Posts
This chart includes the January data released today. Revenues continue to decline, falling to just under 14% of GDP, a level not seen since the early 1940s. Expenditures (both on a rolling 12-month basis) have also declined in recent months, but that mainly reflects the running off of the intense spending associated with bailouts a year ago. Despite the recent declines, spending over the 12 months ended January was about 24% of GDP, a level not seen since World War II.
The deficit over the past year was $1.46 trillion, about 10% of GDP. There have been several industrialized countries that have lived with and survived deficits this large (e.g., Italy and Japan), but that doesn't mean that a deficit of this magnitude is OK. Indeed, I can't think of any country that has enjoyed healthy growth with such a large deficit. The deficit we have now—far from being stimulative as Obama keeps insisting—acts as a big drag on the economy, mainly because it comes entirely from a surfeit of spending and an orgy of expanding government programs and mandates. When government controls so much of our national income it can only do so much less efficiently than the private sector can. Also, with our extremely progressive tax system that calls on the top 10% of income earners to shoulder over 70% of the income tax burden, the incentives to work, invest, and take risk become very distorted.
One of the often-overlooked problems (call them unintended consequences) that come with a very progressive tax system that—like ours does now—relies heavily on things like tax rebates, earned income tax credits, and direct subsidies to lower-income workers, is that it inevitably leads to extremely high marginal tax rates at levels of income that affect a good portion of the middle and lower-middle class. (See my earlier post on this subject.) This means that a person who tries to raise his standard of living may end up paying a marginal rate of 80% on every additional dollar he makes, because at higher income levels he loses his subsidies and rebates. Why work twice as hard if you can only end up with 10 or 20% more? While appearing to help the poor and disadvantaged, it ends up trapping many of them near the bottom rungs of the income ladder.
It would be far better if our tax system relied on a relatively low, flat tax with few or no deductions.
3 comments:
Scott,
At what point would you equate declining Federal and State Income and Sales taxes with a declining GDP?
For example, if sales taxes declined 25%, could GDP be rising?
Scott, this chart is troubling, not just because of the spending side, but moreso the revenue side.
Look at the trajectory of revenue growth during the Clinton years. Had we continued on the same trajectory, we wouldn't have a deficit today.
It would be interesting to see revenue growth during the Reagan years vs. Johnson/Nixon/Ford/Carter.
9/11, the tech bubble pop and the 2001 recession were devastating, killing revenue growth.
Granted, spending was too much, but the trajectory of spending did not become excessive until 2009.
Was Bill Clinton right in raising taxes, or was his presidency the beneficiary of the technology boom?
In my view the only way we will be able to get government revenue back on track is across the board tax cuts.
I'm worried. This administration sees only one solution---government.
ALLEN
It's all very troubling indeed, and I believe this has been a big factor depressing the market over the past year or so.
When you look at different points in time, the story changes quite a bit. A big part of Clinton's spending slowdown was a drastic cut in military spending. Clinton also benefit from the huge dot-com boom which created a one-time flood of capgains taxes.
Reagan had to contend with a Democrat-controlled Congress with little or no spending discipline. Revenues suffered because he had to endure two recessions caused by the tight money necessary to cure the inflation that builit up in the 1970s, thanks to Nixon, Ford and Carter.
Tax cuts and spending rollbacks or freezes are about the only thing that's going to work at this point. Obama doesn't get it, and that's why the Dems are sinking in the polls. It's too early to give up home.
Post a Comment