Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: Bush tax cuts

The Congress and the Fiscal Cliff

There might be 2 ways to look at the fiscal cliff.

Specifically, we can focus on tax increases and spending cuts:

Tax Increases

  1. Bush era tax cuts: expire
  2. 2010-2011 2% payroll tax cut: expire
  3. Affordable Care Act taxes: kick in

 

Spending Cuts

  1. Emergency unemployment benefits: expire
  2. Budget sequester (cuts) from Super Committee failure: kick in
  3. Previously legislated budget cuts: kick in
  4. Defense cuts from Iran/Afghanistan reductions: kick in
  5. Medicare payment rates for physicians: reduced

 

More broadly, we can take a step backward and look at the bigger problems that really have to be solved:

  1. 63% of the 2011 federal budget was on “autopilot.” Debating cuts, the Congress only looked at 37% of spending.
  2. 1 of 4 budget dollars is spent on healthcare. Looking back 50 years ago, less than 10% of all spending was healthcare, and looking forward, we are heading toward 33%.
  3. Slicing federal employees and agencies would save money but not nearly enough. Even if we fired the entire federal payroll, the deficit would dip by less than one third.
  4. Defense spending is massive. We spent 1 out of every 5 dollars on defense in 2011.
  5. We now borrow close to 36 cents for every dollar we spend. And yet still, the more affluent are paying a larger proportion in taxes and the middle of the middle class (as expressed in the video) is paying a lower proportion.

 

Where does this leave us? Defined as taxing, spending and borrowing, US fiscal policy is the real fiscal cliff.

Sources and Resources: The specifics of the fiscal cliff are from a past econlife post while the summary of the big issues is from the David Wessel/WSJ video that follows. For even more detail, this Tax Foundation description of the fiscal cliff is good.



Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Uncertainty can slow economic growth.

Uncertainty might impede economic growth.

The research of several economists indicates that policy uncertainty foreshadows and might even cause slower economic activity. To prove their hypothesis, they created an Index of Economic Policy Uncertainty with 3 data components: 1) The frequency that uncertainty and economic appears in news articles. 2) The number of expiring tax provisions. 3) The volume of economic forecasting disagreement. Very simply, they think that when employers are unsure of future regulation, taxes and interest rates, they postpone hiring and investment decisions rather than risk having to reverse them in the future.

This takes us to election results. Will the political gridlock that creates economic uncertainty continue?

Sources and Resources: The economists, Scott R. Baker (Stanford), Nicholas Bloom (Stanford), and Steven Davis (U. of Chicago) have a website that presents their indices and links to their research (the source of the graph that follows) and further discussion of their ideas. For a briefer summary, I suggest this Vox article and a Stanford summary of their work. Do take a look. It certainly relates to election results.

Policy Uncertainty Might Impede Economic Growth

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16898_Mt.Everest.1.30_000011597235XSmall
The fiscal cliff is composed of 8 tax and spending events. Permitting all to occur might be the equivalent of jumping over the edge in an economic dive.
Tax Increases
  1. Bush era tax cuts: expire
  2. 2010-2011 2% payroll tax cut: expires
  3. Affordable Care Act taxes: kick in
Spending Cuts
  1. Emergency unemployment benefits: expire
  2. Budget sequester (cuts) from Super Committee failure: kick in
  3. Previously legislated budget cuts: kick in
  4. Defense cuts from Iran/Afghanistan reductions: kick in
  5. Medicare payment rates for physicians: reduced

 

Affecting financial planning for businesses and households, the 8 fiscal cliff events have countless implications even before 2013. Then, during 2013, if they are implemented, many predict they will lead to diminished economic growth. Others point out though that rather than a fiscal cliff, the cuts in government spending represent fiscal discipline that will lead to a smaller deficit.

During 1969, we might have created another fiscal cliff. There was a 10% surcharge on personal and corporate income taxes, an increase in telephone and auto excise taxes, and a hike in social security payroll taxes. All were supposed to constrain inflation and pay for the Vietnamese War. They did, though, precede the recession that began during the fourth quarter of 1969.

Finally, just 2 definitions. Fiscal refers to the spending taxing and borrowing that the President and the Congress oversee. Fiscal policy is used to guide our economic trajectory and to decide which goods and services government should provide. By contrast, overseen by the Federal Reserve, monetary policy focuses on our supply of money and credit.

These businessinsider articles here and here have excellent summaries and analysis of the fiscal cliff while this CBO (Congressional Budget Office) paper provides a lot more detail. If ever you want to confirm the dates of a specific business cycle, this NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) site is ideal.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

15976_4.10_000005989308XSmall

For some smiles and econ also, the following links are fun.

It all began with Harvard’s N. Gregory Mankiw’s NY Times op-ed column on higher tax rates. Explaining, he said that $1000 wisely invested, with no taxes, became $10,000 in 30 years. By contrast, letting the Bush tax cuts expire slices that $1000 to a $523 check which other taxes further deplete. The result? In 30 years, the amount grows to $1700. Knowing that he would have considerably less to save for his children could result, he said, in writing fewer columns.

Stephen Colbert responded to Mankiw here. And, after that, Mankiw’s students replied to Colbert.

Smiling at the exchange, we can also consider the debate about tax rates and see how Dr. Mankiw’s students used demand and supply to present the impact of Colbert on their teacher.

The Economic Lesson

In Teaching Company Lecture 3, from “History of the U.S. Economy in the 20th Century,” Professor Timothy Taylor describes a roller coaster of tax rates. Starting from a top 77% rate after World World I, rates then descended more than 40%. Taylor tells us that while tax rates fluctuated considerably, tax revenue remained remarkably constant then and at other times during the 20th century.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment