Kevin Drum sums up a new report: "I'm not sure how many ways it's possible to debunk a single meme, but in this case it's a helluva lot. It turns out that (a) Obama has issued fewer regulations than Bush, (b) adjusted for inflation, they cost less than the average over the past 30 years, (c) this doesn't take into account the benefits of any of his regs anyway, and (d) only about 0.3% of mass layoffs during the Great Recession were related to new regulatory issues."
Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Philadelphia: Does George Bochetto really pay more than half his income in taxes?
Stu Bykofsky, always the contrarian, uses his perch in the Philadelphia Daily News today to let the "Top 1 Percent" respond to the Occupy Wall Street protests. I found this excerpt to be particularly confounding:
Due respect to Bochetto and his rise to riches from the orphanage. Good for him! But does he really pay more than half his income to the government? If so, he needs to hire a new accountant—immediately.
Why do I say that? Because the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of earners—and this combines and includes federal, state, and local taxes—was 30.9 percent in 2008. Here's a chart from Citizens for Tax Justice:
Granted, this is a national overview that's several years old. And granted, Philadelphia can be a little tougher on the pocketbook than a lot of places. But is it so much tougher that Bochetto loses and additional 20 percentage points off his income? Really, really doubtful—especially since the Social Security taxes actually take a bigger bite out of the incomes of low-wage earners than they do millionaires like Bochetto.
We can argue about appropriate tax rates and the responsibility of the rich to help provide services and opportunities for the rest of us. But that argument should be grounded in reality instead of unchallenged hyperbole. Bykofsky didn't help anybody by quoting Bochetto uncritically today.
How do the members of the "1 percent" feel? I asked three - Renee Amoore, Tom Knox and George Bochetto - each a local, unapologetic, self-made millionaire. They believe they already pay their "fair share" in federal taxes.
"I don't only pay the 35 percent," says Center City lawyer Bochetto, who was raised in an orphanage. "I also pay Social Security tax, state and city income tax, property tax. More than half of my income goes to the government. That's my fair share."
Due respect to Bochetto and his rise to riches from the orphanage. Good for him! But does he really pay more than half his income to the government? If so, he needs to hire a new accountant—immediately.
Why do I say that? Because the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of earners—and this combines and includes federal, state, and local taxes—was 30.9 percent in 2008. Here's a chart from Citizens for Tax Justice:
Granted, this is a national overview that's several years old. And granted, Philadelphia can be a little tougher on the pocketbook than a lot of places. But is it so much tougher that Bochetto loses and additional 20 percentage points off his income? Really, really doubtful—especially since the Social Security taxes actually take a bigger bite out of the incomes of low-wage earners than they do millionaires like Bochetto.
We can argue about appropriate tax rates and the responsibility of the rich to help provide services and opportunities for the rest of us. But that argument should be grounded in reality instead of unchallenged hyperbole. Bykofsky didn't help anybody by quoting Bochetto uncritically today.
Did the Bush tax cuts increase or reduce revenue?
During my segment on the Morning in America show with Steve Hayward today, I tossed out the idea that—contrary to Laffer Curve expectations—the Bush tax cuts didn't actually increase revenue to government. That apparently resulted in some controversy after I left the air, with callers saying that I'm dead wrong on the topic.
The easiest response here is to note that before the Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003, the federal government had a surplus of money to fund its operations and pay down the country's debt. After the tax cuts were enacted, we started borrowing money on a full-time basis.
That's not proof on its own, of course, because we tacked on some new spending obligations during the Bush Era—most notably the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, increased national security spending aside from those wars, and the expansion of Medicare benefits to cover prescription drugs.
So, hey, let's look at the revenues:
Bruce Bartlett writes: "According to a recent C.B.O. report, (The Bush tax cuts) reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.
"Spending was $5.6 trillion higher than the C.B.O. anticipated for a total fiscal turnaround of $12 trillion. That is how a $6 trillion projected surplus turned into a cumulative deficit of $6 trillion."
But don't just take the CBO's word for it. Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economics professor, once called advocates of the lower taxes/higher revenue theory "charlatans and cranks": "I used the phrase 'charlatans and cranks' in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."
