This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Tax Cuts for the Middle Class and Poor STIMULATE The Economy, But Tax Cuts for the Wealthy HURT The Economy

George Washington's picture




 

By Washington’s Blog

 

Preface: There is an argument for repealing all taxes. I have a strong libertarian streak, and there are arguments that government is wasting our tax money on imperial wars which weaken our national security and other shenanigans. There are also various legal arguments alleging that income taxes are illegal. This essay focuses on how taxes - if we do have them - effect the economy.

Extreme conservatives push for tax cuts ... but just for the wealthy.

Extreme liberals are against all tax cuts, believing that we need higher taxes to pay for government programs ... and that taxes somehow won't create any drag on the economy.

Both extremes are wrong.

In fact, tax cuts for the middle class and poor stimulate the economy, but tax cuts for the wealthy hurt the economy.

This is actually a very simple concept, although some politicians and economists unintentionally or intentionally muddy the waters.

As Ed Harrison notes today:

Bruce Bartlett, a Republican political appointee and domestic policy advisor to Ronald Reagan, points out that:

Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.

 

It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year...

 

According to a recent C.B.O. report, they 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.

Bartlett offers this killer chart as a summary of the numbers:

 

Changes in CBO projections 2001-2011

 

If you recall, it was George W. Bush’s father, GWH Bush, who, when campaigning against Reagan, called supply side economics’ claims that tax cuts pay for themselves Voodoo Economics. And Bush was proved right when deficits spiralled out of control and both Reagan and Bush were forced to raise taxes.

 

***

 

The Bush tax cuts accrued disproportionately to the wealthy. The Tax Policy Center shows that 65 percent of the dollar value of the Bush tax cuts accrued to the top quintile, while 20 percent went to the top 0.1 percent of income earners.

 

If you want to talk about redistribution, there it is.

The New York Times reported in 2007:

Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

 

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

 

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — -especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

The Economic Policy Institute reported in June:

The Bush-era tax changes conferred disproportionate benefits to those at the top of the earnings distribution, exacerbating a trend of widening income inequality at a time of already poor wage growth.

 

***

 

The top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies.

 

 

The Bush-era tax cuts were designed to reduce taxes for the wealthy, and the benefits of faster growth were then supposed to trickle down to the middle class. But the economic impact of cutting capital gains rates and lowering the top marginal tax rates never materialized for working families. Inflation-adjusted median weekly earnings fell by 2.3% during the 2002-07 economic expansion, which holds the distinction for being the worst economic expansion since World War II.

This isn't complicated. Rampant inequality largely caused the Great Depression and the current economic crisis (and see this). Cutting taxes on the middle and lower classes reduces inequality and stimulates the consumer economy. But cutting taxes for the wealthy reduces aggregate consumer demand.

As economics professor Robert Reich notes:

First, the rich spend a smaller proportion of their wealth than the less-affluent, and so when more and more wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of the wealth, there is less overall spending and less overall manufacturing to meet consumer needs.

 

Second, in both the Roaring 20s and 2000-2007 period, the middle class incurred a lot of debt to pay for the things they wanted, as their real wages were stagnating and they were getting a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. In other words, they had less and less wealth, and so they borrowed more and more to make up the difference. As Reich notes:

Between 1913 and 1928, the ratio of private credit to the total national economy nearly doubled. Total mortgage debt was almost three times higher in 1929 than in 1920. Eventually, in 1929, as in 2008, there were “no more poker chips to be loaned on credit,” in [former Fed chairman Mariner] Eccles' words. And “when their credit ran out, the game stopped.”

And third, since the wealthy accumulated more, they wanted to invest more, so a lot of money poured into speculative investments, leading to huge bubbles, which eventually burst. Reich points out:

In the 1920s, richer Americans created stock and real estate bubbles that foreshadowed those of the late 1990s and 2000s. The Dow Jones Stock Index ballooned from 63.9 in mid-1921 to a peak of 381.2 eight years later, before it plunged. There was also frantic speculation in land. The Florida real estate boom lured thousands of investors into the Everglades, from where many never returned, at least financially.

Tax cuts for the little guy gives them more "poker chips" to play with, boosting consumer spending and stimulating the economy.

As Reich noted last year:

Small businesses are responsible for almost all job growth in a typical recovery. So if small businesses are hurting, we're not going to see much job growth any time soon.

On the other hand (despite oft-repeated mythology), tax cuts for the wealthiest tend to help the big businesses ... which don't create many jobs.

Indeed, economics professor Steve Keen ran  an economic computer model in 2009, and the model demonstrated that:

Giving the stimulus to the debtors is a more potent way of reducing the impact of a credit crunch [than giving money to the big banks and other creditors].

And as discussed above, Reich notes that tax cuts for the wealthy just lead to speculative bubbles ... which hurt, rather than help the economy.

Indeed, Keen has demonstrated that "a sustainable level of bank profits appears to be about 1% of GDP" ... higher bank profits lead to a ponzi economy and a depression. And too much concentration of wealth increases financial speculation, and therefore makes the financial sector (and the big banks) grow too big and too profitable.

Government policy has accelerated the growing inequality. It has encouraged American companies to move their facilities, resources and paychecks abroad. And some of the biggest companies in America have a negative tax rate ... that is, not only do they pay no taxes, but they actually get tax refunds.  Indeed, instead of making Wall Street pay its fair share, Congress covered up illegal tax breaks for the big banks.

