Beat the Press is Dean Baker's commentary on economic reporting. Dean Baker is a Senior Economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

Follow on Twitter Like on Facebook Subscribe by E-mail RSS Feed

I had a post that took issue with a WaPo Fact Checker saying that the Republican tax plan will not actually kick 13 million people off insurance. Rather, they will opt not to buy it if they are not required to. I had misunderstood the Congressional Budget Office's analysis and thought it projected premiums would rise 10 percent a year as a result of this change. In fact, they project a cumulative increase of 10 percent.

Add a comment

Tyler Cowen tells us in this Bloomberg piece that the Republicans are right to say that their plans for a big cut in the corporate tax will boost investment. (He is still opposed to the overall package.) I've had several people ask me about this one. I'll give the usual economists' answer: it depends.

If the argument is that other things equal, more cash in corporate coffers means more investment, I'm with Tyler. If we throw a huge pile of money at corporate America, at least some of it has to end up being invested, so Tyler is right on this point.

On the other hand should we expect the investment boom projected by the White House and Tax Foundation, where the capital stock will be 30 percent higher in ten years as a result of the tax cut? That one seems pretty nutty. (Tyler doesn't endorse this view.) There are and have been large disparities in after-tax rates of return between countries. The argument for an investment boom depends on an equalization in after-tax rates of return across countries. (I know, we can wave our hands and explain that by risk premia, but that is just hand waving.) There is little reason to believe that a change in the corporate income tax rate will have a huge effect on investment, even if we can say the direction is to raise it.

It is also worth asking about the other things equal assumption. Suppose that the Fed sees higher projected deficits and decides it has to raise interest rates faster and further. It is entirely possible that these interest rate hikes more than offset any positive effect that the tax cuts have on investment, resulting in a net negative.

Another possibility is that the larger deficits embolden the deficit hawks who then take the hatchet to transfer programs like Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps. The vast majority of this money is spent quickly by the people who get it. The reduction in demand from cuts to these programs could lead to a fall in demand in the economy, thereby reducing the incentive for firms to invest.

We can also envision a story in which state governments are forced to reduce taxes, since their residents can no longer deduct state and local taxes from their federal income taxes. This could lead to a reduction in spending on infrastructure and education, which could also have a negative effect on private investment.

In addition, taxing tuition waivers for grad schools could drastically reduce the supply of new graduates in computer sciences, biotech, and other areas requiring highly skilled workers. This could also lead to less investment.

In all of these cases, the net effect of the Republican tax package could be to reduce investment, but Tyler is right that the immediate effect of a cut in corporate taxes should be to raise investment.  

Add a comment

After having a horde of angry doctors attack me (and my wife) for suggesting that they face market competition, I was happy to see Jonathan Rothwell make the same point in a NYT Upshot piece. However, when running through the causes of runaway income at the top, he gives short shrift to the excessive pay of CEOs and other top executives.

Rothwell comments:

"Most top earners in the United States are neither executives nor even managers. People in those occupations make up just over one-third of all top earners in the United States. This share has been falling — particularly for corporate executives — and is lower than in many other advanced countries. In Denmark, Canada and Finland, close to half of top earners are in managerial occupations, according to my analysis of data from the Luxembourg Income Study."

Well, one-third is a very large percentage of top earners, more than the share of doctors, lawyers, and other highly paid professionals taken together. Also, even if the share of top executives in the one percent fell somewhat, the percent of income going to CEOs soared as the share of income going to the one percent doubled.

Also, CEOs are far more likely to be in the upper reaches of the one percent. Many CEOs are earning paychecks in the tens of millions. Very few doctors or lawyers pocket much over one or two million. 

Add a comment

Reductions in Social Security benefits are extremely unpopular across the political spectrum. The program enjoys enormous support among both Democrats and Republicans and people are far more likely to say that benefits should be raised than cut. For this reason, the public should be paying attention to a little noticed provision in the tax bill passed by the House today and which also appears in the bills under consideration in the Senate.

In both cases, the basis for indexing tax brackets would be shifted from Consumer Price Index (CPI) to the Chained Consumer Price Index (CCPI). The difference is that the CCPI takes account of when people change their consumption patterns in response to changes in relative prices.

The classic example is that beef rises in price and chicken falls, we would expect people to consume less beef and more chicken. The CPI assumes that people don't change their consumption patterns while the CCPI adjusts its basket to assign less importance to beef and greater importance to chicken.

