The Simple Economics of What Determines the Foreign Trade Balance: Econ 101

“There’s no reason that we should have big trade deficits with virtually every country in the world.”

“We’re like the piggybank that everybody is robbing.”

“the United States has been taken advantage of for decades and decades”

“Last year,… [the US] lost  … $817 billion on trade.  That’s ridiculous and it’s unacceptable.”

“Well, if they retaliate, they’re making a mistake.  Because, you see, we have a tremendous trade imbalance. … we can’t lose”

Statements made by President Trump at the press conference held as he left the G-7 meetings in, Québec, Canada, June 9, 2018.

 

A.  Introduction

President Trump does not understand basic economics.  While that is not a surprise, nor something necessarily required or expected of a president, one should expect that a president would appoint advisors who do understand, and who would tell him when he is wrong.  Unfortunately, this president has been singularly unwilling to do so.  This is dangerous.

Trump is threatening a trade war.  Not only by his words at the G-7 meetings and elsewhere, but also by a number of his actions on trade and tariffs in recent months, Trump has made clear that he believes that a trade deficit is a “loss” to the nation, that countries with trade surpluses are somehow robbing those (such as the US) with a deficit, that raising tariffs can and will lead to reductions in trade deficits, and that if others then also raise their tariffs, the US will in the end necessarily “win” simply because the US has a trade deficit to start.

This is confused on many levels.  But it does raise the questions of what determines a country’s trade balance; whether a country “loses” if it has a trade deficit; and what is the role of tariffs.  This Econ 101 blog post will first look at the simple economics of what determines a nation’s trade deficit (hint:  it is not tariffs); will then discuss what tariffs do and where do they indeed matter; and will then consider the role played by foreign investment (into the US) and whether a trade deficit can be considered a “loss” for the nation (a piggybank being robbed).

B.  What Determines the Overall Trade Deficit?

Let’s start with a very simple case, where government accounts are aggregated together with the rest of the economy.  We will later then separate out government.

The goods and services available in an economy can come either from what is produced domestically (which is GDP, or Gross Domestic Product) or from what is imported.  One can call this the supply of product.  These goods and services can then be used for immediate consumption, or for investment, or for export.  One can call this the demand for product.  And since investment includes any net change in inventories, the goods and services made available will always add up to the goods and services used.  Supply equals demand.

One can put this in a simple equation:

GDP + Imports = Domestic Consumption + Domestic Investment + Exports

Re-arranging:

(GDP – Domestic Consumption) – Domestic Investment = Exports – Imports

The first component on the left is Domestic Savings (what is produced domestically less what is consumed domestically).  And Exports minus Imports is the Trade Balance.  Hence one has:

Domestic Savings – Domestic Investment = Trade Balance

As one can see from the way this was derived, this is simply an identity – it always has to hold.  And what it says is that the Trade Balance will always be equal to the difference between Domestic Savings and Domestic Investment.  If Domestic Savings is less than Domestic Investment, then the Trade Balance (Exports less Imports) will be negative, and there will be a trade deficit.  To reduce the trade deficit, one therefore has to either raise Domestic Savings or reduce Domestic Investment.  It really is as straightforward as that.

Where this becomes more interesting is in determining how the simple identity is brought about.  But here again, this is relatively straightforward in an economy which, like now, is at full employment.  Hence GDP is essentially fixed:  It cannot immediately rise by either employing more labor (as all the workers who want a job have one), nor by each of those laborers suddenly becoming more productive (as productivity changes only gradually through time by means of either better education or by investment in capital).  And GDP is equal to labor employed times the productivity of each of those workers.

In such a situation, with GDP at its full employment level, Domestic Savings can only rise if Domestic Consumption goes down, as Domestic Savings equals GDP minus Domestic Consumption.  But households want to consume, and saving more will mean less for consumption.  There is a tradeoff.

The only other way to reduce the trade deficit would then be to reduce Domestic Investment.  But one generally does not want to reduce investment.  One needs investment in order to become more productive, and it is only through higher productivity that incomes can rise.

Reducing the trade deficit, if desirable (and whether it is desirable will be discussed below), will therefore not be easy.  There will be tradeoffs.  And note that tariffs do not enter directly in anything here.  Raising tariffs can only have an impact on the trade balance if they have a significant impact for some reason on either Domestic Savings or Domestic Investment, and tariffs are not a direct factor in either.  There may be indirect impacts of tariffs, which will be discussed below, but we will see that the indirect effects actually could act in the direction of increasing, not decreasing, the trade deficit.  However, whichever direction they act in, those indirect effects are likely to be small.  Tariffs will not have a significant effect on the trade balance.

But first, it is helpful to expand the simple analysis of the above to include Government as a separate set of accounts.  In the above we simply had the Domestic sector.  We will now divide that into the Domestic Private and the Domestic Public (or Government) sectors.  Note that Government includes government spending and revenues at all levels of government (state and local as well as federal).  But the government deficit is primarily a federal government issue.  State and local government entities are constrained in how much of a deficit they can run over time, and the overall balance they run (whether deficit or surplus) is relatively minor from the perspective of the country as a whole.

It will now also be convenient to write out the equations in symbols rather than words, and we will use:

GDP = Gross Domestic Product

C = Domestic Private Consumption

I = Domestic Private Investment

G = Government Spending (whether for Consumption or for Investment)

X = Exports

M = Imports

T = Taxes net of Transfers

Note that T (Taxes net of Transfers) will be the sum total of all taxes paid by the private sector to government, minus all transfers received by the private sector from government (such as for Social Security or Medicare).  I will refer to this as simply net Taxes (T).

The basic balance of goods or services available (supplied) and goods or services used (demanded) will then be:

GDP + M = C + I + G + X

We will then add and subtract net Taxes (T) on the right-hand side:

GDP + M = (C + T) + I + (G – T) + X

Rearranging:

GDP – (C + T) – (G – T) – I = X – M

(GDP – C – T) – I + (T – G) = X – M

Or in (abbreviated) words:

Dom. Priv. Savings – Dom. Priv. Investment + Govt Budget Balance = Trade Balance

Domestic Private Savings (savings by households and private businesses) is equal to what is produced in the economy (GDP), less what is privately consumed (C), less what is paid in net Taxes (T) by the private sector to the public sector.  Domestic Private Investment is simply I, and includes investment both by private businesses and by households (primarily in homes).  And the Government Budget Balance is equal to what government receives in net Taxes (T), less what Government spends (on either consumption items or on public investment).  Note that government spending on transfers (e.g. Social Security) is already accounted for in net Taxes (T).

This equation is very much like what we had before.  The overall Trade Balance will equal Domestic Private Savings less Domestic Private Investment plus the Government Budget Balance (which will be negative when a deficit, as has normally been the case except for a few years at the end of the Clinton administration).  If desired, one could break down the Government Budget Balance into Public Savings (equal to net Taxes minus government spending on consumption goods and services) less Public Investment (equal to government spending on investment goods and services), to see the parallel with Domestic Private Savings and Domestic Private Investment.  The equation would then read that the Trade Balance will equal Domestic Private Savings less Domestic Private Investment, plus Government Savings less Government Investment.  But there is no need.  The budget deficit, as commonly discussed, includes public spending not only on consumption items but also on investment items.

This is still an identity.  The balance will always hold.  And it says that to reduce the trade deficit (make it less negative) one has to either increase Domestic Private Savings, or reduce Domestic Private Investment, or increase the Government Budget Balance (i.e. reduce the budget deficit).  Raising Domestic Private Savings implies reducing consumption (when the economy is at full employment, as now).  Few want this.  And as discussed above, a reduction in investment is not desirable as investment is needed to increase productivity over time.

This leaves the budget deficit, and most agree that it really does need to be reduced in an economy that is now at full employment.  Unfortunately, Trump and the Republican Congress have moved the budget in the exact opposite direction, primarily due to the huge tax cut passed last December, and to a lesser extent due to increases in certain spending (primarily for the military).  As discussed in an earlier post on this blog, an increase in the budget deficit to a forecast 5% of GDP at a time when the economy is at full employment is unprecedented in peacetime.

What this implies for the trade balance is clear from the basic identity derived above.  An increase in the budget deficit (a reduction in the budget balance) will lead, all else being equal, to an increase in the trade deficit (a reduction in the trade balance).  And it might indeed be worse, as all else is not equal.  The stated objective of slashing corporate taxes is to spur an increase in corporate investment.  But if private investment were indeed to rise (there is in fact little evidence that it has moved beyond previous trends, at least so far), this would further worsen the trade balance (increase the trade deficit).

Would raising tariffs have an impact?  One might argue that this would raise net Taxes paid, as tariffs on imports are a tax, which (if government spending is not then also changed) would reduce the budget deficit.  While true, the extent of the impact would be trivially small.  The federal government collected $35.6 billion in all customs duties and fees (tariffs and more) in FY2017 (see the OMB Historical Tables).  This was less than 0.2% of FY2017 GDP.  Even if all tariffs (and other fees on imports) were doubled, and the level of imports remained unchanged, this would only raise 0.2% of GDP.  But the trade deficit was 2.9% of GDP in FY2017.  It would not make much of a difference, even in such an extreme case.  Furthermore, new tariffs are not being pushed by Trump on all imports, but only a limited share (and a very limited share so far).  Finally, if Trump’s tariffs in fact lead to lower imports of the items being newly taxed, as he hopes, then tariffs collected can fall.  In the extreme, if the imports of such items go to zero, then the tariffs collected will go to zero.

Thus, for several reasons, any impact on government revenues from the new Trump tariffs will be minor.

The notion that raising tariffs would be a way to eliminate the trade deficit is therefore confused.  The trade balance will equal the difference between Domestic Savings and Domestic Investment.  Adding in government, the trade balance will equal the difference between Domestic Private Savings and Domestic Private Investment, plus the equivalent for government (the Government Budget Balance, where a budget deficit will be a negative).  Tariffs have little to no effect on these balances.

C.  What Role Do Tariffs Play, Then?

Do tariffs then matter?  They do, although not in the determination of the overall trade deficit.  Rather, tariffs, which are a tax, will change the price of the particular import relative to the price of other products.  If applied only to imports from some countries and not from others, one can expect to see a shift in imports towards those countries where the tariffs have not been imposed.  And in the case when they are applied globally, on imports of the product from any country, one should expect that prices for similar products made in the US will then also rise.  To the extent there are alternatives, purchases of the now more costly products (whether imported or produced domestically) will be reduced, while purchases of alternatives will increase.  And there will be important distributional changes.  Profits of firms producing the now higher priced products will increase, while the profits of firms using such products as an input will fall.  And the real incomes of households buying any of these products will fall due to the higher prices.

Who wins and who loses can rapidly become turn into something very complicated.  Take, for example, the new 25% tariff being imposed by the Trump administration on steel (and 10% on aluminum).  The tariffs were announced on March 8, to take effect on March 23.  Steel imports from Canada and Mexico were at first exempted, but later the Trump administration said those exemptions were only temporary.  On March 22 they then expanded the list of countries with temporary exemptions to also the EU, Australia, South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina, but only to May 1.  Then, on March 28, they said imports from South Korea would receive a permanent exemption, and Australia, Brazil, and Argentina were granted permanent exemptions on May 2.  After a short extension, tariffs were then imposed on steel imports from Canada, Mexico, and the EU, on May 31.  And while this is how it stands as I write this, no one knows what further changes might be announced tomorrow.

With this uneven application of the tariffs by country, one should expect to see shifts in the imports by country.  What this achieves is not clear.  But there are also further complications.  There are hundreds if not thousands of different types of steel that are imported – both of different categories and of different grades within each category – and a company using steel in their production process in the US will need a specific type and grade of steel.  Many of these are not even available from a US producer of steel.  There is thus a system where US users of steel can apply for a waiver from the tariff.  As of June 19, there have been more than 21,000 petitions for a waiver.  But there were only 30 evaluators in the US Department of Commerce who will be deciding which petitions will be granted, and their training started only in the second week of June.  They will be swamped, and one senior Commerce Department official quoted in the Washington Post noted that “It’s going to be so unbelievably random, and some companies are going to get screwed”.  It would not be surprising to find political considerations (based on the interests of the Trump administration) playing a major role.

So far, we have only looked at the effects of one tariff (with steel as the example).  But multiple tariffs on various goods will interact, with difficult to predict consequences.  Take for example the tariff imposed on the imports of washing machines announced in late January, 2018, at a rate of 20% in the first year and at 50% should imports exceed 1.2 million units in the year.  This afforded US producers of washing machines a certain degree of protection from competition, and they then raised their prices by 17% over the next three months (February to May).

But steel is a major input used to make washing machines, and steel prices have risen with the new 25% tariff.  This will partially offset the gains the washing machine producers received from the tariff imposed on their product.  Will the Trump administration now impose an even higher tariff on washing machines to offset this?

More generally, the degree to which any given producer will gain or lose from such multiple tariffs will depend on multiple factors – the tariff rates applied (both for what they produce and for what they use as inputs), the degree to which they can find substitutes for the inputs they need, and the degree to which those using the product (the output) will be able to substitute some alternative for the product, and more.  Individual firms can end up ahead, or behind.  Economists call the net effect the degree of “net effective protection” afforded the industry, and it can be difficult to figure out.  Indeed, government officials who had thought they were providing positive protection to some industry often found out later that they were in fact doing the opposite.

Finally, imposing such tariffs on imports will lead to responses from the countries that had been providing the goods.  Under the agreed rules of international trade, those countries can then impose commensurate tariffs of their own on products they had been importing from the US.  This will harm industries that may otherwise have been totally innocent in whatever was behind the dispute.

An example of what can then happen has been the impact on Harley-Davidson, the American manufacturer of heavy motorcycles (affectionately referred to as “hogs”).  Harley-Davidson is facing what has been described as a “triple whammy” from Trump’s trade decisions.  First, they are facing higher steel (and aluminum) prices for their production in the US, due to the Trump steel and aluminum tariffs.  Harley estimates this will add $20 million to their costs in their US plants.  For a medium-sized company, this is significant.  As of the end of 2017, Harley-Davidson had 5,200 employees in the US (see page 7 of this SEC filing).  With $20 million, they could pay each of their workers $3,850 more.  This is not a small amount.  Instead, the funds will go to bolster the profits of steel and aluminum firms.

Second, the EU has responded to the Trump tariffs on their steel and aluminum by imposing tariffs of their own on US motorcycle imports.  This would add $45 million in costs (or $2,200 per motorcycle) should Harley-Davidson continue to export motorcycles from the US to the EU.  Quite rationally, Harley-Davidson responded that they will now need to shift what had been US production to one of their plants located abroad, to avoid both the higher costs resulting from the new steel and aluminum tariffs, and from the EU tariffs imposed in response.

And one can add thirdly and from earlier, that Trump pulled the US out of the already negotiated (but still to be signed) Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.  This agreement would have allowed Harley-Davidson to export their US built motorcycles to much of Asia duty-free.  They will now instead be facing high tariffs to sell to those markets.  As a result, Harley-Davidson has had to set up a new plant in Asia (in Thailand), shifting there what had been US jobs.

Trump reacted angrily to Harley-Davidson’s response to his trade policies.  He threatened that “they will be taxed like never before!”.  Yet what Harley-Davidson is doing should not have been a surprise, had any thought been given to what would happen once Trump started imposing tariffs on essential inputs needed in the manufacture of motorcycles (steel and aluminum), coming from our major trade partners (and often closest allies).  And it is positively scary that a president should even think that he should use the powers of the state to threaten an individual private company in this way.  Today it is Harley-Davidson.  Who will it be tomorrow?

There are many other examples of the problems that have already been created by Trump’s new tariffs.  To cite a few, and just briefly:

a)  The National Association of Home Builders estimated that the 20% tariff imposed in 2017 on imports of softwood lumber from Canada added nearly $3,600 to the cost of building an average single-family home in the US and would, over the course of a year, reduce wages of US workers by $500 million and cost 8,200 full-time US jobs.

b)  The largest nail manufacturer in the US said in late June that it has already had to lay off 12% of its workforce due to the new steel tariffs, and that unless it is granted a waiver, it would either have to relocate to Mexico or shut down by September.

c)  As of early June, Reuters estimated that at least $2.5 billion worth of investments in new utility-scale solar installation projects had been canceled or frozen due to the tariffs Trump imposed on the import of solar panel assemblies.  This is far greater than new investments planned for the assembly of such panels in the US.  Furthermore, the jobs involved in such assembly work are generally low-skill and repetitive, and can be automated should wages rise.

So there are consequences from such tariffs.  They might be unintended, and possibly not foreseen, but they are real.

But would the imposition of tariffs necessarily reduce the trade deficit, as Trump evidently believes?  No.  As noted above, the trade deficit would only fall if the tariffs would, for some reason, increase domestic savings or reduce domestic investment.  But tariffs do not enter directly into those factors.  Indirectly, one could map out some chains of possible causation, but these changes in some set of tariffs (even if broadly applied to a wide range of imports) would not have a major effect on overall domestic savings or investment.  They could indeed even act in the opposite direction.

Households, to start, will face higher prices from the new tariffs.  To try to maintain their previous standard of living (in real terms) they would then need to spend more on what they consume and hence would save less.  This, by itself, would reduce domestic savings and hence would increase the trade deficit to the extent there was any impact.

The impacts on firms are more various, and depend on whether the firm will be a net winner or loser from the government actions and how they might then respond.  If a net winner, they have been able to raise their prices and hence increase their profits.  If they then save the extra profits (retained earnings), domestic savings would rise and the trade deficit would fall.  But if they increase their investments in what has now become a more profitable activity (and that is indeed the stated intention behind imposing the tariffs), that response would lead to an increase in the trade deficit.  The net effect will depend on whether their savings or their investment increases by more, and one does not know what that net change might be.  Different firms will likely respond differently.

One also has to examine the responses of the firms who will be the net losers from the newly imposed tariffs.  They will be paying more on their inputs and will see a reduction in their profits.  They will then save less and will likely invest less.  Again, the net impact on the trade deficit is not clear.

The overall impact on the trade deficit from these indirect effects is therefore uncertain, as one has effects that will act in opposing directions.  In part for this reason, but also because the tariffs will affect only certain industries and with responses that are likely to be limited (as a tariff increase today can be just as easily reversed tomorrow), the overall impact on the trade balance from such indirect effects are likely to be minor.

Increases in individual tariffs, such as those being imposed now by Trump, will not then have a significant impact on the overall trade balance.  But tariffs still do matter.  They change the mix of what is produced, from where items will be imported, and from where items will be produced for export (as the Harley-Davidson case shows).  They will create individual winners and losers, and hence it is not surprising to see the political lobbying as has grown in Washington under Trump.  Far from “draining the swamp”, Trump’s trade policy has made it critical for firms to step up their lobbying activities.

But such tariffs do not determine what the overall trade balance will be.

D.  What Role Does Foreign Investment Play in the Determination of the Trade Balance?

While tariffs will not have a significant effect on the overall trade balance, foreign investment (into the US) will.  To see this, we need to return to the basic macro balance derived in Section B above, but generalize it a bit to include all foreign financial flows.

The trade balance is the balance between exports and imports.  It is useful to generalize this to take into account two other sources of current flows in the national income and product accounts which add to (or reduce) the net demand for foreign exchange.  Specifically, there will be foreign exchange earned by US nationals working abroad plus that earned by US nationals on investments they have made abroad.  Economists call this “factor services income”, or simply factor income, as labor and capital are referred to as factors of production.  This is then netted against such income earned in the US by foreign nationals either working here or on their investments here.  Second, there will be unrequited transfers of funds, such as by households to their relatives abroad, or by charities, or under government aid programs.  Again, this will be netted against the similar transfers to the US.

Adding the net flows from these to the trade balance will yield what economists call the “current account balance”.  It is a measure of the net demand for dollars (if positive) or for foreign exchange (if a deficit) from current flows.  To put some numbers on this, the US had a foreign trade deficit of $571.6 billion in 2017.  This was the balance between the exports and imports of goods and services (what economists call non-factor services to be more precise, now that we are distinguishing factor services from non-factor services).  It was negative – a deficit.  But the US also had a surplus in 2017 from net factor services income flows of $216.8 billion, and a deficit of $130.2 billion on net transfers (mostly from households sending funds abroad).  The balance on current account is the sum of these (with deficits as negatives and surpluses as positives) and came to a deficit of $485.0 billion in 2017, or 2.5% of GDP.  As a share of GDP, this deficit is significant but not huge.  The UK had a current account deficit of 4.1% of GDP in 2017 for example, while Canada had a deficit of 3.0%.

The current account for foreign transactions, basically a generalization of the trade balance, is significant as it will be the mirror image of the capital account for foreign transactions.  That is, when the US had a current account deficit of $485.0 billion (as in 2017), there had to be a capital account surplus of $485.0 billion to match this, as the overall purchases and sales of dollars in foreign exchange transactions will have to balance out, i.e. sum to zero.  The capital account incorporates all transactions for the purchase or sale of capital assets (investments) by foreign entities into the US, net of the similar purchase or sale of capital assets by US entities abroad.  When the capital account is a net positive (as has been the case for the US in recent decades), there is more such investment going into the US than is going out.  The investments can be into any capital assets, including equity shares in companies, or real estate, or US Treasury or other bonds, and so on.

But while the two (the current account and the capital account) have to balance out, there is an open question of what drives what.  Look at this from the perspective of a foreigner, wishing to invest in some US asset.  They need to get the dollars for this from somewhere.  While this would be done by means of the foreign exchange markets, which are extremely active (with trillions of dollars worth of currencies being exchanged daily), a capital account surplus of $485 billion (as in 2017) means that foreign entities had to obtain, over the course of the year, a net of $485 billion in dollars for their investments into the US.  The only way this could be done is by the US importing that much more than it exported over the course of the year.  That is, the US would need to run a current account deficit of that amount for the US to have received such investment.

If there is an imbalance between the two (the current account and the capital account), one should expect that the excess supply or demand for dollars will lead to changes in a number of prices, most directly foreign exchange rates, but also interest rates and other asset prices.  These will be complex and we will not go into here all the interactions one might then have.  Rather, the point to note is that a current account deficit, even if seemingly large, is not a sign of disequilibrium when there is a desire on the part of foreign investors to invest a similar amount in US markets.  And US markets have traditionally been a good place to invest.  The US is a large economy, with markets for assets that are deep and active, and these markets have normally been (with a few exceptions) relatively well regulated.

Foreign nationals and firms thus have good reason to invest a share of their assets in the US markets.  And the US has welcomed this, as all countries do.  But the only way they can obtain the dollars to make these investments is for the US to run a current account deficit.  Thus a current account deficit should not necessarily be taken as a sign of weakness, as Trump evidently does.  Depending on what governments are doing in their market interventions, a current account deficit might rather be a sign of foreign entities being eager to invest in the country.  And that is a good sign, not a bad one.

E.  An “Exorbitant Privilege”

The dollar (and hence the US) has a further, and important, advantage.  It is the world’s dominant currency, with most trade contracts (between all countries, not simply between some country and the US) denominated in dollars, as are contracts for most internationally traded commodities (such as oil).  And as noted above, investments in the US are particularly advantageous due to the depth and liquidity of our asset markets.  For these reasons, foreign countries hold most of their international reserves in dollar assets.  And most of these are held in what have been safe, but low yielding, short-term US Treasury bills.

As noted in Section D above, those seeking to make investments in dollar assets can obtain the dollars required only if the US runs a current account deficit.  This is as true for assets held in dollars as part of a country’s international reserves as for any other investments in US dollar assets.  Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in the 1960s, then the Minister of Finance of France, described this as an “exorbitant privilege” for the US (although this is often mistakenly attributed Charles de Gaulle, then his boss as president of France).

And it certainly is a privilege.  With the role of the dollar as the preferred reserve currency for countries around the world, the US is able to run current account deficits indefinitely, obtaining real goods and services from those countries while providing pieces of paper generating only a low yield in return.  Indeed, in recent years the rate of return on short-term US Treasury bills has generally been negative in real terms (i.e. after inflation).  The foreign governments buying these US Treasury bills are helping to cover part of our budget deficits, and are receiving little to nothing in return.

So is the US a “piggybank that everybody is robbing”, as Trump asserted to necessarily be the case when the US is has a current account deficit?  Not at all.  Indeed, it is the precise opposite.  The current account deficit is the mirror image of the foreign investment inflows coming into the US.  To obtain the dollars needed to do this those countries must export more real goods to the US than they import from the US.  The US gains real resources (the net exports), while the foreign entities then invest in US markets.  And for governments obtaining dollars to hold as their international reserves, those investments are primarily in the highly liquid and safe, short-term US Treasury bills, despite those assets earning low or even negative returns.  This truly is an “exorbitant privilege”, not a piggybank being robbed.