Mankiw, of course, was one of George W. Bush's top economic advisers from 2003 to 2005. He wrote the paragraph above in 2007. And he was an advocate of the tax cuts—not because they raised revenues (he didn't believe they did) but because he believed they helped spur demand in the face of a challenging economy at the time. So: Not even Bush's own economic advisers who favored tax cuts believed they raised revenues. If that's the case, why should the rest of us?
On a related note: after I left the air Steve apparently chastised me a bit for not providing a top tax rate that's appropriate in a market economy like ours. Fair enough, I guess, but I think it's something of a mug's game to pick a number and stick to it. Different tax rates will be appropriate at different times, depending on the economy, the needs of government—being at war, for example, is more expensive than not being at war—and so forth. I'm not interested in confiscatory levels of taxation—unlike some liberals, I don't hearken back to the Eisenhower-era 90-percent marginal rate on top earners—but I also think we're a long way from there. Perhaps the answer "it depends" isn't rigorous enough, but it also has the advantage of being true.
The easiest response here is to note that before the Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003, the federal government had a surplus of money to fund its operations and pay down the country's debt. After the tax cuts were enacted, we started borrowing money on a full-time basis.
That's not proof on its own, of course, because we tacked on some new spending obligations during the Bush Era—most notably the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, increased national security spending aside from those wars, and the expansion of Medicare benefits to cover prescription drugs.
So, hey, let's look at the revenues:
Bruce Bartlett writes: "According to a recent C.B.O. report, (The Bush tax cuts) reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.
"Spending was $5.6 trillion higher than the C.B.O. anticipated for a total fiscal turnaround of $12 trillion. That is how a $6 trillion projected surplus turned into a cumulative deficit of $6 trillion."
But don't just take the CBO's word for it. Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economics professor, once called advocates of the lower taxes/higher revenue theory "charlatans and cranks": "I used the phrase 'charlatans and cranks' in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."
Mankiw, of course, was one of George W. Bush's top economic advisers from 2003 to 2005. He wrote the paragraph above in 2007. And he was an advocate of the tax cuts—not because they raised revenues (he didn't believe they did) but because he believed they helped spur demand in the face of a challenging economy at the time. So: Not even Bush's own economic advisers who favored tax cuts believed they raised revenues. If that's the case, why should the rest of us?
On a related note: after I left the air Steve apparently chastised me a bit for not providing a top tax rate that's appropriate in a market economy like ours. Fair enough, I guess, but I think it's something of a mug's game to pick a number and stick to it. Different tax rates will be appropriate at different times, depending on the economy, the needs of government—being at war, for example, is more expensive than not being at war—and so forth. I'm not interested in confiscatory levels of taxation—unlike some liberals, I don't hearken back to the Eisenhower-era 90-percent marginal rate on top earners—but I also think we're a long way from there. Perhaps the answer "it depends" isn't rigorous enough, but it also has the advantage of being true.
Welcome "Morning in America" listeners!
Thanks to all of you who listened to me with Steve Hayward this morning. I co-write the RedBlueAmerica column with my conservative friend Ben Boychuk. We also co-produce a regular podcast—our latest episode is a discussion of the "Occupy Wall Street" phenomenon with City Journal's Nicole Gelinas. Give it a listen!
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
More guns, more death
Whenever a gun massacre happens—at Virginia Tech, say, or someplace else—we usually get a revival of the mostly neutered gun debate in this country. Some liberals decry lax gun laws, some conservatives suggest that if only everybody was armed you'd somehow see less gun violence.
A new study from the Violence Policy Center suggests the conservative analysis is wrong:
And here's the graphic overview:
This makes sense, of course, because the only purpose that guns have—when used—is to inflict injury and death. More guns naturally means guns will be used more, which naturally means more people will die. This isn't complicated.
This is particularly notable because, as Frank Bruni discusses in the New York Times today, there's a move among Republicans in Congress to force states with tight concealed-carry laws to recognize and allow concealed-carry permits from states with laxer regulations. (Thanks to the vagaries of Pennsylvania law, we in Philadelphia sometimes find ourselves awash in Florida-permitted guns ... with permit-holders often being people who have never been to Florida.) It's basically a law that would permit Wyoming to export its death rate to Massachusetts.
Second Amendment advocates, I suppose, will talk about Constitutional rights and the costs of freedom. But we should recognize those costs. Guns are not benign instruments.