For this reason, the CCPI shows a somewhat lower rate of inflation than the CPI. Typically the gap is 0.2–0.3 percentage points. This matters in the tax bill because the cutoff for the tax brackets is adjusted each year by the CPI. If the CCPI is used rather than CPI, then the cutoffs would rise less rapidly.

For example, if the cutoff for the 25 percent bracket is $40,000 for a single individual and the CPI showed 2.0 percent inflation, then it would rise to $40,800 for the next year. This means a single person would face a tax rate of 25 percent on income above $40,800. If the CCPI showed an inflation rate of 1.7 percent, then the cutoff would rise to $40,680. This means a single person would face a tax rate of 25 percent on income above $40,680.

In a single year, this difference will not mean much, but after 10 years, the difference in the indexes would be between 2.0–3.0 percent and it would grow more through time. This will add a fair bit to many people's tax bills.

Add a comment

Okay, that's not quite what the article said. Instead it told readers:

"Republicans have long championed free trade, believing that by allowing markets to operate unhindered, nations can boost domestic industries, lift their wages and improve living standards."

Wow, so Republicans are motivated by a concern over workers' living standards. It's good we have the NYT to tell us this because we certainly wouldn't know about Republicans' concern for workers based on their behavior. (Yes, Democrats are politicians too and it is reasonable to assume that politicians of both parties are first and foremost concerned about their re-election, which means appeasing powerful interest groups.)

The piece misrepresents many other issues, especially with its repeated use of the term "free trade." What exactly about longer and stronger patent and copyright protection is "free trade?" It's fine that the NYT likes these forms of protectionism and apparently approves of the massive upward redistribution that results from these market interventions, but it is a lie of Trumpian proportions to call them "free trade."

Also our "free trade" deals have done almost nothing to free up trade in highly paid professional services, like those offered by doctors and dentists. As a result our doctors and dentists are paid roughly twice as much as their counterparts in other wealthy countries.

The piece also notes the rise of populism on the left and right and then incredibly tells readers:

"The fissures over trade are a product of a surge in populism on both the political right and left. ...

"Growing anxieties about the unforeseen costs of globalization, the overhang of the financial crisis and the stagnation of the middle class have deeply damaged voters’ faith in the ability of free markets to deliver prosperity — and fractured the Republican Party in the process."

The costs of globalization were hardly "unforeseen." Many of us tried as hard as we could to warn of the costs of exposing large segments of the U.S. workforce to competition with much lower paid workers in the developing world. The more appropriate word here would be "ignored," as in the people in positions of authority deliberately chose to ignore both evidence and the predictions of standard trade theory in pushing trade deals that had the predicted effect of redistributing income upward.

It is also misleading to refer to "free markets" in this context. Trade deals that protect the most highly paid workers, longer and stronger patent and copyright protection, and bailouts of the financial industry when it faces bankruptcy are not characteristics of a free market.

(Yes, all this is covered in my (free) book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rule of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer.)

Add a comment

Everyone knows that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is a genius. After all, he made himself one of the richest people in the world by avoiding the requirement that retailers collect state sales taxes. Yes, Amazon now collects these taxes, but the savings on tax collections in the years it didn't collect taxes almost certainly exceed Amazon's cumulative profits since it's been in business.

While Amazon's tax avoidance may have been legal, it was 100 percent brain-dead as public policy. In effect, state and local governments were directly subsidizing an Internet giant at the expense of their homegrown mom and pop retail stores. It is very difficult to imagine a world in which this policy makes sense.

Anyhow, the NYT apparently feels some need to carry water for Amazon, implying there is some ambiguity about state efforts to require Amazon to collect taxes for sales of its affiliates. It tells us that states are "thirsty" for unpaid sales taxes, as opposed to trying to correct an abuse of the law that benefits a huge company and one of the richest people in the world at the expense of their own retailers.

It is also very generous in presenting Amazon's case, explaining that the company is concerned that it could be held liable for taxes that its affiliates fail to properly assess. This is called "too damn bad." Amazon is making money off its affiliates sales. This means that it carries certain responsibilities for those sales, including that taxes are properly collected. In a market economy, if a company like Amazon can't conduct its business competently, then it should go under and be replaced by businesses run by people who know what they are doing.