Indeed, the real concern is that with the mismanagement of our budget (tax cuts increasing deficits at a time when deficits should be reduced) plus the return to an ideologically driven belief in deregulating banks and other financial markets (such as what led to the financial and then economic collapse of 2008), the dollar may lose its position as the place to hold international reserves.  The British pound had this position in the 1800s and then lost it to the dollar due to the financial stresses of World War I.  The dollar has had the lead position since.  But others would like it, most openly by China and more quietly Europeans hoping for such a role for the euro.  They would very much like to enjoy this “exorbitant privilege”, along with the current account deficits that privilege conveys.

F.  Summary and Conclusion

Trump’s beliefs on the foreign trade deficit, on the impact of hiking tariffs, and on who will “win” in a trade war, are terribly confused.  While one should not necessarily expect a president to understand basic economics, one should expect that a president would appoint and listen to advisors who do.  But Trump has not.

To sum up some of the key points:

a)  The foreign trade balance will always equal the difference between domestic savings and domestic investment.  Or with government accounts split out, the trade balance will equal the difference between domestic private savings and domestic private investment, plus the government budget balance.  The foreign trade balance will only move up or down when there is a change in the balance between domestic savings and domestic investment.

b)  One way to change that balance would be for the government budget balance to increase (i.e. for the government deficit to be reduced).  Yet Trump and the Republican Congress have done the precise opposite.  The massive tax cuts of last December, plus (to a lesser extent) the increase in government spending now budgeted (primarily for the military), will increase the budget deficit to record levels for an economy in peacetime at full employment.  This will lead to a bigger trade deficit, not a smaller one.

c)  One could also reduce the trade deficit by making the US a terrible place to invest in.  This would reduce foreign investment into the US, and hence the current account deficit.  In terms of the basic savings/investment balance, it would reduce domestic investment (whether driven by foreign investors or domestic ones).  If domestic savings was not then also reduced (a big if, and dependant on what was done to make the US a terrible place to invest in), this would lead to a similar reduction in the trade deficit.  This is of course not to be taken seriously, but rather illustrates that there are tradeoffs.  One should not simplistically assume that a lower trade deficit achieved by any means possible is good.

d)  It is also not at all clear that one should be overly concerned about the size of the trade and current account deficits, at where they are today.  The US had a trade deficit of 2.9% of GDP in 2017 and a current account deficit of 2.5% of GDP.  While significant, these are not huge.  Should they become much larger (due, for example, to the forecast increases in government budget deficits to record levels), they might rise to problematic levels.  But at the current levels for the current account deficit, we have seen the markets for foreign exchange and for interest rates functioning pretty well and without overt signs of concern.  The dollars being made available through the current account deficit have been bought up and used for investments in US markets.

e)  Part of the demand for dollars to be invested and held in the US markets comes from the need for international reserves by governments around the world.  The dollar is the dominant currency in the world, and with the depth and liquidity of the US markets (in particular for short-term US Treasury bills) most of these international reserves are held in dollars.  This has given the US what has been called an “exorbitant privilege”, and permits the US to run substantial current account deficits while providing in return what are in essence paper assets yielding just low (or even negative) returns.

f)  The real concern should not be with the consequences of the dollar playing such a role in the system of international trade, but rather with whether the dollar will lose this privileged status.  Other countries have certainly sought this, most openly by China but also more quietly for the euro, but so far the dollar has remained dominant.  But there are increasing concerns that with the mismanagement of the government budget (the recent tax cuts) plus ideologically driven deregulation of banks and the financial markets (as led to the 2008 financial collapse), countries will decide to shift their international reserves out of the dollar towards some alternative.

g)  What will not reduce the overall trade deficit, however, is selective increases in tariff rates, as Trump has started to do.  Such tariff increases will shift around the mix of countries from where the imports will come, and/or the mix of products being imported, but can only reduce the overall trade deficit to the extent such tariffs would lead somehow to either higher domestic savings and/or lower domestic investment.  Tariffs will not have a direct effect on such balances, and indirect effects are going to be small and indeed possibly in the wrong direction (if the aim is to reduce the deficits).

h)  What such tariff policies will do, however, is create a mess.  And they already have, as the Harley-Davidson case illustrates.  Tariffs increase costs for US producers, and they will respond as best they can.  While the higher costs will possibly benefit certain companies, they will harm those using the products unless some government bureaucrat grants them a special exemption.

But what this does lead to is officials in government picking winners and losers.  That is a concern.  And it is positively scary to have a president lashing out and threatening individual firms, such as Harley-Davidson, when the firms respond to the mess created as one should have expected.

Impact of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban on Mass Shootings: An Update, Plus What To Do For a Meaningful Reform

A.  Introduction

An earlier post on this blog (from January 2013, following the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut), looked at the impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban on the number of (and number of deaths from) mass shootings during the 10-year period the law was in effect.  The data at that point only went through 2012, and with that limited time period one could not draw strong conclusions as to whether the assault weapons ban (with the law as written and implemented) had a major effect.  There were fewer mass shootings over most of the years in that 1994 to 2004 period, but 1998 and 1999 were notable exceptions.

There has now been another horrific shooting at a school – this time at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.  There are once again calls to limit access to the military-style semiautomatic assault weapons that have been used in most of these mass shootings (including the ones at Sandy Hook and Stoneman Douglas).  And essentially nothing positive had been done following the Sandy Hook shootings.  Indeed, a number of states passed laws which made such weapons even more readily available than before.  And rather than limiting access to such weapons, the NRA response following Sandy Hook was that armed guards should be posted at every school.  There are, indeed, now more armed guards at our schools.  Yet an armed guard at Stoneman Douglas did not prevent this tragedy.

With the passage of time, we now have five more years of data than we had at the time of the Sandy Hook shooting.  With this additional data, can we now determine with more confidence whether the Assault Weapons Ban had an impact, with fewer shootings incidents and fewer deaths from such shootings?

This post will look at this.  With the additional five years of data, it now appears clear that the 1994 to 2004 period did represent a change in the sadly rising trend, with a reduction most clearly in the number of fatalities from and total victims of those mass shootings.  This was true even though the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was a decidedly weak law, with a number of loopholes that allowed continued access to such weapons for those who wished to obtain them.  Any new law should address those loopholes, and I will discuss at the end of this post a few such measures so that such a ban would be more meaningful.

B.  The Number of Mass Shootings by Year

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (formally the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act”, and part of a broader crime control bill) was passed by Congress and signed into law on September 13, 1994.  The Act banned the sale of any newly manufactured or imported “semiautomatic assault weapon” (as defined by the Act), as well as of newly manufactured or imported large capacity magazines (holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition).  The Act had a sunset provision where it would be in effect for ten years, after which it could be modified or extended.

However, it was a weak ban, with many loopholes.  First of all, there was a grandfather clause that allowed manufacturers and others to sell all of their existing inventory.  Not surprisingly, manufacturers scaled up production sharply while the ban was being debated, as those inventories could later then be sold, and were.  Second and related to this, there was no constraint on shops or individuals on the sale of weapons that had been manufactured before the start date, provided just that they were legally owned at the time the law went into effect.  Third, “semiautomatic assault weapons” (which included handguns and certain shotguns, in addition to rifles such as the AR-15) were defined quite precisely in the Act.  But with that precision, gun manufacturers could make what were essentially cosmetic changes, with the new weapons then not subject to the Act.  And fourth, with the sunset provision after 10 years (i.e. to September 12, 2004), the Republican-controlled Congress of 2004 (and President George W. Bush) simply could allow the Act to expire, with nothing done to replace it.  And they did.

The ban was therefore weak.  But it is still of interest to see whether even such a weak law might have had an impact on the number of, and severity of, mass shootings during the period it was in effect.

The data used for this analysis were assembled by Mother Jones, the investigative newsmagazine and website.  The data are available for download in spreadsheet form, and is the most thorough and comprehensive such dataset publicly available.  Sadly, the US government has not assembled and made available anything similar.  A line in the Mother Jones spreadsheet is provided for each mass shooting incident in the US since 1982, with copious information on each incident (as could be gathered from contemporaneous news reports) including the weapons used when reported.  I would encourage readers to browse through the spreadsheet to get a sense of mass shootings in America, the details of which are all too often soon forgotten.  My analysis here is based on various calculations one can then derive from this raw data.

This dataset (through 2012) was used in my earlier blog post on the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban, and has now been updated with shootings through February 2018 (as I write this).  To be included, a mass shooting incident was defined by Mother Jones as a shooting in a public location (and so excluded incidents such as in a private home, which are normally domestic violence incidents), or in the context of a conventional crime (such as an armed robbery, or from gang violence), and where at least four people were killed (other than the killer himself if he also died, and note it is almost always a he).  While other possible definitions of what constitutes a “mass shooting” could be used, Mother Jones argues (and I would agree) that this definition captures well what most people would consider a “mass shooting”.  It only constitutes a small subset of all those killed by guns each year, but it is a particularly horrific set.

There was, however, one modification in the updated file, which I adjusted for.  Up through 2012, the definition was as above and included all incidents where four or more people died (other than the killer).  In 2013, the federal government started to refer to mass shootings as those events where three or more people were killed (other than the killer), and Mother Jones adopted this new criterion for the mass shootings it recorded for 2013 and later.  But this added a number of incidents that would not have been included under the earlier criterion (of four or more killed), and would bias any analysis of the trend.  Hence I excluded those cases in the charts shown here.  Including incidents with exactly three killed would have added no additional cases in 2013, but one additional in 2014, three additional in 2015, two additional in 2016, and six additional in 2017 (and none through end-February in 2018).  There would have been a total of 36 additional fatalities (three for each of the 12 additional cases), and 80 additional victims (killed and wounded).

What, then, was the impact of the assault weapons ban?  We will first look at this graphically, as trends are often best seen by eye, and then take a look at some of the numbers, as they can provide better precision.

The chart at the top of this post shows the number of mass shooting events each year from 1982 through 2017, plus for the events so far in 2018 (through end-February).  The numbers were low through the 1980s (zero, one, or two a year), but then rose.  The number of incidents per year was then generally less during the period the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect, but with the notable exceptions of 1998 (three incidents) and especially 1999 (five).  The Columbine High School shooting was in 1999, when 13 died and 24 were wounded.

The number of mass shootings then rose in the years after the ban was allowed to expire.  This was not yet fully clear when one only had data through 2012, but the more recent data shows that the trend is, sadly, clearly upward.  The data suggest that the number of mass shooting incidents were low in the 1980s but then began to rise in the early 1990s; that there was then some fallback during the decade the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect (with 1998 and 1999 as exceptions); but with the lifting of the ban the number of mass shooting incidents began to grow again.  (For those statistically minded, a simple linear regression for the full 1982 to 2017 period indicates an upward trend with a t-statistic of a highly significant 4.6 – any t-statistic of greater than 2.0 is generally taken to be statistically significant.)

C.  The Number of Fatalities and Number of Victims in Mass Shooting Incidents 

These trends are even more clear when one examines what happened to the total number of those killed each year, and the total number of victims (killed and wounded).

First, a chart of fatalities from mass shootings over time shows:

 

Fatalities fluctuated within a relatively narrow band prior to 1994, but then, with the notable exception of 1999, fell while the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect.  And they rose sharply after the ban was allowed to expire.  There is still a great deal of year to year variation, but the increase over the last decade is clear.

And for the total number of victims:

 

One again sees a significant reduction during the period the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect (with again the notable exception of 1999, and now 1998 as well).  The number of victims then rose in most years following the end of the ban, and went off the charts in 2017.  This was due largely to the Las Vegas shooting in October, 2017, where there were 604 victims of the shooter.  But even excluding the Las Vegas case, there were still 77 victims in mass shooting events in 2017, more than in any year prior to 2007 (other than 1999).

D.  The Results in Tables

One can also calculate the averages per year for the pre-ban period (13 years, from 1982 to 1994), the period of the ban (September 1994 to September 2004), and then for the post-ban period (again 13 years, from 2005 to 2017):

Number of Mass Shootings and Their Victims – Averages per Year

Avg per Year

Shootings

Fatalities

Injured

Total Victims

1982-1994

1.5

12.4

14.2

26.6

1995-2004

1.5

9.6

10.1

19.7

2005-2017

3.8

38.6

71.5

110.2

Note:  One shooting in December 2004 (following the lifting of the Assault Weapons Ban in September 2004) is combined here with the 2005 numbers.  And the single shooting in 1994 was in June, before the ban went into effect in September.

