Archive for the Tax Policy Category

Crash Social Security Now or Later?

Posted in Entitlements, Tax Policy with tags , , on September 13, 2008 by John Stodder
Greetings from the Future

Greetings from the Future

This is a very scary essay, by Eric S. Raymond, an Internet developer and historian of “hacker culture.”

A presidential administration in the near future — perhaps the one we’re electing this fall — is going to be forced to make a painful choice between doing the right thing and risking impeachment, or doing the wrong thing and being condemned by history as placing his or her own political survival ahead of avoiding a ruinous calamity.

At some point, the U.S. government is going to lose both the ability to increase revenues and the ability to sell bonds. At that point the entitlements system will crash. Transfer checks will either stop issuing or become meaningless because the government has, like some banana republic, hyperinflated the currency in order to get out from under its debt obligations.

Unlike the oncoming European demographic crash, the entitlements crash will be survivable in that there will still be people around to make things and trade things with. But it’s going to be ugly. probably rioting-in-the-streets ugly. People dependent on income transfers will starve or die of preventable diseases in large numbers, unless they can find work or private charity. Since many of those people will be old, work will be unlikely unless they are exceptionally capable at something. Families will have to re-assume the burden of caring for their elderly; retirees without children will be in especially severe jeopardy.

Violent revolutions have been fought over less wrenching economic changes than this one promises to be.

Every so often, it’s a good idea to contemplate the fiscal Moloch of uncontrollable entitlements spending.  Raymond’s blog post may go off the rails into speculative paranoia at moments. But perhaps that’s necessary to shake the political class’ apathy, wishful thinking and selfish short-sightedness.

Here’s what Raymond considers his “optimistic” scenario:

The pain-minimizing strategy, from an economic and human-misery point of view, would be to voluntarily crash those programs now. Learning the adaptations required to live without them would be easier in today’s strong economy than it’s going to be in the world after an uncontrolled crash. This is impossible, however, as it would create immediate grief for the political and bureaucratic class that runs them and for various powerful interest groups allied to it. At present, this coalition is certainly powerful enough to block abolition.

My friend Ken Burnside argues for the near-term crash as follows: “The dinosaur killer on the economy is the 53 trillion dollars of accumulated debt on Social Security/Medicaid, which starts coming due around 2013, when revenues for the program are less than its obligations, and all those ‘IOUs’ that Congress has been writing against the trust fund start coming due.”

My best guess is that 2013 will fall in President Palin’s first term, after McCain steps down and she clobbers the living crap out of an aging and bitter Hillary Clinton. There’s still a possibility, though, that the economy-killer could strike early in an Obama second term. If it goes down that way, I think the chances of Federal flim-flam and hyperinflation go up considerably. Whatever his personal good intentions might be, Obama is heavily tied to interest groups for whom admitting that federal income transfers have to effectively end would be ideological and electoral suicide. Palin isn’t, and thus might — might — be able to administer the harsh medicine required to pull us through with minimum dislocation.

If you want some relief, Raymond’s commenters mostly think he’s being too bleak.

Unemployment: The Big Kahuna Speaks

Posted in Barack Obama, Bush Administration, Economic Statistics, John McCain, Tax Policy with tags on September 5, 2008 by John Stodder
Unemployment hits a 5-year High

Unemployment hits a 5-year High

Of all economic metrics, by far the greatest political weight is assigned to the unemployment number, which today reached a 5-year high of 6.1 percent.

The party out of the White House always, always blames bad job numbers on the party in power. So, whatever convention bump John McCain and Sarah Palin get from this week’s whoop-de-doo will be freighted with renewed concerns about a shrinking economy for ordinary workers.

In addition, the economy suffered a net loss of 84,000 jobs in August, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, compared to a revised reading of a 60,000 job loss in July.

The U.S. economy has lost 605,000 jobs so far this year.

The jobs report immediately drew comment from the presidential candidates as well as the Bush administration.

The White House pointed to other economic readings, including last week’s gross domestic product report. It showed second quarter growth jumping to a 3.3% annual rate, helped by economic stimulus checks and strong exports.