Add a comment

University of Maryland economics professor Peter Morici misrepresented the Republican's proposed change in the mortgage interest deduction in a debate with my friend Jared Bernstein on Morning Edition. Morici said that the proposed cap would only hit people paying more than $500,000 in interest on their mortgage. In fact, it would cap the amount of principal on which interest could be deducted at $500,000.

Morici is correct that this would hit very few people, since it means having an outstanding balance on a mortgage of more than $500,000. Furthermore, the cap only applies to the margin over $500,000. This means that someone with outstanding principal of $540,000 would still be able to deduct the interest on $500,000 or more than 90 percent of their interest payment.

It is only the interest on the last $40,000 that would no longer be deductible. If they are paying 4.0% interest on their mortgage this would mean they are missing a deduction of $1,600, which translates into a tax increase of $400 for someone in the 25 percent tax bracket.



Budget Geek reminds me in a comment below that current mortgages are grandfathered so they would still be able to deduct interest on principal in excess of $500,000. (There is already a cap at $1 million.) It is only newly issued mortgages that would be subject to the $500k cap.

Add a comment

The Washington Post may have misled readers on the Trump administration's claims about the impact of its proposed cut in the corporate income tax. It noted the claim that "that more than 70 percent of the corporate tax burden is passed on to U.S. workers." In fact, it is assuming an amount of growth that would vastly exceed the size of the tax cut. If workers get their share of this growth, well over 100 percent of the tax cut would be passed on in higher wages.

That is how it gets the figure of a $4,000 average gain per household. That would come to approximately $560 billion a year, as compared to a tax cut that will average around $150 billion a year.  

Add a comment

Eduardo Porter had a good piece noting that the United States is an outlier among rich countries in that it takes in far less tax revenue each year than other wealthy countries. As a result, it provides less in public services like health care and higher education. However, this is an incomplete story.

Tax collections are only one way in which the government pays for goods and services. There are three other important mechanisms:

1) patent and copyright monopolies;

2) tax expenditures, and;

3) loan guarantees.

While tax collections have increased little over the last three decades, the money committed in these three categories has expanded hugely relatively to the size of the economy over this period.

In the case of patent and copyright monopolies, these are mechanisms that the government uses to pay for innovation and creative work as an alternative to direct spending. For example, the United States could spend another $50 billion a year on biomedical research (in addition to the $32 billion it spends through the National Institutes of Health) and take responsibility for developing and testing new drugs. Instead, it tells the pharmaceutical industry to develop drugs and it will give it patents and other types of monopolies so it can recoup its costs.

Add a comment

The NYT gave us yet another account of an industry that apparently can't get enough workers:

"Trucking is a brutal job. Drivers endure long, tedious stretches where they are inactive but have to stay focused, and they spend weeks at a time away from home. For those and other reasons, the industry’s biggest problem has been the scarcity and turnover of drivers, making it hard to keep up with shipping demand."

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage for production and nonsupervisory employees in the trucking industry went up 2.4 percent. If it is really the case that the industry can't get enough drivers, they may try raising the pay. This is at least what the intro econ textbooks would say.

Add a comment

The NYT had a lengthy article reporting on the Trump administration's efforts to reverse the movement away from fee for service payments to doctors initiated by the Obama administration. Tom Price, who had been head of the the Department of Health and Human Services, was a central figure in this effort.

At one point the piece tells readers that Price:

"...had fought against what he saw as unnecessary government intervention since his days as a surgeon in the suburbs north of Atlanta."

While it is possible that Price "saw" the new payment structures as a "unnecessary" government intervention, we might also think that Price was primarily upset about a payment system that would lower his pay and that of other doctors. It's good that the NYT was able to determine Price's true motives for us.

Add a comment

Yep, that seems to be the point of a major NYT article highlighting increased sales of Canadian lobsters in Europe. The point is that a trade deal between the European Union and Canada eliminated a 7 percent tariff on Canadian lobsters, which remains in place on U.S. lobsters.

To put in some of the perspective that is altogether lacking in this piece, the lobster industry in the United States is a bit under $500 million annually. Or, to put this in some context that might make sense to most NYT readers, it amounts to less than 0.003 percent of US GDP. In other words, the tariff is an issue that might make a difference to a small number of lobster trappers in Maine, but it matters pretty much not at all to the economy. (Actually, the rest of us will pay more for lobster if the tariff on U.S. lobster was eliminated, but the NYT forget to mention this fact.)