The average number of fatalities per year, as well as the number injured and hence the total number of victims, all fell during the period of the ban.  They all then jumped sharply once the ban was lifted.  While one should acknowledge that these are all correlations in time, where much else was also going on, these results are consistent with the ban having a positive effect on reducing the number killed or wounded in such mass shootings.

The number of mass shootings events per year also stabilized during the period the ban was in effect (at an average of 1.5 per year).  That is, while the number of mass shooting events was the same (per year) as before, their lethality was less.  Plus the number of mass shooting events did level off, and fell back if one compares it to the previous half-decade rather than the previous 13 year period.  They had been following a rising trend before.  And the number of mass shootings then jumped sharply after the ban was lifted.

The data also allow us to calculate the average number of victims per mass shooting event, broken down by the type of weapon used:

Average Number of Victims per Mass Shooting, by Weapon Used

Number of Shootings

Fatalities

Injured

Total Victims

Semiauto Rifle Used

26

13.0

34.6

47.6

Semiauto Rifle Not Used

59

7.5

5.6

13.1

Semiauto Handgun Used

63

10.0

17.5

27.5

Semiauto Handgun (but Not Semiautomatic Rifle) Used

48

7.7

6.0

13.7

No Semiauto Weapon Used

11

6.6

4.0

10.6

There were 26 cases where the dataset Mother Jones assembled allowed one to identify specifically that a semiautomatic rifle was used.  (Some news reports were not clear, saying only that a rifle was used.  Such cases were not counted here.)  This was out of a total of 85 mass shooting events where four or more were killed.  But the use of semiautomatic rifles proved to be especially deadly.  On average, there were 13 fatalities per mass shooting when one could positively identify that a semiautomatic rifle was used, versus 7.5 per shooting when it was not.  And there were close to 48 total victims per mass shooting on average when a semiautomatic rifle was used, versus 13 per shooting when it was not.

The figures when a semiautomatic handgun was used (from what could be identified in the news reports) are very roughly about half-way between these two.  But note that there is a great deal of overlap between mass shootings where a semiautomatic handgun was used and where a semiautomatic rifle was also used.  Mass shooters typically take multiple weapons with them as they plan out their attacks, including semiautomatic handguns along with their semiautomatic rifles.  The fourth line in the table shows the figures when a semiautomatic handgun was used but not also a semiautomatic rifle.  These figures are similar to the averages in all of the cases where a semiautomatic rifle was not used (the second line in the table).

The fewest number of fatalities and injured are, however, when no semiautomatic weapons are used at all.  Unfortunately, in only 11 of the 85 mass shootings (13%) were neither a semiautomatic rifle nor a semiautomatic handgun used.  And these 11 might include a few cases where the news reports did not permit a positive identification that a semiautomatic weapon had been used.

E.  What Would Be Needed for a Meaningful Ban

It thus appears that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, as weak as it was, had a positive effect on saving lives.  But as noted before, it was flawed, with a number of loopholes which meant that the “ban” was far from a true ban.  Some of these might have been oversights, or issues only learned with experience, but I suspect most reflected compromises that were necessary to get anything approved by Congress.  That will certainly remain an issue.

But if one were to draft a law addressing these issues, what are some of the measures one would include?  I will make a few suggestions here, but this list should not be viewed as anything close to comprehensive:

a)  First, there should not be a 10-year (or any period) sunset provision.  A future Congress could amend the law, or even revoke it, as with any legislation, but this would then require specific action by that future Congress.  But with a sunset provision, it is easy simply to do nothing, as the Republican-controlled Congress did in 2004.

b)  Second, with hindsight one can see that the 1994 law made a mistake by defining precisely what was considered a “semiautomatic” weapon.  This made it possible for manufacturers later to make what were essentially cosmetic changes to the weapons, and then make and sell them.  Rather, a semiautomatic weapon should be defined in any such law by its essential feature, which is that one can fire such a weapon repeatedly simply by pulling the trigger once for each shot, with the weapon loading itself.

c)  Third, fully automatic weapons (those which fire continuously as long as the trigger is pulled) have been banned since 1986 (if manufactured after May 19, 1986, the day President Reagan signed this into law).  But “bump stocks” have not been banned.  Bump stocks are devices that effectively convert a semiautomatic weapon into a fully automatic one.  Following the horrific shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, in which 58 were killed and 546 injured, and where the shooter used a bump stock to convert his semiautomatic rifles (he had many) into what were effectively fully automatic weapons, there have been calls for bump stocks to be banned.  This should be done, and indeed it is now being recognized that a change in existing law is not even necessary.  Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on February 27 that the Department of Justice is re-examining the issue, and implied that there would “soon” be an announcement by the department of regulations that recognize that a semiautomatic weapon equipped with a bump stock meets the definition of a fully automatic weapon.

d)  Fourth, a major problem with the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, as drafted, was it only banned the sale of newly manufactured (or imported) semiautomatic weapons from the date the act was signed into law – September 13, 1994.  Manufacturers and shops could sell legally any such weapons produced before then.  Not surprisingly, manufacturers ramped up production (and imports) sharply in the months the Act was being debated in Congress, which provided then an ample supply for a substantial period after the law technically went into effect.

But one could set an earlier date of effectiveness, with the ban covering weapons manufactured or imported from that earlier date.  This is commonly done in tax law.  That is, tax laws being debated during some year will often be made effective for transactions starting from the beginning of the year, or from when the new laws were first proposed, so as not to induce negative actions designed to circumvent the purpose of the new law.

e)  Fifth, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban allowed the sale to the public of any weapons legally owned before the law went into effect on September 13, 1994 (including all those in inventory).  This is related to, but different from, the issue discussed immediately above.  The issue here is that all such weapons, including those manufactured many years before, could then be sold and resold for as long as those weapons existed.  This could continue for decades.  And with millions of such weapons now in the US, it would be many decades before the supply of such weapons would be effectively reduced.

To accelerate this, one could instead create a government-funded program to purchase (and then destroy) any such weapons that the seller wished to dispose of.  And one would couple this with a ban on the sale of any such weapons to anyone other than the government.  There could be no valid legal objection to this as any sales would be voluntary (although I have no doubt the NRA would object), and would be consistent with the ban on the sale of any newly manufactured semiautomatic weapon.  One would also couple this with the government buying the weapons at a generous price – say the original price paid for the weapon (or the list price it then had), without any reduction for depreciation.

Semiautomatic weapons are expensive.  An assault rifle such as the AR-15 can easily cost $1,000.  And one would expect that as those with such weapons in their households grow older and more mature over time, many will recognize that such a weapon does not provide security.  Rather, numerous studies have shown (see, for example, here, here, here, and here) that those most likely to be harmed by weapons in a household are either the owners themselves or their loved ones.  As the gun owners mature, many are likely to see the danger in keeping such weapons at home, and the attractiveness of disposing of them legally at a good price.  Over time, this could lead to a substantial reduction in the type of weapons which have been used in so many of the mass shootings.

F.  Conclusion

Semiautomatic weapons are of no use in a civilian setting other than to massacre innocent people.  They are of no use in self-defense:  One does not walk down the street, or while shopping in the aisles of a Walmart or a Safeway, with an AR-15 strapped to your back.  One does not open the front door to your house each time the doorbell rings aiming an AR-15 at whoever is there.  Nor are such weapons of any use in hunting.  First, they are not terribly accurate.  And second, if one succeeded in hitting the animal with multiple shots, all one would have is a bloody mess.

Such weapons are used in the military precisely because they are good at killing people.  But for precisely the same reason as fully automatic weapons have been banned since 1986 (and tightly regulated since 1934), semiautomatic weapons should be similarly banned.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban sought to do this.  However, it was allowed to expire in 2004.  It also had numerous loopholes which lessened the effectiveness it could have had.  Despite this, the number of those killed and injured in mass shootings fell back substantially while that law was in effect, and then jumped after it expired.  And the number of mass shooting events per year leveled off or fell while it was in effect (depending on the period it is being compared to), and then also jumped once it expired.

There are, however, a number of ways a new law banning such weapons could be written to close off those loopholes.  A partial list is discussed above.  I fully recognize, however, that the likelihood of such a law passing in the current political environment, where Republicans control both the Senate and the House as well as the presidency, are close to nil.  One can hope that at some point in the future the political environment will change to the point where an effective ban on semiautomatic weapons can be passed.  After all, President Reagan, the hero of Republican conservatives, did sign into law the 1986 act that banned fully automatic weapons.  Sadly, I expect many more school children will die from such shootings before this will happen.

The Revenue and Distributional Impacts of the Senate Republican Tax Plan

A.  Introduction

To truly understand the Republican tax plans now winding their way through Congress, one must look at the specifics of what is being proposed.  And the more closely one looks, the more appalling these plans are seen to be.  The blatant greed is breathtaking.  Despite repeatedly asserting that the plans would provide tax cuts for the middle class, the specific proposals now before Congress would in fact do the opposite.  Figures will be provided below.  And while the Secretary of the Treasury has repeatedly stated that only millionaires will pay more in taxes, the specific proposals now before Congress would in fact give millionaires huge cuts in the taxes they owe.

While provisions in the plans are changing daily, with certain differences between the versions being considered in the House and in the Senate as well as between these and what the White House set out in late September, the overall framework has remained the same (as the proponents themselves are emphasizing).  And this really is a Republican plan.  The House version was passed on a largely party-line vote with no Democrats in favor and only a small number of Republicans opposed, and the Senate version will require (assuming all Democrats vote against as they have been shut out of the process) 50 of the 52 Republican Senators (96%) to vote in favor.  The Republican leadership could have chosen to work with Democrats to develop a proposal that could receive at least some Democratic support, but decided not to.  Indeed, while their plans have been developed by a small group since Trump assumed the presidency in January, the specifics were kept secret as long as possible.  This made it impossible (deliberately) for there to be any independent analysis.  They are now trying to rush this through the House and the Senate, with votes taken as quickly as possible before the public (and the legislators themselves) can assess what is being voted upon.  The committees responsible for the legislation have not even held any hearings with independent experts.  And the Congressional Budget Office has said it will be unable to produce the analysis of the impacts normally required for such legislation, due to the compression of the schedule.

Fortunately, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT, a joint committee of both the House and the Senate) have been able to provide limited assessments of the legislation, focused on the budgetary and distributional impacts, as they are minimally required to do.  This blog post will use their most recent analysis (as I write this) of the current version of the Senate bill to look at who would be gaining and who would be losing, if this plan is approved.

As a first step, however, it would be good to address the claim that these Republican tax plans will spur such a jump in economic growth that they will pay for themselves.  This will not happen.  First, as earlier posts on this blog have discussed, there is no evidence from the historical data to support this.  Taxes, both on individuals and at the corporate level, have been cut sharply in the US since Reagan was president, and they have not led to higher growth.   All they did was add to the deficit.  Nor does one see this in the long-term data.  The highest individual income tax rates were at 91 or 92% (at just the federal level) between 1951 and 1963, and at 70% or more up until 1980.  The highest corporate income tax rate was 52% between 1952 and 1963, and then 46% or more up until 1986.  Yet the economy performed better in these decades than it has since.  The White House is also claiming that the proposed cut in corporate income taxes will lead to a rise in real wages of $4,000 to $9,000.  But there is no evidence in the historical data to support such a claim, which many economists have rejected as just absurd.  Corporate income tax rates were cut sharply in 1986, under Reagan, but real wages did not then rise – they in fact fell.

Finally, the assertion that tax cuts will lead to a large jump in growth ignores that the economy is already at full employment.  Were there to be an incipient rise in growth, leading to employment gains, the Federal Reserve Board would have to raise interest rates to keep the economy from over-heating.  The higher interest rates would deter investment, and one would instead have a shift in shares of GDP away from investment and towards consumption and/or government spending.

Any impact on growth would thus be modest at best.  The Tax Policy Center, using generous assumptions, estimated the tax plan might increase GDP by a total of 0.3% in 2027 and by 0.2% in 2037 over what it would otherwise then be.  An increase of 0.2% over 20 years means an increase in the rate of growth of an average of just 0.01% a year.  GDP figures are not even measured to that precision.

There would, however, be large distributional effects, with some groups gaining and some losing simply from the tax changes alone (and ignoring, for the purposes here, the further effects from a higher government debt plus increased pressures to cut back on government programs).  This blog post will discuss these, from calculations that draw on the JCT estimates of the revenue and distributional impacts.

B.  Revenue Impacts by Separate Tax Programs

The distributional consequences of the proposed changes in tax law depend on which separate taxes are to be cut or increased, what changes are made to arrive at what is considered “taxable income” (deductions, exemptions, etc.), and how those various taxes impact different individuals differently.  Thus one should first look at the changes proposed for the various taxes, and what impacts they will have on revenues collected.

The JCT provides such estimates, at a rather detailed level as well as year by year to FY2027.  The JCT estimates for the tax plan being considered in the Senate as of November 16 is available here.  Estimates are provided of the impacts of over 144 individual changes, for both income taxes on individuals and on various types of business (corporate and other).  A verbal description from the JCT of the Senate chair’s initial proposal is available here, and a description of the most recent changes in the proposal (as of November 14) is available here.  I would encourage everyone to look at the JCT estimates to get a sense of what is being proposed.  It is far more than what one commonly sees in the press, with many changes (individually often small in terms of revenue impact) that can only be viewed as catering to various special interests.

I then aggregated the JCT individual line estimates of the revenue impacts over FY18-27 to a limited set of broad categories to arrive at the figures shown in the chart at the top of this post, and (in a bit more detail) in the following table,:

Revenue Impact of Tax Plan ($billions)

FY18-27

A)  Individual excl. Estate, AMT, & Pass-Through:

  1)  Cuts

-$2,497

  2)  Increases 

 $2,688

     Net, excl. Estate, AMT, & Pass-Through  

    $191

B)  Primarily Applicable to the Rich:

  1)  Increase Estate Tax Exemption

     -$83

  2)  End Alternative Minimum Tax

   -$769

  3)  Tax Pass-Through Income at Lower Rates

   -$225

     Total for Provisions Primarily for Rich

-$1,077

C)  Business – Domestic Income:

  1)  Cut Tax Rate 35% to 20%, and End AMT 

-$1,370

  2)  Other Tax Cuts

   -$139

  3)  Tax Increases

    $826

     Net for Domestic Business

   -$682

D)  Business – Overseas Income:

  1)  End Taxation of Overseas Profit

  -$314

  2)  Other Tax Cuts

    -$21

  3)  Tax Increases (except below)

     $32

     Net for Overseas, excl. amnesty & anti-abuse 

  -$303

  4)  Partial Amnesty on Overseas Profit

    $185

  5)  Anti-abuse, incl. in Tax Havens

    $273

     Overall Totals

-$1,414

Source:  Calculated from estimated tax revenue effects made by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, publication JCX-59-17, November 17, 2017, of the November 16 version of the Republican Chairman’s proposed tax legislation.

a)  Individual Income Taxes

As the chart and table show, while overall tax revenues would fall by an estimated $1.4 trillion over FY18-27 (excluding interest on the resulting higher public debt), not everyone would be getting a cut.  Proposed changes that would primarily benefit rich individuals (doubling the Estate Tax exemption amount to $22 million for a married couple, repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax in full, and taxing pass-through business income at lower rates than other income) would reduce the taxes the rich owe under these provisions by close to $1.1 trillion.  But individual income taxes excluding these three categories would in fact increase, by an estimated $191 billion over the ten years.

This increase of $191 billion in income taxes that most affect the middle and lower income classes, is not a consequence of an explicit proposal to raise their taxes.  That would be too embarrassing.  Rather, it is the net result of numerous individual measures, some of which would reduce tax liability (and which the politicians then emphasize) while others would increase tax liabilities (and are less discussed).  Cuts totaling $2.5 trillion would come primarily from reducing tax rates, from what they refer to as a “doubling” of the standard deduction (in fact it would be an increase of 89% over the 2017 level), and from increased child credits.  But there would also be increases totaling close to $2.7 trillion, primarily from eliminating the personal exemption, from the repeal of or limitation on a number of deductions one can itemize, and from changes that would effectively reduce enrollment in the health insurance market.

Part of the reason for this net tax increase over the full ten years is the decision to try to hide the full cost of the tax plan by making most of the individual income tax provisions (although not the key changes proposed for corporate taxes) formally temporary.  Most would expire at the end of 2025.  The Republican leadership advocating this say that they expect Congress later to make these permanent.  But if so, then the true cost of the plan would be well more than the $1.5 trillion ceiling they have set under the long-term budget plan they pushed through Congress in September.  Furthermore, it makes only a small difference if one calculates the impact over the first five years of the plan (FY18-22).  There would then be a small net reduction in these individual income taxes (excluding Estate Tax, AMT, and Pass-Through) of just $57 billion.  This is not large over a five year period – just 0.6% of individual income taxes expected to be generated over that period.  Over this same period, the cuts in the Estate Tax, the AMT, and for Pass-Through income would total $535 billion, or well over nine times as much.

One should also keep in mind that these figures are for overall amounts collected, and that the impact on individuals will vary widely.  This is especially so when the net effect (an increase of close to $200 billion in the individual income taxes generated) is equal to the relatively small difference between the tax increases ($2.7 trillion in total) and tax cuts ($2.5 trillion).  Depending on their individual circumstances, many individuals will be paying far more, and others far less.  For example, much stress has been put on the “doubling” of the standard deduction.  However, personal exemptions would also be eliminated, and in a household of just three, the loss of the personal exemptions ($4,050 per person in 2017) would more than offset the increase in the standard deduction (from $12,700 to a new level of $24,000).  The change in what is allowed for the separate child credits will also matter, but many households will not qualify for the special child credits.  And if one is in a household which itemizes their deductions, both before and after the changes and for whatever reason (such as for high medical expenses), the “doubling” of the standard deduction is not even relevant, while the elimination of the personal exemptions is.

Taxes relevant to the rich would be slashed, however.  Only estates valued at almost $22 million or more in 2017 (for a married couple after some standard legal measures have been taken, and half that for a single person) are currently subject to the Estate Tax, and these account for less than 0.2% of all estates.  The poorer 99.8% do not need to worry about this tax.  But the Senate Republican plan would narrow the estates subject to tax even further, by doubling the exemption amount.  The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is also a tax that only applies to relatively well-off households.  It would be eliminated altogether.

And pass-through income going to individuals is currently taxed at the same rates as ordinary income (such as on wages), at a rate of up to 39.6%.  The current proposal (as of November 16) is to provide a special deduction for such income equal to 17.4%.  This would in effect reduce the tax rate applicable to such income from, for example, 35% if it were regular income such as wages (the bracket when earnings are between $400,000 and $1.0 million in the current version of the plan) to just 28.9%.  Pass-through income is income distributed from sole proprietorships, partnerships, and certain corporations (known as sub-chapter S corporations, by the section in the tax code).  Entities may choose to organize themselves in this way in order to avoid corporate income tax.  Those receiving such income are generally rich:  It is estimated that 70% of such pass-through income in the US goes to the top 1% of earners.  Such individuals may include, for example, the partners in many financial investment firms, lawyers and accountants, other professionals, as well as real estate entities. There are many revealing examples.  According to a letter from Trump’s own tax lawyers, Trump receives most of his income from more than 500 such entities.  And Jeff Bezos, now the richest person in the world, owns the Washington Post through such an entity (although here the question might be whether there is any income to be passed through).

The JCT estimates are that $83 billion in revenue would be lost if the Estate Tax exemption is doubled, $769 billion would be lost due to a repeal of the AMT, and $225 billion would be lost as a result of the special 17.4% deduction for pass-through income.  This sums to $1,077 billion over the ten years.

Rich individuals thus will benefit greatly from the proposed changes.  Taxes relevant just to them will be cut sharply.  These taxes are of no relevance to the vast majority of Americans.  With the proposal as it now stands, most Americans would instead end up paying more over the ten year period.  And even if all the provisions with expiration dates (mostly in 2025) were instead extended for the full period, the difference would be small, with at best a minor cut on average.  It would not come close to approaching the huge cuts the rich would enjoy.

b)  Taxes on Income of Corporations and Other Businesses

The proposed changes in taxes on business incomes are more numerous.  They would also in general be made permanent (with some exceptions), rather than expire early as would be the case for most of the individual income tax provisions.  There are also numerous special provisions, with no obvious explanation, which appear to be there purely to benefit certain special interests.

To start, the net impact on domestic business activities would be a cut of an estimated $682 billion over the ten year period.  The lower tax revenues result from cutting the tax rate on corporate profits from 35% to 20%, plus from the repeal of the corporate AMT.  The cuts would total $1,370 billion.  This would be partially offset by reducing or eliminating various deductions and other measures companies can take to reduce their taxable income (generating an estimated $826 billion over the period).

However, there would also be measures that would cut business taxes even further (by an estimated $139 billion) on top of the impact from the lower tax rates (and elimination of the AMT).  Most, although not all, of these would be a consequence of allowing full expensing, or accelerated depreciation in some cases, of investments being made (with such full expensing expiring, in most cases, in 2022).  The objective would be to promote investment further.  This is reasonable, but with full expensing of investments many question whether anything further is gained, in terms of investment expenses, from cutting the corporate rate to 20%.

Special provisions include measures for the craft beer industry, which would reduce tax revenues by $4.2 billion.  The rationale behind this is not fully clear, and it would expire in just two years, at the end of 2019.  The measures should be made permanent if they are in fact warranted, but their early expiration suggests that they are not.  Also odd is a provision to allow the film, TV, and theater industries to fully expense certain of their expenses.  But this provision would expire in 2022.  If warranted, it should be permanent.  If not, it should probably not be there at all.

There are a large number of such special provisions.  Individually, their tax impact is small.  Even together the impact is not large compared to the other measures being proposed.  They mostly look like gifts to well-connected interests.

Others lose out.  These include provisions that allow companies to include as a cost certain employee benefits, such as for transportation, for certain employee meals (probably those provided in remote locations), and for some retirement savings provisions.  Workers would likely lose from this.  The proposal would also introduce new taxes on universities and other non-profits, including taxes on certain endowment income and on salaries of certain senior university officials (beyond what they already pay individually).  The revenues raised would be tiny, and this looks more like a punitive measure aimed at universities than something justified as a “reform”.

There would also be major changes in the taxes due on corporate profits earned abroad.  Most importantly, US taxes would no longer be due on such activities.  While this would cost in taxes a not small $314 billion (or $303 billion after a number of more minor cuts and increases are accounted for) over the ten years, also significant is the incentive this would create to relocate plants and other corporate activities to some foreign location where local taxes are low.  There would be a strong incentive, for example, to relocate a plant to Mexico, say, if Mexico offered only a low tax on profits generated by that plant.  The same plant in the US would pay corporate income taxes at the (proposed) 20% rate.  How this incentive to relocate plant abroad could possibly be seen as a positive by politicians who say they favor domestic jobs is beyond me.  It appears to be purely a response to special interests.

The corporate tax cuts are then in part offset by a proposal to provide a partial amnesty on the accumulated profits now held overseas by US companies.  Certain assets held overseas as retained earnings would be taxed at 5% and certain others at 10%.  Under current US law, corporate profits earned overseas are only subject to US taxes (at the 35% rate currently, net of taxes already paid abroad in the countries where they operate) when those profits are repatriated to the US.  As long as they are held overseas, they are not taxed by the US.  An earlier partial amnesty on such profits, in 2004 during the Bush administration, led to the not unreasonable expectation that there would again be a partial amnesty on such taxes otherwise due when Republicans once again controlled congress and the presidency.  This created a strong incentive to hold accumulated retained earnings overseas for as long as possible, and that is exactly what happened.  Profits repatriated following the 2004 law were taxed at a rate of just 5.25%.

The result is that US companies now hold abroad at least $2.6 trillion in earnings.  And this $2.6 trillion estimate, commonly cited, is certainly an underestimate.  It was calculated based on a review of the corporate financial disclosures of 322 of the Fortune 500 companies, for the 322 such companies where disclosures permitted an estimate to be made.  Based also on the deductible foreign taxes that had been paid on such overseas retained earnings, the authors conservatively estimate that $767 billion in corporate income taxes would be due on the retained earnings held overseas by the 322 companies.  But clearly it would be far higher, as the 322 companies, while among the larger US companies, are only a sub-set of all US companies with earnings held abroad.

Thus to count the $185 billion (line D.4. in the table above) as a revenue-raising measure is a bit misleading.  It is true that compared to doing nothing, where one would leave in place current US tax law which allows taxes on overseas profits to be avoided until repatriated, revenues would be raised under the partial amnesty if those accumulated overseas earnings are now taxed at 5 or 10%.  But the partial amnesty also means that one will give up forever the taxes that would otherwise be due on the more than $2.6 trillion in earnings held overseas.  Relative to that scenario, the amnesty would lead to a $582 billion loss in revenues (equal to an estimated $767 billion loss minus a gain of $185 billion from the 5 and 10% special rates of the amnesty; in fact the losses would be far greater as the $767 billion figure is just for the 322 companies which publish data on what they are holding abroad).  This is, of course, a hypothetical, as it would require a change in law from what it is now.  But it does give a sense of what is being potentially lost in revenues by providing such a partial amnesty.

