Sponsored Content

Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

« Dearborn Suspends the First Amendment | Main | Danger Close: Obama's Quarterly Approval Rating Suggest He Needs Help, Fast, Or He's In Trouble »
April 21, 2011

GDP and Tax Revenue In One Easy Lesson
From the AoSHQ U Continuing Ed. Curriculum

One of the links in Monty's Daily Dose of DOOM!™ today contains a basic misunderstanding of cause and effect on the relationship of tax revenues to GDP that I've seen cropping up all over the place here lately:

A tax hike of 5-6% of GDP doesn't sound like much. But that's a big tax hike if your baseline is 19%--it means that everyone's taxes go up by about a third. If the equilibrium tax revenue at Clinton rates is more like 18-18.5% of GDP, then obviously, they have to go up even higher, from a lower baseline.

Megan McArdle got a lot right in that piece, but she does herself a real disservice in advancing the notion that there's some magic dial the feds can turn and move tax revenues from their historical average of around 19% of GDP up to a higher level on a permanent basis. If there is one, it's never been found.

The feds assume a relationship between the economy and tax revenue that is divorced from reality. Six decades of history have established one far-reaching fact that needs to be built into fiscal calculations: Increases in federal tax rates, particularly if targeted at the higher brackets, produce no additional revenue. For politicians this is truly an inconvenient truth.

The time period in that graph encompasses three major revisions of the Internal Revenue Code (1939, 1954 and 1986) that have taken place since the 16th amendment was ratified. During the period, tax rates were all over the map, with top marginal rates as high as 90% at one point, and deductions, exemptions and credits were tinkered with constantly by Congress. But revenue was always constrained at 20% of GDP.

What's the origin of this limit beyond which it is impossible to extract any more revenue from tax payers? The tax base is not something that the government can kick around at will. It represents a living economic system that makes its own collective choices. In a tax code of 70,000 pages there are innumerable ways for high-income earners to seek out and use ambiguities and loopholes. The more they are incentivized to make an effort to game the system, the less the federal government will get to collect. That would explain why, as Mr. Hauser has shown, conventional methods of forecasting tax receipts from increases in future tax rates are prone to over-predict revenue.

Michael Barone appears to understand this (but Charles Krauthammer doesn't). Barone's piece is well-timed since the Campaigner-in-Chief is out on the trail right now lying through his teeth about solving our fiscal woes by simply taxing those evil millionaires and billionaires, even though he knows (or should know) that his plan to have a plan is merely a campaign gimmick that leaves us, well, doomed. Barone offered up this take on Obama's real motivation on taxes:

But perhaps Barack Obama understands [that higher tax rates result in less tax revenue]. In 2008, he told ABC’s Charlie Gibson that he wanted to raise capital-gains rates even if the government got less revenue because of “fairness.” Evidently he likes taking people’s money away. What he doesn’t explain is why this makes anyone better off.

Sure he knows we're spending more than we can hope to take in, but he'd rather just demonize Paul Ryan for a chance at four more years at the adults' table.

Another audience member gets a question, about the budget proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and the one put forth by Obama’s White House. “Is this a time for boldness, and is your plan bold?”

Obama begins: “I’d call the Ryan plan fairly radical, but not particularly courageous.” On the various cuts to social programs the Ryan plan espouses: “I guess you could call that bold. I would call it shortsighted.” “If you are an entrepreneur with a startup in a garage, good luck getting health insurance,” Obama said. “Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor, who don’t have lobbyists and don’t have power.”

So in addition to grandparents and kids with autism and Downs we now add both entrepreneurs and "the poor" generally to the list of people Paul Ryan has it in for. One thing's certain: Ryan's call for an adult conversation about our fiscal challenges, and his realistic take on tax revenues, fell on predictably deaf ears.

When the Democrats get around to offering an alternative to the House GOP's plan, it should be dead on arrival if it contemplates revenues in excess of the long-term historical average of 19% of GDP. Otherwise, everyone in the country, rich and poor alike, is boned in the name of "fairness."

digg this
posted by Andy at 02:14 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
CrotchetyOldJarhead: "Good morning all my friends in gray boxes! Happ ..."

Biden's Dog sniffs a whole lotta malarkey, : "*throws paper airplane* Posted by: Mr Aspirin Fac ..."

Biden's Dog sniffs a whole lotta malarkey, : "/or doesn't know answer. stumped. Posted by: Bide ..."

Skip: "Fauci could go to Mass every day for the rest of h ..."

Village Idiot's Apprentice: "Thank you, JJ ..."

Martini Farmer: "Yonder Horde ..."

Thanatopsis : "Hola l ..."

Mr Aspirin Factory, red heifer owner: "*throws paper airplane* ..."

Ben Had: "VIA, one hand is for being a thief. Both hands ..."

Biden's Dog sniffs a whole lotta malarkey, : "/knows answer. raises hand. Posted by: Biden's Do ..."

Martini Farmer: "Morning peeps. Another chilly day in store for Bo ..."

Grumpy and Recalcitrant: "I've summoned 'em. ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64