No wonder Ronald Reagan's budget director David Stockman called the Bush tax cuts the "worst fiscal mistake in history", and said that extending them will not boost the economy.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 07/28/2011 - 04:13 | 1500484 pacosan
pacosan's picture

Flat tax Bitchez!

Thu, 07/28/2011 - 07:58 | 1500596 TaxSlave
TaxSlave's picture

@GW -- How dare you sully George Washington's name with this envy bullshit??

When you try to imprison capital, it flees outside the jurisdiction.

How's that workin' for ya so far, you socialist wimp?

Thu, 07/28/2011 - 08:26 | 1500618 falak pema
falak pema's picture

If you let it fly. If the fiscal network is world wide there will be no tax havens anywhere. Then the nation states if they agree to abolishing tax havens like nuclear weapons or humans rights basic abuse can charter their national policies in a framework with international boundaries well chartered on consensual issues, like international waste transport conventions today governed by Basel agreement. Some issues like oil, food, climate change, pollution risks and nuclear threats, fiscal evasion, currency/financial regulations, international crime/human rights violations have to be globally dealt with.

WHY SHOULD THE OLIGARCHS, PRIVATE MULTINATIONALS AND CRIME SYNDICATES, BE TRANSNATIONAL, AND THERE BE UNDER THEIR LOBBYING INFLUENCE IN CONGRESS NO COOPERATION SOUGHT BETWEEN NATION STATE GOVERNMENTS ON ISSUES THAT ARE VITAL TO THE PEOPLE'S WELFARE LIKE COLLECTING TAXES FAIRLY FROM ALL LEVELS OF SOCIETY, NOT JUST THE POOR? 

 

EXPLAIN THAT BEFORE YOU CALL OTHERS : WIMPS.

Thu, 07/28/2011 - 08:44 | 1500650 Sathington Willougby
Sathington Willougby's picture

You might want to think more carefully.  

Tax is taking a person's work at gunpoint.  Plain and simple.  There is no way of getting around that.  It isn't a voluntary agreement or contract.  That makes someone who argues for this action an outright thief.  Yes there are millions of thieves living today.

Consider yourself a thief.  You may want to reconsider your position.

Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:01 | 1500884 falak pema
falak pema's picture

you need someone to pay for schooling, health care, pensions and infrastructure as well as civil defense. Its the job of government. Not of private armies. That has a price for the general good, its called taxation. Kill that and you kill society.

Don't junk history 'cos your wallets getting ripped by Oligarchic kleptocracy, which is the very face of capitalism gone mad. Its extreme expression of a self fulfilling death prophecy. We have to go to paradigm change. By hook or by crook.

Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:31 | 1501026 Vashta Nerada
Vashta Nerada's picture

Health care and pensions should be funded privately.  Nowhere in the constitution do I see any right for the federal government to be involved.  Schooling and infrastructure are local concerns, and should be funded with property taxes, and voted on by property owners. 

Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:17 | 1501175 falak pema
falak pema's picture

You give special rights to property owners to define common good such as schooling services...do you believe in a two tier society? Those with wealth having higher voting power than those without? Why not make it valid for other criteria, like colour, creed, and blood line and have done with it. Back to Neo feudal society with a vengeance.

Remember the more the pyramid of wealth gets asymmetric the higher the level of discontent in the masses. You'll have to junk the Statue of Liberty soon; send it back to the french. Its lesson now irrelevant. 

Thu, 07/28/2011 - 08:37 | 1500636 TaxSlave
TaxSlave's picture

All you wimps that somehow think someone else's work is yours to dispose of have managed to accomplish so far is to drive real capital investment out of the market.

If you succeed in making it impossible to invest anywhere, the capital will go underground, stashed away for a better day or simply to live off until it's gone.

In doing this you have succeeded in making money-changers the dominant force in the economy and killing off the productive sectors.

The bottom line is that printing air-money cannot make anybody rich for very long.  There are more consumers and fewer producers.  As you tighten the noose on producers, there is less and less for you to steal.  That is where we are going with the end of the dollar being cooked up in Washington right now.  As more dollars are printed, the last of the wealth of the nation is stolen by the Friends Of Paper Money directly from the poorer people, who are no longer producing any real wealth to steal because you've made it impossible for them to work.

If you succeed in making it so there is no place to hide, get ready for some blowback.  People are waking up.  They are not your serfs.  You don't own them.  You don't own their work.  Your handiwork has resulted in destroyed industries, gutted towns, lost jobs, lost homes, broken families, destroyed savings.  You people who think you can get anything you want at the point of a gun are going to be held responsible for this.

It's not my debt.  I'm not paying it.  You don't own me.

Thu, 07/28/2011 - 09:51 | 1500850 falak pema
falak pema's picture

taxslave : great proponent for anarchy and neo feudalism; where the Oligarchs rule and the majority get crushed. Rewrite history and you pay the price once again. 

Thu, 07/28/2011 - 09:10 | 1500693 sumo
sumo's picture

It's tapeworm capitalism

http://solari.com/articles/tapeworm_economics/

I heard Chris Whalen (banking analyst) talking about the big banks recently. By his measure of risk-adjusted

rate of return (RAROR), the major banks deliver NEAR-ZERO or NEGATIVE RAROR.

These fuckers are DESTROYING CAPITAL.

 

 

Thu, 07/28/2011 - 08:40 | 1500643 SamuelMaverick
SamuelMaverick's picture

Taxslave, you just described New York State perfectly.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!