Anyhow, the proposed EU–U.S. trade deal, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact (TTIP), actually had very little to do with trade, since trade barriers in almost all areas are already relatively low. The deal was about putting in place a pro-business structure of regulation. Among other things, it would set up special tribunals for investors that would override domestic laws in both the EU and US. It was also protectionist in that it would lock in longer and stronger patent and copyright protections.

Major media outlets, like the NYT, have been strong proponents of this deal using both their news and editorial pages to push it. This piece is an example of a pro-TTIP article that wrongly implies the U.S. is suffering major economic damage as a result of not pursuing TTIP. That is not true.

Add a comment

A front page Washington Post article on the continued use of coal in Germany, in spite of its impact on global warming, told readers that one of the reasons it is difficult to cut back on coal is the industry employs about 20,000 people. Since most readers are unlikely to have a clear idea of the size of Germany's labor force, it would have been helpful to point out that this comes to less than 0.05 percent of its workforce of 43.0 million.

This doesn't mean that job loss for these workers would not still be traumatic, although Germany does provide much better unemployment benefits than the United States. It is important for readers to have some sense of how important employment in the sector is to the nation as a whole, which this piece did not give.

Add a comment

That would appear to the implication of a complaint in a news story that:

"Trump also has spent time during the trip excusing predatory economic behavior of China and other countries and blaming past U.S. administrations for allowing the 'unfair' trade imbalances he railed against during the campaign."

This is an interesting departure from the position the Post had generally taken in both its news and editorial page in the past, which largely derided the view that our pattern of trade was in any way detrimental to the U.S. economy. In particular, the idea that other countries might be managing their currency to maintain large trade surpluses was generally trivialized and those who argued this position were derided as "protectionist." It is interesting that the Post appears to have completely flipped its position on this point.

Add a comment

The Washington Post refuses to follow journalistic norms and maintain a separation between the news and editorial pages when it comes to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Yet again the paper referred to the pact as a "free-trade" agreement.

Of course, the deal is not a free trade pact. It does little, if anything, to remove the barriers that protect highly paid professionals like doctors from international competition. Also, a major focus of the pact is longer and stronger patent and copyright protections.

These forms of protectionism have been a major factor in the upward redistribution of the last four decades. In the case of prescription drugs alone these protections add more than $370 billion annually (almost 2 percent of GDP) to what we spend on drugs. The Post supports these protections and apparently would like its readers to believe that they are somehow part of a free market.

Add a comment

The main claim of proponents of the Republican tax bill is that lowering corporate taxes will lead to a surge in corporate investment. This is supposed to lead to more rapid productivity growth and therefore higher wages.

As those of us who are fond of data have pointed out, the world doesn't seem to work this way. There is very little relationship between after-tax profit rates and investment. In fact, the period of strongest investment was the late 1970s and early 1980s when after-tax profits were at their post-World War II low, while the current period of very high profits has been associated with lackluster investment. This leaves little reason to believe that cutting the corporate tax rate will have much impact on investment. (Of course, we also tried this trick in 1986, also with little impact on investment.) 

But there is another aspect to this story that folks in the reality-based universe should be thinking about. Productivity growth has been dismal in recent years, in spite of all the talk about robots taking our jobs. (Pundits aren't paid to know anything about the world.) Over the last five years, productivity growth has averaged less than 0.7 percent annually. That compares to rates of close to 3.0 percent from 1995 to 2005 and also during the long golden age from 1947 to 1973.

However this may be changing. Last quarter, productivity rose at a 3.0 percent annual rate. As everyone familiar with productivity data knows, the best thing to do with quarterly number is to ignore it. Nonetheless, a faster trend has to start somewhere and what is striking is that we seem to be on a path for another strong number for the fourth quarter.

Add a comment

Paul Krugman had an interesting blog post today on the impact of the Republican proposal to cut the corporate income tax. While he rejected the growth claims of the Trump administration, he noted the projections of the Penn-Wharton model that the tax cuts would increase GDP between 0.3 to 0.8 percent by 2027. He described this increase as "basically an invisible effect against background noise." 