But even aside from this, one must also recognize that the estimated $185 billion gain in revenues over the next few years would be a one time gain.  Once the amnesty is given, one has agreed to forego the tax revenues that would otherwise be due.  It would help in reducing the cost of this tax plan over the next several years, but it would then lead to losses in taxes later.

Finally, as is common among such tax plans, there is a promise to crack down on abuses, including in this case the use of tax havens to avoid corporate taxes.  The estimate is that such actions and changes in law would raise $273 billion over the next ten years.  But based on past experience, one must look at such estimates skeptically.  The actual amounts raised have normally been far less.  And one should expect that in particular now, given the underfunding of the IRS enforcement budget of recent years.

C.  Distributional Impacts

The above examined what is being proposed for separate portions of the US tax system.  These then translate into impacts on individuals by income level depending on how important those separate portions of the tax system are to those in each income group.  While such estimates are based on highly detailed data drawn from millions of tax returns, there is still a good deal of modeling work that needs to be done, for example, to translate impacts on corporate taxes into what this means for individuals who receive income (dividends and capital gains) from their corporate ownership.

The Tax Policy Center, an independent non-profit, provides such estimates, and their estimate of the impacts of the Republican tax plans (in this case the November 3 House version) has been discussed previously on this blog.  The JCT also provides such estimates, using a fundamentally similar model in structure (but different in the particulars).

Based on the November 15 version of the Senate Republican plan, the JCT estimated that the impacts on households (taxpayer units) would be as follows:

Overall Change in Taxes Due per Taxpayer Unit

Income Category

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

Less than $10,000

-$21

-$5

$9

$11

$18

$10 to $20,000

-$49

$136

$180

$180

$307

$20 to $30,000

-$87

$138

$144

$170

$355

$30 to $40,000

-$288

-$97

-$16

-$10

$284

$40 to $50,000

-$496

-$275

-$197

-$187

$283

$50 to $75,000

-$818

-$713

-$607

-$610

$139

$75 to 100,000

-$1,204

-$1,150

-$962

-$994

-$38

$100 to $200,000

-$2,091

-$2,027

-$1,622

-$1,657

-$118

$200 to $500,000

-$6,488

-$6,319

-$5,176

-$5,510

-$462

$500 to $1,000,000

-$21,581

-$20,241

-$15,611

-$16,417

-$1,495

Over $1,000,000

-$58,864

-$48,175

-$21,448

-$25,111

-$8,871

Total – All Taxpayers

-$1,357

-$1,200

-$901

-$950

$57

Source:  Calculated from estimates of tax revenue distribution effects made by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, publication JCX-58-17, November 16, 2017, of the November 15 version of the Republican Chairman’s proposed tax legislation.

By these estimates, each income group would, on average, enjoy at least some cut in taxes in 2019.  A number of the proposed tax measures are front-loaded, and it is likely that this structure is seen as beneficial by those seeking re-election in 2020.  But the cuts in 2019 vary from tiny ($21 for those earning $10,000 or less, and $49 for those earning $10,000 to $20,000), to huge ($21,581 for those earning $500,000 to $1,000,000, and $58,864 for those earning over $1,000,000).  However, from 2021 onwards, taxes due would actually rise for most of those earning $40,000 or less (or be cut by minor amounts).  And this is already true well before the assumed termination of many of the individual income tax measures in 2025.  With the plan as it now stands, in 2027 all those earning less than $75,000 would end up paying more in taxes (on average) under this supposed “middle-class tax cut” than they would if the law were left unchanged.

The benefits to those earning over $500,000 would, however, remain large, although also declining over time.

D.  Conclusion

The tax plan now going through Congress would provide very large cuts for the rich.  One can see this in the specific tax measures being proposed (with huge cuts in the portions of the tax system of most importance to the rich) and also in the direct estimates of the impacts by income group.  There are in addition numerous measures in the tax plan of interest to narrow groups, that are difficult to rationalize other than that they reflect what politically influential groups want.

The program, if adopted, would lead to a significantly less progressive tax system, and to a more complex one.  There would be a new category of income (pass-through income) receiving a special low tax rate, and hence new incentives for those who are well off to re-organize their compensation system when they can so that the incomes they receive would count as pass-through incomes.  While the law might try to set limits on these, past experience suggests that clever lawyers will soon find ways around such limits.

There are also results one would think most politicians would not advocate, such as the incentive to relocate corporate factories and activities to overseas.  They clearly do not understand the implications of what they have been and will be voting on.  This is not surprising, given the decision to try to rush this through before a full analysis and debate will be possible.  There have even been no hearings with independent experts at any of the committees.  And there is the blatant misrepresentation, such as that this is a “middle-class tax cut”, and that “taxes on millionaires will not be cut”.

If this is passed by Congress, in this way, there will hopefully be political consequences for those who chose nonetheless to vote for it.

Health Insurance Coverage is Improving, Especially in States that Have Not Tried to Block It

health-insurance-cover-2008-to-2015-by-medicaid-states-census-bureau-sept-2016

 

A.    Introduction

The US Census Bureau released on September 13 this year’s editions of three reports which normally come out at about this time:  Its report on Income and Poverty in the United States, its report on Health Insurance Coverage, and its Supplemental Poverty Measure report, which provides figures on poverty when government transfer programs are taken into account.  They all cover the period through 2015.

The reports show exceptionally strong improvements in a range of measures of income and well-being.  To start, real median household incomes rose by an estimated 5.2% in 2015. There has never before been such a large jump in real incomes since this series first started being reported in 1967.  Perhaps more importantly than the overall gains, the Census Bureau data also show that the gains were widespread across income groups (with the poorest 10% decile in fact seeing the largest gains) as well as across race and ethnic groups.  It was not only the rich who saw an improvement.

I should hasten to add that these results are from just one year, and that they follow far less satisfactory results over the last several years.  Real household incomes plummeted in the 2008 downturn in the last year of the Bush administration, and were flat or fell further in most years since.  It should also be recognized that the Census Bureau figures are based on household surveys, and thus that there will be statistical noise (as the Census Bureau emphasizes).  It remains to be seen whether the positive news will continue.  But with labor markets now at or close to levels generally considered to be full employment, and with real wages now rising, it is likely there has been an improvement also in 2016. But we will only know a year from now what the survey results will be.

The Health Insurance Coverage report found that health insurance coverage also improved significantly in 2015, as it had also in 2014 but importantly not in the years before.  The big change in 2014 was of course the coming into effect of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or ObamaCare) reforms, with the introduction of the market exchanges on which the previously uninsured could purchase insurance at a reasonable price, as well as the expansion of Medicaid coverage in a number of states (but not all).  There are now over 20 million more Americans who have health insurance coverage than had it in 2013, before ObamaCare went into effect.

Not surprisingly, the reports received a good deal of news coverage.  It was the lead front page article of the Washington Post the next day, for example.  Not surprisingly also, the White House released a summary of some of the key, highly positive, findings.  But while the news reports focussed on the strong income gains, and many also noted the health insurance gains, I have not seen a chart such as that above which shows the gains in historical context, and with the Medicaid expansion states and non-expansion states shown separately.  This post will discuss that chart and what is going on behind it.

B.  The Gains in Health Insurance Coverage Under ObamaCare

The chart above shows the percentage share of the population without health insurance coverage in each year from 2008 to 2015, with this shown separately for those states where Medicaid was permitted to expand (27 states plus Washington, DC, with the status taken as of January 1, 2015) and for those states that did not allow Medicaid to expand (23 states). The figures were calculated from the underlying data tables (the “HIC” series) used in the Census Bureau Health Insurance Coverage report.  The data series used here comes from the American Community Survey (ACS), which has an extremely large sample size which permits a meaningful state by state breakdown.  It asks whether the individual was uninsured at the time of the interview.

The Health Insurance Coverage report also presents figures at the national level obtained from a different survey called the Current Population Survey – Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC), which is undertaken each Spring. This survey has a smaller sample size than the ACS, which is fine for national level estimates but which does not suffice for state by state breakdowns (as one needs when looking at Medicaid coverage by state).  It also asks the somewhat different question of whether the individual had health insurance cover for the entire previous year, rather than on the date of the interview.

The share of the US population without health insurance coverage fell sharply in 2014 and again in 2015.  Using figures from the ACS, it had fluctuated modestly in the period from 2008 through 2013, rising from 14.6% of the population in 2008 to 15.5% as unemployment hit its peak in 2010, and then recovering slowly to 14.5% by 2013.  It then dropped sharply to 11.7% in 2014 and to 9.4% in 2015.  Critics of ObamaCare asserted at the start that the reforms did not and would not lead to more Americans being covered by health insurance.  That was certainly not the case.  By 2015, there were 20.7 million more Americans with health insurance cover than had it in 2013.  This is far from minor, and can make an immense difference in a family’s life.

The CPS ASEC figures also show a sharp drop in the share of the population without health insurance, with these figures quoted in many of the news reports one might see. With its differing definition of who is not covered (for the entire year, rather than on the date of the interview as in the ACS), the shares are somewhat lower, at 9.1% in 2015.  It fell from a 13.3% share in 2013 and a 10.4% share in 2014 in these estimates of the share of the population who did not have health insurance over the entire year.

By whichever measure, health insurance cover expanded sharply once the ObamaCare reforms entered into effect.  By the ACS measure, the share of the population without health insurance fell from 14.5% of the population in 2013 to 9.4% two years later, or by 5.1% points.  It can be expected to fall further, although not to zero.  Certain groups in the population (including certain immigrant groups) are not eligible for purchasing insurance through the ObamaCare market exchanges, and thus the non-insured rate will never go to zero.  While the floor is not certain, many analysts set the figure at perhaps 4 or 5% of the population.  If so, then the improvement seen so far is approximately half of what might ultimately be achievable, provided politically imposed roadblocks are all removed.

C.  Medicaid Expansion

The chart also shows the shares of the population without health insurance separately for the states that expanded Medicaid coverage (supported by the ACA and an integral part of it) and those that did not. The system as designed under the ACA has that the working poor and lower income classes would obtain health insurance under Medicaid, with eligibility expanded from those with income up to generally 100% of the federal poverty line previously, to 133% from 2014 onwards.  Those with incomes higher than this would purchase insurance from the market exchanges, with a subsidy that phases out as incomes grow and is phased out entirely at 400% of the federal poverty line.  Thus the entire population, no matter how poor, would be able to obtain health insurance.

However, the Supreme Court decided that Medicaid expansion could not be made obligatory on the states even if the federal government is paying for it (as it is here). Rather, the states could choose whether or not to allow Medicaid to expand cover to include those making up to 133% of the federal poverty line.  It would be financially foolish for the states not to, as the federal government would cover 100% of the cost of the expanded coverage in the first several years, with this then phasing down to 90% of the additional cost from 2020 onwards.  But even with the states covering 10% of the cost from 2020, a net gain can be expected for the state budget due to the increased incomes of hospitals, doctors, nurses, and other health car suppliers who would now be providing care to the poor when they need it (and be compensated for it), and the state tax revenues that would be generated by such higher incomes. The states would also save by being able to reduce state payments made to cover a portion of the costs incurred by hospitals to provide health services to patients who were not able to pay for their treatments, due to a lack of health insurance.

Despite this, 23 states (as of January 2015) decided that the low income earners in their states would not be allowed to receive health insurance cover from Medicaid.  Note that these families must indeed be working to be able to have an income of 100% of the federal poverty line (of $24,300 in 2016 for a household of four).  Assuming one wage earner, working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year (no vacations), they would need to earn a wage of $11.68 per hour to earn this much, or well above the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.  More likely there would be two income earners in such a household, each earning a wage rate of closer to the minimum wage, but likely not able to obtain full time employment of 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year.  These households are not slackers, but rather are working hard to get by.

Yet these states are refusing to allow such households to obtain health insurance cover from Medicaid, despite a net financial benefit to their state budgets.  And since the Affordable Care Act was structured that such families would obtain health insurance coverage from Medicaid, and not purchased (with a partial subsidy assistance) through the health insurance market exchanges, they are now left with nothing.  These states have deliberately created a gap where their low income workers are effectively denied access to health insurance.