“While these (jobs) numbers are disappointing, what is most important is the overall direction the economy is headed,” said the White House statement.

But the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said the report points out the failure of Republican policies.

“John McCain showed last night that he is intent on continuing the economic policies that just this year have caused the American economy to lose 605,000 jobs,” Obama said in a statement. “John McCain’s answer is more of the same: $200 billion in tax cuts to big corporations and oil companies, and not one dime of tax relief to more than 100 million middle-class families.”

The McCain campaign argued that Obama’s economic policies would cause more job losses in the future.

“Sadly there are those who believe that to grow this economy we must raise taxes, impose costly new mandates and isolate America from the global economy,” McCain said in a statement. “When our economy is hurting, the last thing we should do is raise taxes as Barack Obama plans to do and has done.”

This round goes to Obama. Not because people think, contra McCain, that we should raise taxes in the face of a slowdown.  It’s more primal than that. It’s “throw the bums out,” which is an archaic term for “change.”

Is Income Inequality a Problem?

Posted in Tax Policy with tags , , on August 28, 2008 by John Stodder

The Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy, in part to address extreme income inequality.  The Republicans don’t want to do this because the productivity of the wealthy supports a dynamic economy. Both sides load up their arguments with emotional appeals, ideology and very few facts.

The issue of income inequality gets a more dispassionate examination in a guest post on the Freakonomics blog by William Bernstein, an author with fascinating credentials as a financial theorist, scientist and historian.  He suggests, contrary to the prevailing wisdom, that lower taxes on high-income persons are correlated with lower growth.

After all “respect for property rights” is really, in most cases, shorthand for “respect by the have-nots for the property rights of the haves.” If those on the bottom rungs do not feel that they are getting a fair shake, the very bedrock of our prosperity crumbles into social and economic apartheid as millions of Americans flee to gated communities, millions more are required to staff the burgeoning private security industry, and yet more millions fill our prisons.

This is likely the reason why supply-side economics fails in the real world. Cross national comparisons in developed nations, for example, show no correlation between tax rates and economic growth. Further, the “golden period” of growth in the years before 1973 occurred in an environment of higher tax rates than in the lower-growth 1980’s and 1990’s.

He also associates the US’ rather poor position on various health indices with income inequality.  He says “it is no accident that the U.S., with the highest income inequality among the world’s developed nations, also has the highest incidence of obesity and its attendant comorbidities: diabetes, hypertension, and vascular disease.”

Barron’s Compares the Candidates

Posted in Barack Obama, John McCain, Tax Policy, Wall Street with tags on August 25, 2008 by John Stodder

Barron’s lead story this week compares the “dueling visions” of McCain and Obama with respect to tax policy. It’s no big surprise. They like McCain’s “more growth-oriented” plan better than Obama’s plan, which writer John McTague compares to Herbert Hoover’s.

photo by Paul Falardeau

photo by Paul Falardeau

Obama and his advisors prefer comparisons with Bill Clinton, who raised taxes on high incomes, which did nothing to deter the stock and bond markets from going up and unemployment to fall.  McTague writes that despite the Clinton record,

“Obama’s tax plans, however, point to a philosophy that historically has worried market pros. Raising taxes on the investor class simply doesn’t help investment.

The starkest distinction is in the two plans’ effect on the federal budget.  Obama’s plan would boost revenue by $800 billion over 10 years.  McCain’s plan would cut revenue by $600 billion over 10 years.  He promises fiscal austerity, however, to prevent the deficit from ballooning further.

McTague’s concern for investors is not shared universally on Wall Street, he admits.

(P)lenty of Wall Streeters see no threat to the economy from Obama. Investors like unconventional economic approaches when conventional ones seem to be failing, says Tom Gallagher, an analyst with ISI Group in Washington. Gallagher also notes that in three previous contests where a Democrat won a close contest, there was a selloff after Labor Day, followed by a pre-election rally. He expects this pattern to be repeated if Obama is the frontrunner going into the fall.