This is worth comparing with the projected gains from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The very pro-TPP Peterson Institute projected gains of 0.5 percent of GDP by 2032. The United States International Trade Commission projected an increase in GNI (Gross National Income) of 0.23 percent by 2032. (Neither of these analyses tried to incorporate the impact of the increased protectionism in the TPP in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections.)

Anyhow, if we agree with Krugman that the projected 0.3–0.8 percent of GDP gain from the cut in the corporate income tax is "basically an invisible effect against background noise," then we can't think the smaller and more distant projected gains from the TPP are a big deal, unless we are dishonest. (For the record, Krugman is not a guilty party here since he opposed the TPP.)  

Add a comment

That is effectively what he said when according to the Washington Post he claimed that "he has spoken to his own accountant about the tax plan and that he would be a 'big loser' if the deal is approved as written." Of course, we don't know exactly what Mr. Trump's tax returns look like since he lied about releasing them once an audit was completed, but based on the one return that was made public, the plan looks like it was written to reduce his tax liability.

It reduces the tax rate for high-income people on income from pass-through corporations, which was pretty much all of Trump's income on his return. It also eliminates the alternative minimum tax, which Trump had to pay for 2005. And it eliminates the estate tax, which Trump's estate would almost certainly have to pay when he dies. In addition, it leaves in place a number of special tax breaks for the real estate sector, even as it eliminates them for other businesses.

It seems likely that either Mr. Trump's accountant is incompetent or Trump lied about what they told him about the impact of the tax plan on his finances.

Add a comment

It's amazing the stuff you can find in the NYT. Most of us learn at a fairly early age that the people who sit in Congress are politicians. They get there by appeasing powerful interest groups who give them the money and political support necessary to get and hold their seats. However, NYT columnist David Brooks seems to think that they get their seats as a result of their political philosophy.

In his column on the tax debate, titled "the clash of social visions," Brooks tell readers:

"The Republicans have a social vision. The Republican vision is that the corporate sector is more important to a healthy America than the professional and nonprofit sector. The Republican vision is that companies that thrive in the red states, like manufacturing and agriculture, are more important for the country than the industries that thrive in blue states, like finance, media, the academy and the movies."

Hmmm, so the Republicans have a vision that people (like Donald Trump) who get their income from pass-through corporations (or can devise a scheme that makes it look like they get their income from pass-through corporations) should pay taxes at a lower rate than people who get their income working as a lawyer, doctor, or other highly paid professional and don't cheat the I.R.S.?

And their social vision also tells Republicans that like kind transactions involving real estate (like those done by Donald Trump) should be exempt from the more general requirement that such transactions be subject to capital gains tax? (A like kind transaction involves exchanging two businesses or properties that have some general similarities.) Does the Republican social vision also tell them that heavily leveraged real estate deals (like those done by Donald Trump) should be exempt from the caps on the deductability of interest?

It would also be interesting to know how the Republican social vision implies that cancer victims should not be able to deduct massive medical bills from their income taxes. It's also not clear how ending the tax deduction for the interest on college loans advances the Republican social vision.

Add a comment

It's hard to know what is the most cynical part of a tax bill designed to give as much money as possible to Donald Trump and his family, but the elimination of the tax deduction for medical expenses has to rate pretty high on the list. The Post had a good piece on the issue, pointing out how the loss of this deduction will make life considerably more difficult for a couple dealing with early-onset Alzheimer's disease.

This case is perhaps somewhat extreme, but it is the sort of situation in which families would be in a position to benefit from the tax deduction. It only applies to expenses in excess of 10 percent of a family’s income, so it is only people with large expenses who would be in a situation to benefit from this deduction. Eliminating this deduction is likely to be a considerable financial hardship for families dealing with serious medical conditions.

Add a comment

The Washington Post had a good piece pointing out the relatively small share of the population that would be hit by the cap of $500,000 on the amount of the principal for which interest is tax deductible. While it pointed out that a relatively small share of homes sell for a large enough amount to require a $500,000 mortgage and that the interest up to $500,000 will still be deductible, it neglected to point out that the principal dwindles over time so that even people who took out a mortgage of more than $500,000 will soon find that all their interest is still deductible.

For example, if someone takes out a $600,000, 30-year mortgage, after 7–8 years they will have paid off more than $100,000 of this mortgage so that all of their interest is again deductible. For mortgages over, but near, $500,000, it will only for the first years of a mortgage that a homeowner will be affected by this provision.

Add a comment