The reason these states have done this is of course political.  The 23 states (as of January 1, 2015) that had not permitted Medicaid to expand were states with Republican governors or Republican legislatures (or mostly both) that refused to allow Medicaid in their states to serve such families.  And as noted above, this was done even at financial cost to themselves.  Nebulous arguments were given that while the federal government would be paying for most or all of the costs in the near term, the federal government might reverse this later, due perhaps to budget pressures.  But there is no reason why such a reversal should be expected, nor why, if there were indeed such budget pressures, it would apply to Medicaid but not to other federally funded programs that those states are taking advantage of.  Furthermore, if this did indeed happen at some uncertain point in the future, the Medicaid programs in the state could be cut then, rather than now in anticipation that this might somehow happen at some unknown point in the unknown future.

As shown in the chart at the top of this post, the share of the population without health insurance cover fell to just 7.2% in 2015 in the 27 states (plus Washington, DC) that allowed Medicaid to expand, far below the 12.3% in those states that blocked that expansion.  Compared to 2013, before the ObamaCare reforms went into effect, this was a reduction of 5.6% points in the states that allowed Medicaid to expand, versus a reduction of 4.5% points in the states where the expansion was blocked.  Put another way, the share of the population without health insurance fell by 43% in the states that allowed Medicaid to expand, versus a fall of just 27% in the states that blocked it.

Furthermore, the far better improvement in the Medicaid expansion states was from a lower starting point in 2013 (of 12.8% of their population without health insurance, versus 16.7% in the states blocking Medicaid expansion).  One should expect that improvement becomes more difficult as one comes closer to the achievable ceiling in coverage.

But the chart also serves to show that the states blocking Medicaid expansion historically had a high share of their populations without health insurance.  These were conservative states, often relatively poor, with political establishments that did not exhibit great concern over the fact that a high share of their population could not get health insurance.  But not all were poor.  Indeed, the state with the absolute worst share of any state was oil-rich Texas, with 22.1% of its population without health insurance in 2013, and still 17.1% without it in 2015 (where both figures were the highest in the US in the respective years). Out of 50 states (plus Washington, DC), Texas was the worst.  This was a political choice, not an economic one.

It should also be noted that the reduction in the shares of uninsured in those states that allowed Medicaid to expand was not due solely to the increased number of Medicaid enrollees.  Between 2013 and 2015, those states saw 12.2 million of their citizens obtain health insurance cover.  Of these, 7.6 million came from increased enrollment under Medicaid, while 4.5 million came from other health insurance cover (including through the ObamaCare market exchanges).  And as noted above, they were starting from a point where a relatively high share of their citizens (compared to the states where Medicaid expansion was blocked) enjoyed some form of health insurance cover previously.

D.  The States That Allowed Medicaid to Expand Also Had Lower Premiums on ObamaCare Health Insurance Plans than on Company-Based Plans

There is also an interesting finding that the states that allowed Medicaid to expand not only saw greater improvements in the shares of their citizens who enjoyed health insurance cover, but also saw insurance premiums on their ObamaCare exchanges (as of 2016) which were lower than comparable company-sponsored plans in those states.

recent study by the Urban Institute (a non-profit think tank) found that for similar health insurance cover, the full prices (before subsidies) of health insurance purchased through the ObamaCare exchanges were 10% lower on average (at the national level), than the full prices of similar health insurance plans provided through employers. The calculations were made state by state, as costs varied by state, and varied widely.  But on average, the ObamaCare plans cost 10% less.

This may be come as a surprise to many.  The issue is that most employees do not know what the full cost of their company-sponsored health insurance plans in fact is.  The full cost includes not only what they pay directly, but also what they pay indirectly through the employer (which they typically never see) as part of their overall labor compensation package.  But it is part of their wages and a cost that must be covered.

The 10% lower cost is an average at the national level.  But the Urban Institute figures are calculated at the state level, and one can calculate from this how they vary between those states that expanded their Medicaid coverage and those states that blocked it. The results are interesting.  The simple unweighted averages (I did not have the underlying data necessary to calculate a weighted average properly) were:

Health Insurance Plan Costs:  ObamaCare Exchanges vs. Company Based

Unweighted averages

All States      

 -8%

Medicaid Expanded

-15%

Medicaid Not Expanded

   0%

The unweight average lower cost of the ObamaCare plans was 8% nationally.  This is different from the 10% figure the Urban Institute cited because the lower costs were especially large in some of the larger states, such as New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio (all of which had lower costs of 18% or more).  In the unweighted averages, these larger states are weighted the same as smaller states.

But what is especially interesting is that the (unweighted) average lower cost of the ObamaCare plans compared to company based plans was 15% in the states that approved Medicaid expansion but was no different on average in the states that blocked Medicaid expansion.

Why would this be?  It was probably not due to the Medicaid expansion itself.  One would expect Medicaid expansion would lead to lower health insurance costs for those obtaining health insurance.  The reason is that hospitals and other health service providers will have lower costs due to less uncompensated care of patients without health insurance coverage (as more would have Medicaid coverage), and one can expect that these lower costs would then be reflected in lower health insurance costs for those who do pay. However, this should affect health insurance costs of policies purchased through the ObamaCare exchanges and company-based policies similarly, and hence would not likely affect the ratio in cost between the two.

However, the Medicaid expansion states were also the ones that encouraged competitive ObamaCare market exchanges to be established.  They did not seek to block these markets or keep them from functioning well.  They encouraged competition rather than did whatever they could to hinder it.

It was likely due to this greater degree of competition in those states that supported, rather than hindered, the ObamaCare exchanges that explains the lower costs in those states. This is also consistent with the fact noted above that many of the larger states saw especially low costs (relative to company-based plans) than were observed among the relatively smaller states.  The larger states will in general see greater competition, and competition drives down prices.

E.  ObamaCare Issues Remain

One can no longer dispute that ObamaCare has succeeded in its primary goal of making it possible for a higher share of the population to obtain the security of health insurance coverage.  But this certainly does not mean there are no issues with ObamaCare.

Republicans openly acknowledge that they continue to do whatever they can to block the expansion of access to health insurance under ObamaCare.  And these efforts to hinder ObamaCare have achieved some success.  As noted above, states that blocked Medicaid expansion have seen less of a reduction in their uninsured populations than was achieved in the states that allowed that expansion.  But the efforts to block access to ObamaCare went beyond blocking Medicaid.  Most of these states also decided not to implement directly the ObamaCare market exchanges in their states.  The Affordable Care Act envisioned that to best allow local control and adaptation to a state’s particular circumstances, state level authorities would be allowed and indeed encouraged to establish such exchanges.  Fortunately, the law also included a back-up provision that should a state choose not to establish such an exchange, the federal government could do it to allow the citizens of that state access to an affordable health insurance plan.  This was not without difficulties; recall the initial failure of the federal level computer systems when enrollment opened in October 2013 and the system was overwhelmed.

More recently, several of the larger health insurers have decided to withdraw from some of the markets in which they had previously offered health insurance plans on the ObamaCare market exchanges.  Most recently, Aetna announced in August that it would withdraw in 2017 from 11 of the 15 states where it had been offering such plans.  This followed earlier announcements by UnitedHealth and Humana that they also would be scaling back offerings significantly.  This will reduce competition among the insurers in a number of markets around the country, limiting the options enrollees in those markets will have.  Indeed, in some counties around the country there will be only one insurer offering coverage through the exchanges, and (unless something is now done) one county in Arizona where there will be no such insurer offering coverage through the exchanges.

The issues could certainly be addressed, if there is the will.  All major new social programs, including Medicare and Social Security were fine-tuned through new legislation following their launch to address issues that developed.  And this was done on a bipartisan basis. The problem now is that the Republican Party, for political reasons, is doing what it can to block any such adjustments, with the openly stated aim of trying to destroy ObamaCare.

It is still to be seen whether these efforts will succeed.  If they do, the US will revert to its previous system, with millions of Americans denied access to health insurance and with sharply rising health care costs that outpaced general inflation for decades.

Taxes to Pay for Highways: A Switch from the Tax on Gallons of Fuel Burned to a Tax on Miles Driven Would Be Stupid

Impact of Switching from Fuel Tax on Gallons Burned to Tax on Miles Driven

A.  Introduction

According to a recent report in the Washington Post, a significant and increasing number of state public officials and politicians are advocating for a change in the tax system the US uses to support highway building and maintenance.  The current system is based on a tax on gallons of fuel burned, and the proposed new system would be based on the number of miles a car is driven.  At least four East Coast states are proposing pilots on how this might be done, some West Coast states have already launched pilots, and states are applying for federal grants to consider the change.  There is indeed even a lobbying group based in Washington now advocating it:  The Mileage-Based User Fee Alliance.

There is no question that the current federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline is woefully inadequate.  It was last changed in 1993, 23 years ago, and has been kept constant in nominal terms ever since.  With general prices (based on the CPI) now 65% higher, 18.4 cents now will only buy 11.2 cents at the prices of 1993, a decline of close to 40%.  As a result, the Highway Trust Fund is terribly underfunded, and with all the politics involved in trying to find other sources of funding, our highways are in terrible shape. Basic maintenance is simply not being done.

An obvious solution would be simply to raise the gas tax back at least to where it was before in real terms.  Based on where the tax was when last set in 1993 and on the CPI for inflation since then, this would be 30.3 cents per gallon now, an increase of 11.9 cents from the current 18.4 cents per gallon.  Going back even further, the gasoline tax was set at 4 cents per gallon in 1959, to fund the construction of the then new Interstate Highway system (as well as for general highway maintenance).  Adjusting for inflation, that tax would be 32.7 cents per gallon now.  Also, looking at what the tax would need to be to fund adequately the Highway Trust Fund, a Congressional Budget Office report issued in 2014 estimated that a 10 to 15 cent increase (hence 28.4 cents to 33.4 cents per gallon) would be needed (based on projections through 2024).

These fuel tax figures are all similar.  Note also that while some are arguing that the Highway Trust Fund is underfunded because cars are now more fuel efficient than before, this is not the case.  Simply bringing the tax rate back in real terms to where it was before (30.3 cents based on the 1993 level or 32.7 cents based on the 1959 level) would bring the rate to within the 28.4 to 33.4 cents range that the CBO estimates is needed to fully fund the Highway Trust Fund.  The problem is not fuel efficiency, but rather the refusal to adjust the per gallon tax rate for inflation.

But Congress has refused to approve any such increase.  Anti-tax hardliners simply refuse to consider what they view as an increase in taxes, even though the measure would simply bring them back in real terms to where they were before.  And it is not even true that the general population is against an increase in the gas tax.  According to a poll sponsored by the Mineta Transportation Institute (a transportation think tank based at San Jose State University in California), 75% of those polled would support an immediate increase in the gas tax of 10 cents a gallon if the funds are dedicated to maintenance of our streets, roads, and highways (see the video clip embedded in the Washington Post article, starting at minute 3:00).

In the face of this refusal by Congress, some officials are advocating for a change in the tax, from a tax per gallon of fuel burned to a new tax per mile each car is driven.  While I do not see how this would address the opposition of the anti-tax politicians (this would indeed be a totally new tax, not an adjustment in the old tax to keep it from falling in real terms), there appears to be a belief among some that this would be accepted.

But even if such a new tax were viewed as politically possible, it would be an incredibly bad public policy move to replace the current tax on fuel burned with such a tax on miles driven.  It would in essence be a tax on fuel efficiency, with major distributional (as well as other) consequences, favoring those who buy gas guzzlers.  And as it would encourage the purchase of heavy gas guzzlers (relative to the policy now in place), it would also lead to more than proportional damage to our roads, meaning that road conditions would deteriorate further rather than improve.

This blog post will discuss why such consequences would follow.  To keep things simple, it will focus on the tax on gasoline (which I will sometimes simply referred to as gas, or as fuel).  There are similar, but separate taxes, on diesel and other fuels, and their levels should be adjusted proportionally with any adjustment for gasoline.  There is also the issue of the appropriate taxes to be paid by trucks and other heavy commercial vehicles.  That is an important, but separate, issue, and is not addressed here.

B.  The Proposed Switch Would Penalize Fuel Efficient Vehicles

The reports indicate that the policy being considered would impose a tax of perhaps 1.5 cents per mile driven in substitution for the current federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon of gas burned (states have their own fuel taxes in addition, with these varying across states). For the calculations here I will take the 1.5 cent figure as the basis for the comparisons, even though no specific figure is as yet set.

First of all, it should be noted that at the current miles driven in the country and the average fuel economy of the stock of cars being driven, a tax of 1.5 cents per mile would raise substantially more in taxes than the current 18.4 cents per gallon of gas.  That is, at these rates, there would be a substantial tax increase.

