest tax bracket on ordinary income in the tax code (the rate the super-rich will pay on ordinary income) in the decade:

Taxes/GDP Period Avg GDP Growth Rate Jobs Growth Rate Highest Tax Bracket – Period Avg
1961-1970 18.0% 4.3% 2.8% 78.4%
1971-1980 17.9% 3.2% 2.5% 70.0%
1981-1990 18.2% 3.2% 1.8% 44.2%
1991-2000 18.8% 3.3% 2.0% 37.9%
2001-2010 17.1% 1.6% -0.2% 35.8%
Bush term:
2001-08 17.6% 2.2% 0.2% 36.0%

Sources:  Taxes/GDP and GDP growth calculated from OMB Historical Tables; Job growth from Bureau of Labor Statistics; and Highest tax bracket from Tax Policy Center.

Taxes as a share of GDP did come down, and were at their lowest of any decade, in the 2001-2010 period.  The decade average for the highest tax bracket was also the lowest.  But while GDP grew by between 3.2% and 4.3% a year in the preceding four decades, growth fell to just 1.6% a year in the decade with the lowest taxes.  Job growth was between 1.8% and 2.8% a year in the preceding four decades, but fell to a negative 0.2% when taxes on the “job creators” were at their lowest.  The bottom line of the table also shows the figures for just the Bush term of 2001 to 2008, before the full effects of the 2008 downturn were felt, to show that these results are not simply a consequence of the downturn in the final years of the decade, weighing down the decade long results.

Such a comparison across periods is simplistic, of course.  There is much else going on.  But there is no evidence here that the Bush tax cuts, and the recent tax cuts keeping taxes low, have led to a long-term structural rise in the growth rate of the economy, or of the jobs being generated.  The evidence that exists is completely inconsistent with this, and indeed by itself it consistent with the opposite.

D.  Conclusion

To summarize:

1)  Taxes as a share of GDP are now at record lows, and have been since Obama took office.

2)  Other than in FY2009, when the economy was at its trough following the 2008 collapse, the record low share of taxes as a share of GDP has been largely due to a series of very large tax cuts signed by Obama.  That is, the shares of taxes have remained at record lows largely due to policy, and not due to the weak economy.

3)  There is no evidence from US history of the past half century which would suggest that lower tax collections or a lower tax bracket for the super-rich will lead to a higher growth rate for the economy or for jobs.  In fact, the downward trend in taxes since the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 has been associated with the lowest decade long growth rates of GDP or jobs of the past half century.

A previous posting on this blog showed that the US public debt problem (with a rising public debt to GDP ratio) is fully due to the impact of the Bush tax cuts.  That blog posting showed that simply be phasing out the Bush tax cuts from 2014 onwards, the public debt to GDP ratio would be brought back down over time, rather than grow explosively (if there is no change to current policy).  The Bush tax cuts by themselves account for the US fiscal problems of at least the next decade.

With record low tax collection as a share of GDP, with the downward trend in tax collection a consequence of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, with subsequent extensions of these tax cuts signed by Obama along with other major tax cuts passed as part of the stimulus package and in payroll taxes leading to record low tax collections in the US as a share of GDP, and with no evidence that the lower taxes of the past decade have led to higher long term growth rates of the economy or of jobs, it is difficult to see how the current economic difficulties are due to taxes that are too high.  To deal with a problem, one must first recognize its origins.  The Bush tax cuts were a disaster for the economy, and restoring tax rates (over time, once the economy is in a more solid recovery) to what they were in the 1990s would solve America’s fiscal problems.

Employment Growth in January: Better, but Sustainability is a Concern

Posted on by

The employment report for January, released this morning by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is a positive report.  But while employment growth is now improving, it is still not rapid enough, and its sustainability is a concern.

As I had noted in a posting on December 5 in this blog, monthly employment growth in the US needs to be in a range of roughly 200 to 250,000 per month for unemployment to fall on a sustainable basis.  One is now starting to see that, with overall employment growth of 203,000 in December and 243,000 in January.  With such growth, the unemployment rate fell from 8.9% in October to 8.7% in November to 8.5% in December and to 8.3% in January.  This is certainly welcome.  But unemployment at 8.3% is still far too high.  In a more robust recovery, one would be seeing monthly employment growth figures of over 300,000.