A new study from the Violence Policy Center suggests the conservative analysis is wrong:
States with higher gun ownership rates and weak gun laws have the highest rates of gun death according to a new analysis by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of just-released 2008 national data (the most recent available) from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Wyoming. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.38 per 100,000 for 2008. Each state has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates. By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death.
And here's the graphic overview:
This makes sense, of course, because the only purpose that guns have—when used—is to inflict injury and death. More guns naturally means guns will be used more, which naturally means more people will die. This isn't complicated.
This is particularly notable because, as Frank Bruni discusses in the New York Times today, there's a move among Republicans in Congress to force states with tight concealed-carry laws to recognize and allow concealed-carry permits from states with laxer regulations. (Thanks to the vagaries of Pennsylvania law, we in Philadelphia sometimes find ourselves awash in Florida-permitted guns ... with permit-holders often being people who have never been to Florida.) It's basically a law that would permit Wyoming to export its death rate to Massachusetts.
Second Amendment advocates, I suppose, will talk about Constitutional rights and the costs of freedom. But we should recognize those costs. Guns are not benign instruments.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Andrew Stiles is wrong: The problem with the economy is lack of demand.
At NRO, Andrew Stiles tries to prove the "regulatory uncertainty" canard is actually true:
Notice anything about items 2 and 3 on that list? "Consumer confidence" and "lack of consumer" demand" are parsed out as two different items, but the effect is the same: Consumers who aren't confident are consumers who aren't buying stuff—thus, they're not demanding the products that businesses provide. Add those two up, and 27 percent of small-business owners see some variation of the demand side as being the biggest problem with the economy.
Which is, ahem, more than say the same for "regulatory uncertainty."
Stiles is guilty of doing some cherry-picking, too, because later on in the same poll, business owners are asked what they need to see in 2012 in order for their business to thrive. Here's that graphic:
Check it out: The number of business owners who see regulations as the big problem suddenly drops by 10 percent when they have to name the thing that would make their business better. Sales increases is No. 1. "Job creation" is No. 2—and I don't think it's a stretch to suspect that what business owners here want is for more of their customers to have jobs so they'll start buying stuff again. Add in "improved economy" in at fourth place, and suddenly you have 37 percent of business owners suggesting that demand is what stands between them and success ... and just 12 percent citing government regulations.
Which makes intuitive sense. Businesses don't like dealing with paperwork and regulations, of course; no one does. But more business owners know that it's not the government that's holding them back right now. It's lack of demand. And we know why there's a lack of demand. Solve that, and we begin to move forward again.
A new Gallup survey asked small-business owners an open-ended question about what they viewed to be “the most important problem” facing the small-business community. It’s not “lack of demand,” as Democrats like to argue. In fact, 22 percent of respondents listed “complying with government regulations” as their top concern.Here's the graphic that Stiles uses as supporting evidence:
Notice anything about items 2 and 3 on that list? "Consumer confidence" and "lack of consumer" demand" are parsed out as two different items, but the effect is the same: Consumers who aren't confident are consumers who aren't buying stuff—thus, they're not demanding the products that businesses provide. Add those two up, and 27 percent of small-business owners see some variation of the demand side as being the biggest problem with the economy.
Which is, ahem, more than say the same for "regulatory uncertainty."
Stiles is guilty of doing some cherry-picking, too, because later on in the same poll, business owners are asked what they need to see in 2012 in order for their business to thrive. Here's that graphic:
Check it out: The number of business owners who see regulations as the big problem suddenly drops by 10 percent when they have to name the thing that would make their business better. Sales increases is No. 1. "Job creation" is No. 2—and I don't think it's a stretch to suspect that what business owners here want is for more of their customers to have jobs so they'll start buying stuff again. Add in "improved economy" in at fourth place, and suddenly you have 37 percent of business owners suggesting that demand is what stands between them and success ... and just 12 percent citing government regulations.
Which makes intuitive sense. Businesses don't like dealing with paperwork and regulations, of course; no one does. But more business owners know that it's not the government that's holding them back right now. It's lack of demand. And we know why there's a lack of demand. Solve that, and we begin to move forward again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Just finished the annual family viewing of "White Christmas." So good. And the movie's secret weapon? John Brascia. Who'...
-
Warning: This is really gross. When the doctors came to me that Saturday afternoon and told me I was probably going to need surgery, I got...
-
John Yoo believes that during wartime there's virtually no limit -- legal, constitutional, treaty or otherwise -- on a president's p...