Using figures for 2014, the average fuel efficiency (in miles per gallon) of the light duty fleet of motor vehicles in the US was 21.4 miles per gallon, and the average miles driven per driver was 13,476 miles.  At a tax of 1.5 cents per mile driven, the average driver would pay $202.14 (= $.015 x 13,476) in such taxes per year.  With an average fuel economy of 21.4 mpg, such a driver would burn 629.7 gallons per year, and at the current fuel tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, is now paying $115.87 (= $.184 x 629.7) in gas taxes per year. Hence the tax would rise by almost 75% ($202.14 / $115.87).  A 75% increase would be equivalent to raising the fuel tax from the current 18.4 cents to a rate of 32.1 cents per gallon.  While higher tax revenues are indeed needed, why a tax on miles driven would be acceptable to tax opponents while an increase in the tax per gallon of fuel burned is not, is not clear.

But the real reason to be opposed to a switch in the tax to miles driven is the impact it would have on incentives.  Taxes matter, and affect how people behave.  And a tax on miles driven would act, in comparison to the current tax on gallons of fuel burned, as a tax on fuel efficiency.

The chart at the top of this post shows how the tax paid would vary across cars of different fuel efficiencies.  It would be a simple linear relationship.  Assuming a switch from the current 18.4 cents per gallon of fuel burned to a new tax of 1.5 cents per mile driven, a driver of a highly fuel efficient car that gets 50 miles per gallon would see their tax increase by over 300%!  A driver of a car getting the average nation-wide fuel efficiency of 21.4 miles per gallon would see their tax increase by 75%, as noted above (and as reflected in the chart).  In contrast, someone driving a gas guzzler getting only 12 miles per gallon or less, would see their taxes in fact fall!  They would end up paying less under such a new system based on miles driven than they do now based on gallons of fuel burned.  Drivers of luxury sports cars or giant SUVs could well end up paying less than before, even with rates set such that taxes on average would rise by 75%.

Changing the tax structure in this way would, with all else equal, encourage drivers to switch from buying fuel efficient cars to cars that burn more gas.  There are, of course, many reasons why someone buys the car that they do, and fuel efficiency is only one.  But at the margin, changing the basis for the tax to support highway building and maintenance from a tax per gallon to a tax on miles driven would be an incentive to buy less fuel efficient cars.

C.  Other Problems

The change to a tax on miles driven from the tax on gallons of fuel burned would have a number of adverse effects:

a)  A Tax on Fuel Efficiency:  As noted above, this would become basically a tax on fuel efficiency.  More fuel efficient cars would pay higher taxes relative to what they do now, and there will be less of an incentive to buy more fuel efficient cars.  There would then be less of an incentive for car manufacturers to develop the technology to improve fuel efficiency.  This is what economists call a technological externality, and we all would suffer.

b)  Heavier Vehicles Cause Far More Damage to the Roads:  Heavier cars not only get poorer gas mileage, but also tear up the roads much more, leading to greater maintenance needs and expense.  Heavier vehicles also burn more fuel, but there is a critical difference.  As a general rule, vehicles burn fuel in proportion with their weight: A vehicle that weighs twice as much will burn approximately twice as much fuel.  Hence such a vehicle will pay twice as much in fuel taxes (when such taxes are in cents per gallon) per mile driven.

However, the heavier vehicle also cause more damage to the road over time, leading to greater maintenance needs.  And it will not simply be twice as much damage.  A careful early study found that the amount of damage from a heavier vehicle increases not in direct proportion to its weight, but rather approximately according to the fourth power of the ratio of the weights.  That is, a vehicle that weighs twice as much (for the same number of axles distributing the weight) will cause damage equal to 2 to the fourth power (=16) times as much as the lighter vehicle.  Hence if they were to pay taxes proportionate to the damage they do, a vehicle that is twice as heavy should pay 16 times more in taxes, not simply twice as much.

(Note that some now argue that the 2 to the fourth power figure found before might be an over-estimate, and that the relationship might be more like 2 to the third power.  But this would still imply that a vehicle that weighs twice as much does 8 times the damage (2 to the third power = 8).  The heavier vehicle still accounts for a grossly disproportionate share of damage to the roads.)

A tax that is set based on miles driven would tax heavy and light vehicles the same.  This is the opposite of what should be done:  Heavy vehicles cause far more damage to the roads than light vehicles do.  Encouraging heavy, fuel-thirsty, vehicles by switching from a tax per gallon of fuel burned to a tax per mile driven will lead to more road damage, and proportionately far more cost than what would be collected in highway taxes to pay for repair of that damage.

c)  Impact on Greenhouse Gases:  One also wants to promote fuel efficiency because of the impact on greenhouse gases, and hence global warming, from the burning of fuels. By basic chemistry, carbon dioxide (CO2) is a direct product of fuel that is burned.  The more fuel that is burned, the more CO2 will go up into the air and then trap heat. Economists have long argued that the most efficient way to address the issue of greenhouse gases being emitted would be to tax them in proportion to the damage they do.  A tax on gallons of fuel that are burned will do this, while a tax on miles driven (and hence independent of the fuel efficiency of the vehicle) will not.

An interesting question is what level of gasoline tax would do this.  That is, what would the level of fuel tax need to be, for that tax to match the damage being done through the associated emission of CO2.  The EPA has come up with estimates of what the social cost of such carbon emissions are (and see here for a somewhat more technical discussion of its estimates).  Unfortunately, given the uncertainties in any such calculations, as well as uncertainty on what the social discount rate should be (needed to discount costs arising in the future that follow from emitting greenhouse gases today), the cost range is quite broad. Hence the EPA presents figures for the social cost of emitting CO2 using expected values at alternative social discount rates of 2.5%, 3%, and 5%, as well as from a measure of the statistical distribution of one of them (the 95th percentile for the 3% discount rate, meaning there is only an estimated 5% chance that the cost will be higher than this).  The resulting costs per metric ton of CO2 emitted then range from a low of $11 for the expected value (the 50th percentile) at the 5% discount rate, $36 at the expected value for the 3% discount rate, and $56 for the expected value for the 2.5% discount rate, to $105 for the 95th percentile at a 3% discount rate (all for 2015).

With such range in social costs, one should be cautious in the interpretation of any one. But it may still be of interest to calculate how this would translate into a tax on gasoline burned by automobiles, to see if the resulting tax is “in the ballpark” of what our fuel taxes are or should be.  Every gallon of gasoline burned emits 19.64 pounds of CO2.  There are 2,204.62 pounds in a metric ton, so one gallon of gas burned emits 0.00891 metric tons of CO2.  At the middle social cost of $36 per metric ton of CO2 emitted (the expected value for the 3% social discount rate scenario), this implies that a fuel tax of 32.1 cents per gallon should be imposed.  This is surprisingly almost precisely the fuel tax figure that all the other calculations suggest is warranted.

d)  One Could Impose a Similar Tax on Electric Cars:  One of the arguments of the advocates of a switch from taxes on fuel burned to miles driven is that as cars have become more fuel efficient, they pay less (per mile driven) in fuel taxes.  This is true.  But as generally lighter vehicles (one of the main ways to improve fuel economy) they also cause proportionately far less road damage, as discussed above.

There is also an increasing share of electric, battery-powered, cars, which burn no fossil fuel at all.  At least they do not burn fossil fuels directly, as the electricity they need to recharge their batteries come from the power grid, where fossil fuels dominate.  But this is still close to a non-issue, as the share of electric cars among the vehicles on US roads is still tiny.  However, the share will grow over time (at least one hopes).  If the share does become significant, how will the cost of building and maintaining roads be covered and fairly shared?

The issue could then be addressed quite simply.  And one would want to do this in a way that rewards efficiency (as different electric cars have different efficiencies in the mileage they get for a given charge of electricity) rather than penalize it.  One could do this by installing on all electric cars a simple meter that keeps track of how much it receives in power charges (in kilowatt-hours) over say a year.  At an annual safety inspection or license renewal, one would then pay a tax based on that measure of power used over the year.  Such a meter would likely have a trivial cost, of perhaps a few dollars.

Note that the amounts involved to be collected would not be large.  According to the 2016 EPA Automobile Fuel Economy Guide (see page 5), all-electric cars being sold in the US have fuel efficiencies (in miles per gallon equivalent) of over 100 mpg, and as high as 124 mpg.  These are on the order of five times the 21.4 average mpg of the US auto stock, for which we calculated that the average tax to be paid would be $202.  Even ignoring that the electric cars will likely be driven for fewer miles per year than the average car (due to their shorter range), the tax per year commensurate with their fuel economy would be roughly $40.  This is not much.  It is also not unreasonable as electric cars are kept quite light (given the limits of battery technology) and hence do little road damage.

e)  There Are Even Worse Policies That Have Been Proposed:  As discussed above, there are many reasons why a switch from a tax on fuel burned to miles driven would be a bad policy change.  But it should be acknowledged that some have proposed even worse. One example is the idea that there should be a fixed annual tax per registered car that would fund what is needed for highway building and maintenance.  Some states in fact do this now.

The amounts involved are not huge.  As was calculated above, at the current federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, the driver of a car that gets the average mileage (of 21.4 mpg) for the average distance a year (of 13,476 miles) will pay $115.87 a year.  If the fuel tax were raised to 32.1 cents per gallon (or equivalently, if there were a tax of 1.5 cents per mile driven), the average tax paid would be still just $202.14 per year.  These are not huge amounts.  One could pay them as part of an annual license renewal.

But the tax structured in this way would then be the same for a driver who drives a fuel efficient car or a gas guzzler.  And it would be the same for a driver who drives only a few miles each year, or who drives far more than the average each year.  The driver of a heavy gas guzzler, or one who drives more miles each year than others, does more damage to the roads and should pay more to the fund that repairs such damage and develops new road capacity.  The tax should reflect the costs they are imposing on society, and a fixed annual fee does not.

f)  The Cost of Tax Collection Needs to be Recognized:  Finally, one needs to recognize that it will cost something to collect the taxes.  This cost will be especially high for a tax on miles driven.

The current system, of a tax on fuel burned, is efficient and costs next to nothing to collect.  It can be charged at the point where the gasoline and other fuels leaves in bulk from the refinery, as all of it will eventually be burned.  While the consumer ultimately pays for the tax when they pump their gas, the price being charged at the pump simply reflects the tax that had been charged at an earlier stage.

In contrast, a tax on miles driven would need to be worked out at the level of each individual car.  And if the tax is to include shares that are allocating to different states, the equipment will need to keep track of which states the car is being driven in.  As the Washington Post article on a possible tax on miles driven describes, experiments are underway on different ways this might be done.  All would require special equipment to be installed, with a GPS-based system commonly considered.

Such special equipment would have a cost, both up-front for the initial equipment and then recurrent if there is some regular reporting to the center (perhaps monthly) of miles driven.  No one knows right now what such a system might cost if it were in mass use, but one could easily imagine that a GPS tracking and reporting system might cost on the order of $100 up front, and then several dollars a month for reporting.  This would be a significant share of a tax collection that would generate an average of just $202 per driver each year.

There is also the concern that any type of GPS system would allow the overseers to spy on where the car was driven.  While this might well be too alarmist, and there would certainly be promises that this would not be done, some might not be comforted by such promises.

D.  Conclusion

While one should always consider whether given policies can be changed for the better, one needs also to recognize that often the changes proposed would make things worse rather than better.  Switching the primary source of funding for highway building and maintenance from a tax on fuel burned to a tax on miles driven is one example.  It would be a stupid move.

There is no doubt that the current federal tax on gasoline of 18.4 cents per gallon is too low.  The result is insufficient revenues for the Highway Trust Fund, and we end up with insufficient road capacity and roads that are terribly maintained.

What I was surprised by in the research for this blog post was finding that a wide range of signals all pointed to a similar figure for what the gasoline tax should be. Specifically:

  1. The 1959 gas tax of 4 cents per gallon in terms of current prices would be 32.7 cents per gallon;
  2. The 1993 gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon in terms of current prices would be 30.3 cents per gallon;
  3. The proposal of a 1.5 cent tax per mile driven would be equivalent (given current average car mileage and the average miles driven per year) to 32.1 cents per gallon;
  4. The tax to offset the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions from burning fuel would be (at a 3% social discount rate) 32.1 cents per gallon.
  5. The Congressional Budget Office projected that the gasoline tax needed to fully fund the Highway Trust Fund would be in the range of 28.4 to 33.4 cents per gallon.

All these point in the same direction.  The tax on gasoline should be adjusted to between 30 and 33 cents per gallon, and then indexed for inflation.