And the overall employment figures are still being held back by falling employment in government (mostly state and local government, which accounts for 87% of government employment in the US, but there have also been falls in federal employment).  In January, total government employment fell by 14,000, thus partly offsetting the rise in private employment of 257,000, to produce the overall gain of 243,000.

For the past year (January 2011 to January 2012), government employment fell by 276,000.  This has been a significant factor in holding down overall employment growth.  And government employment fell by 230,000 in the year before that (January 2010 to January 2011), and fell by 97,000 in the year before that (January 2009, when Obama was inaugurated, to January 2010), for a total fall in government employment of 603,000 over the three years.  In the three years before Obama took office, government employment rose by 248,000 in 2006, rose by 281,000 in 2007, and rose by 200,000 in 2008, for a total increase of 729,000.

Yet Obama has been repeatedly accused of creating an explosion of government.  (For a more detailed review of what has happened to Federal Government employment alone, see this blog.)  Had total government employment risen by 600,000 rather than fallen by 600,000 since Obama took office, one would have had an extra 1.2 million jobs directly.  Even ignoring any multiplier impact, this by itself would have led to an unemployment rate now of 7.5% rather than 8.3%.  And assuming, conservatively, a multiplier of just two (so that one additional government job leads to one additional private job, to supply the goods to cover the increased personal spending of the now employed government workers), the unemployment rate would now be a more respectable 6.7%.

While the January employment report was positive, one should keep in mind that there are threats on the horizon.  Two to consider:

1)  As noted in a January 27 blog, GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2011 was only 2.8%, and 70% of this came from the change in the change in private inventories.  Without this inventory change, GDP would have grown by just 0.8%.  For the first quarter of 2012, it is unlikely that private inventories will again go up by so much.  And note that because it is the change in the change in private inventories that is the contribution to GDP growth (see this blog), then should private inventories once again increase by as much as they did in the fourth quarter of 2011, the growth in GDP in the current quarter would only be 0.8% (everything else being equal as in the fourth quarter of 2011, which of course it won’t be).  That is, inventories would have to continue to rise by as much as they did in the fourth quarter of 2011 simply to keep GDP growth at 0.8%.  They are likely to rise by far less, and quite possibly might fall if the high level of inventory accumulation in late 2011 was more than suppliers wanted.  This could then significantly hold back production and GDP growth, and hence employment growth, over the next several months.

2)  Europe continues to be problematic, with the focus on policies (fiscal austerity) which will make the situation worse rather than better.  Europe will certainly be in recession in 2012, and probably already is, and this will hurt the US recovery.

And there are of course other risks, such as, for example, an escalation in tensions with Iran leading to disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, that could cause oil prices to skyrocket.  There are many such scenarios that one can imagine, so a US recovery is anything but certain.  So while the January employment report was a positive one, there are still reasons to be concerned.

The Dynamics of the Job Market: The Decline Started in 2006, with a Partial Recovery Under Obama

Posted on by

The most closely watched jobs number reported each month, aside from perhaps the unemployment rate, is the figure normally referred to as “new jobs created”.   For example, on January 6, news reports on the Bureau of Labor Statistics release that day stated that “200,000 new jobs were created” in December.  But many people may not fully realize that that number is a net figure, and the news reports often speak as if it is all new hiring.  Actually, around 4 million people are being hired each month right now in the US, while close to that number are also leaving their jobs for various reasons (mostly quits to take some job elsewhere).  It is the net figure between these two that is the 200,000.

To understand what is going on in the labor market, it is important to disentangle the figures.  The graph above shows the numbers since January 2006 (and up to November 2011, the most recent figure available) on total private sector hires each month, total private sector separations for whatever reason (this will be broken down below in this post), and the net between the two.  One could also include government employment, but I have left it out to focus on the private sector labor market dynamics.  Government employment is much smaller (government employment is less than 17% of total employment in the US, and 87% of government employment is with state and local governments).  It is also generally more stable and has been, other than a blip due to temporary hiring at the time of the 2010 census.  And government employment has been trending downward during the Obama period (mostly due to falls in state and local government employment, as I discussed in a December 6 post).

The first interesting point to note is how much churn there is in the labor market.  This is not commonly appreciated in the discussion surrounding the monthly figure on “new jobs”.  Hiring is always going on, and people are always leaving their jobs for various reasons (whether quitting to take a new job elsewhere, or retiring, or being laid off, in both good times and bad – this will be reviewed below).  This churn is high.  For example, over the twelve months leading to November 2011, 48.6 million people were hired, while 47.2 million left their job for whatever reason, leaving a net job growth of 1.4 million (these figures include government).

And such hiring continues in both good times and bad.  Hiring fell from around 5 million a month before the downturn, only to around 3 1/2 million per month in the worst of the economic collapse in 2008 / 2009.  The unemployment rate peaked at over 10%, but even in this period, new hiring was being done at around two-thirds the rate it was before.  Yet many Republican critics asserted that “no one” was being hired due to Obama’s regulatory policies.  In fact, the fall in hiring largely came before Obama entered office, stabilized within a few months of his inaugeration, and since has risen, although not by enough.

With this break-down, it is also interesting to see that the deterioration in the labor market began as early as 2006, when private new hiring began to slow.  Housing prices had also reached their peak in 2006, and then began to fall.  While the collapse in the economy was in full swing only in 2008, in the last year of the Bush Administration, the deterioration in conditions had in fact started two years earlier.

With new hiring starting to slow from 2006, the number of people leaving their jobs for whatever reason (“total separations” in the graph) started to slow in 2007.  As labor market conditions deteriorated in 2007 with the lower new hiring, fewer people would choose to quit.  They did not have a new job to go to.  With both hiring and quits down together, net jobs (hiring less separations) generally remained positive in 2007.  But by 2008, new hiring was falling fast, and while total separations also fell, hiring was now less than separations, so net jobs fell fast.

Things then began to turn around within a few months of Obama taking office, due to his stimulus and other policies.  New hiring stabilized at about 3 1/2 million per month, while total separations continued to fall.  Fewer people were being laid off than they were when Obama took office (see below).  Net job losses stabilized (the trough was March 2009) and then began to improve.  While Republicans continue to assert that Obama’s policies have harmed job creation, the turnaround occurred exactly as soon as his policies could start to have an effect.  And the job situation has continued to improve since then, although not by enough given the depth of the hole the economy was in when Obama took office.

As noted above, the Total Separations figure is the total separations due to people quitting voluntarily (normally to take a better job elsewhere), people being involuntarily discharged either due to layoffs or due to poor performance, and other separations (mostly due to retirement).  The figures since 2006 are shown below:

It is interesting that while involuntary discharges and layoffs rose with the 2008 economic collapse, the increase was all in the second half of 2008, and was from 1.7 million per month in “normal” times, to a peak of just 2.4 million per month.  That is, there are always involuntary discharges and layoffs for various reasons, but in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression it increased by less than half.  And since the end of 2009, monthly discharges and layoffs have been lower than they were prior to the downturn in 2006 and 2007.  One cannot say that Obama’s policies have led to more workers being laid off.

As noted above, quits started to fall in 2007, as labor market conditions started to deteriorate with the fall in new hiring.  They reached a trough in late 2009 / early 2010, and since have risen a bit, as labor market conditions began to improve.  But they remain well below what they were in 2006, as labor market conditions, while better than in 2008/2009, still remain poor, with 8 1/2% unemployment.  But people still do quit, at a rate of about 1.8 million per month, vs. quits of close to 3 million per month at the peak of the housing bubble.

Labor market conditions remain weak, with unemployment far too high.  It is unfortunate that political pressures are keeping the Obama administration from doing more to bring unemployment down, and indeed are forcing measures (such as cuts in fiscal spending) which are making the situation worse than it would otherwise be.  But the labor market turned around within a few months of Obama taking office, and has improved since.  There is still much more that needs to be done to bring down unemployment, but the charge that Obama’s policies are the cause of the high unemployment, is simply not backed by the facts.