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

Tag Archives: tax revenue

Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan Issues

The candidates agree that tax proposals need to focus on reducing the deficit and on government spending. After that, the divide on tax policy is considerable.

To narrow the gap between revenue and spending, President Obama supports a higher tax rate for the more affluent to fund government spending. By contrast, former Governor Romney says let’s avoid tax increases and be more frugal about most of what we spend.

For us to decide and defend the position that we support, first let’s look at a definition, then at some history and finally at where we are now.

A Definition:
With marginal rates, we divide income into slices, each having a different tax rate. So, very hypothetically, if you earn $30,000, then for the first $10,000 of income, you could pay 5%, then 10% on the next $10,000, and, 20% for the next $10,000.
Some History:
1) Tax rates: Going as far back as the constitutional amendment that legalized the income tax, in 1913 the top marginal rate was 7%, in the 1950s a whopping 92%, and then between 1986 and 1993, 28%. During 1993, the top rate increased to 39.5% and now it is 35%. In 1985, there were 14 marginal tax brackets with the highest, 50%. The 1986 tax act cut the number of brackets down to 2 although some say there was a third 33% bracket because of a surcharge on certain high incomes.
2) Tax revenue: Since 1945, whatever the top rate, the amount of revenue has remained a somewhat constant proportion of GDP. (Please see graph at bottom.)
Where are we now?
1)Those who are more affluent receive a higher proportion of the nation’s income and are paying a larger proportion of all taxes. Specifically, while the income of the top 5% has increased, they are the source of more than 40% of all tax revenue.
2) Due to expire at the end of 2012, the top marginal income tax rate is 35%. Should it and other temporary tax relief provisions be extended? The list of all the possible extensions is here (at the end of the attached article).
This takes us to your goals and always remembering that whatever you support, you are creating incentives, tradeoffs (there is no free lunch), and unintended consequences.
Sources and Resources:
When people say to you that the tax system has become more complex than ever before, you can show them this 1915 tax form. For a superb discussion of current tax dilemmas through the lens of history, this econtalk interview is ideal and well worth the hour or at least a look at the transcript. Finally, if you can access WSJ.com, this (gated) David Wessel analysis of tax issues is very good.
If you want to smile, this 5-minute Pink Panther video about the tax collector is fun.

 

Election Economics Topics:

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

Fruit cranberries drink

“It’s worth fighting for. . . . This is about our economy, it’s about jobs, it’s also about our traditions and our values.”

The speaker was John Kerrey and the topic was the cranberry.

Worried that sugary beverage limitations could move far beyond soda, Massachusetts Senators Kerrey and Brown have formed a 17 member Congressional Cranberry Caucus. As the second largest US cranberry producer (Wisconsin is first), Massachusetts is the home of the $2.5 billion industry. If the Department of Agriculture bans sugary drinks from school lunches and if the Congress taxes sugary drinks, the caucus wants sugar-laden cranberry juice cocktail to be excluded.

Meanwhile, in New York, the soda industry has begun an advertising campaign to fight Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed ban on selling sugary beverages in containers that exceed 16 ounces at regulated stores. Its message? Personal choice is an unacceptable sacrifice.

Fight obesity? Preserve personal choice? Support jobs?

Thinking economically, an opportunity cost chart is always a handy way to gain insight.  At the top we would have “tax sugary drinks” and the alternative, “don’t tax sugary drinks.” Then, for each choice, we could list the benefits.  Two benefits of the tax would be healthier individuals and more government revenue.  Benefits of no tax would be individual freedom, retaining jobs and supporting the cranberry and soft drink industries.

Remembering “choosing is refusing,” which benefits are you willing to sacrifice?

And finally, you might want to take a look at Denmark’s fat food taxes on butter, milk, pizza, any food with more than 2.3% saturated fat content. A news article from April 2011 said the fat food tax for every 2.2 pounds (one kilogram) is $2.90 (16 kroner). In addition, Denmark taxes chocolate, other sweets, sugary drinks and alcohol while limiting trans fats.

To read more about the cranberry caucus, you can look at this Bloomberg/Businessweek article and you can see what Boston.com says about it. For the New York City large size sugary beverage ban, the NY Times has this update. And here, here and here econlife discusses soda and fat taxes.

 

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

15666_5.8_000012700578XSmall

Bottled water has been around for a long time. Bottled Perrier was introduced in 1863 while people first drank a bottled Poland Spring product 13 years later. With bottled water consumption having increased until the recent economic contraction, environmentalists are hoping to perpetuate diminished sales.  As economists, deciding whether or not to drink bottled water is a classic opportunity cost dilemma.

Opponents of bottled water cite alternative potential for the energy and materials used to manufacture and transport plastic bottles. As for the water, preserving natural springs is a priority as is the goal of diminishing corporate influence over our water supply.  

Claiming that they are taking “water in a sustainable way,” Nestle, and other bottled water supporters are the source of jobs and a product. For the aspirational drinker, they claim that sipping a San Pellegrino is a “trendy statement.”

A current battle is being fought over the water that Cascade Locks, Oregon can provide to Nestle. Ideally located for the Northwestern U.S. market, Cascade Locks, a town with 18% unemployment, would enjoy new jobs and tax revenue from Nestle. The local Fish and Wildlife Department supports Nestle’s plan to bring more water to their hatchery and to preserve its aquatic residents. The environmentalist community, though, is concerned about Nestle’s control of a spring, their impact on wildlife, and their takeover of municipal responsibilities.

The Economic Lesson

The choice is between buying and not buying bottled water. Perhaps we can best make a decision when we consider the benefits associated with each alternative and then determine what we are willing to sacrifice. If we do not buy bottled water then the opportunity cost is making the purchase. Correspondingly, we sacrifice such benefits as more jobs for Cascade Locks and tax revenue. All that we sacrifice is the cost of the decision.

 

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