The New York Times discussed the prospects for the Republican tax bill, comparing the difference in Republican attitudes towards the tax bill and the efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In its effort to explain this difference, it told readers:
“But lowering taxes is, at heart, what makes a Republican a Republican.”
The problem with this assertion is that the Republican plans actually raise taxes for close to half of middle-income families, as the New York Times has reported. Given the structure of this tax cut and prior Republican tax cuts it would seem more accurate to say that cutting taxes for rich people is what makes a Republican a Republican.
The New York Times discussed the prospects for the Republican tax bill, comparing the difference in Republican attitudes towards the tax bill and the efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In its effort to explain this difference, it told readers:
“But lowering taxes is, at heart, what makes a Republican a Republican.”
The problem with this assertion is that the Republican plans actually raise taxes for close to half of middle-income families, as the New York Times has reported. Given the structure of this tax cut and prior Republican tax cuts it would seem more accurate to say that cutting taxes for rich people is what makes a Republican a Republican.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post proudly told readers that the economy had reached potential GDP in the third quarter of 2017 and therefore future GDP growth will have to be far slower than in the recent past, averaging just 1.8 percent over the next decade. While this is true based on the projections of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and most independent forecasters, it would have been worth noting that these projections have been very far from the mark frequently in the past.
CBO and other forecasters completely missed the economic crash caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. At the time, they projected potential productivity growth of 1.9 percent annually, rather than the roughly 1.0 percent rate we have seen over the last decade. CBO also completely missed the upturn in productivity growth that began in 1995. They had thought the slowdown rate of roughly 1.4 percent would continue indefinitely, instead productivity growth increased to close to a 3.0 percent annual rate over the next decade.
It is highly misleading to imply that these productivity growth projections are hard and fast numbers, given the dismal track record of the recent past. In this respect, it is worth noting that productivity growth was over 3.0 percent in the third quarter. If fourth quarter GDP is in line with the most recent projections, it will be well over 2.0 percent for the fourth quarter as well. While it is far too early to say that we are on a higher productivity track, it is certainly a possibility given these numbers.
If productivity growth remains over 2.0 percent, then 3.0 percent is perfectly plausible growth target for reasons that have nothing to do with the proposed tax cut. The rise in productivity growth is more likely due to a tightening of the labor market leading businesses to make greater efforts to economize on their use of labor. This means both that the least productive jobs go unfilled (e.g. greeters at Walmart and the midnight shift at convenience stores) and firms invest more in labor saving technology.
It is also worth noting that the “robots taking our jobs” folks have to believe that the Washington Post is spewing nonsense in this piece. Robots taking our jobs is a story of very rapid productivity growth. The Post is giving us a story of extremely slow productivity growth. Rapid is the opposite of slow — but many of our leading public intellectuals have not yet been able to grasp this fact.
The Washington Post proudly told readers that the economy had reached potential GDP in the third quarter of 2017 and therefore future GDP growth will have to be far slower than in the recent past, averaging just 1.8 percent over the next decade. While this is true based on the projections of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and most independent forecasters, it would have been worth noting that these projections have been very far from the mark frequently in the past.
CBO and other forecasters completely missed the economic crash caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. At the time, they projected potential productivity growth of 1.9 percent annually, rather than the roughly 1.0 percent rate we have seen over the last decade. CBO also completely missed the upturn in productivity growth that began in 1995. They had thought the slowdown rate of roughly 1.4 percent would continue indefinitely, instead productivity growth increased to close to a 3.0 percent annual rate over the next decade.
It is highly misleading to imply that these productivity growth projections are hard and fast numbers, given the dismal track record of the recent past. In this respect, it is worth noting that productivity growth was over 3.0 percent in the third quarter. If fourth quarter GDP is in line with the most recent projections, it will be well over 2.0 percent for the fourth quarter as well. While it is far too early to say that we are on a higher productivity track, it is certainly a possibility given these numbers.
If productivity growth remains over 2.0 percent, then 3.0 percent is perfectly plausible growth target for reasons that have nothing to do with the proposed tax cut. The rise in productivity growth is more likely due to a tightening of the labor market leading businesses to make greater efforts to economize on their use of labor. This means both that the least productive jobs go unfilled (e.g. greeters at Walmart and the midnight shift at convenience stores) and firms invest more in labor saving technology.
It is also worth noting that the “robots taking our jobs” folks have to believe that the Washington Post is spewing nonsense in this piece. Robots taking our jobs is a story of very rapid productivity growth. The Post is giving us a story of extremely slow productivity growth. Rapid is the opposite of slow — but many of our leading public intellectuals have not yet been able to grasp this fact.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In the bizarre world of Washington economics, where patent monopolies are “free trade” and projections of Social Security shortfalls decades in the future are a “crisis,” it’s perhaps not surprising to see reality turned on its head in the debate over the Republican tax bill. The Washington Post had a major article on Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson’s objections to the tax bill.
According to the article, Johnson’s is objecting because he wants a lower tax rate on income that individuals receive from pass-through corporations. In presenting Johnson’s case, the article gets the issue completely backward by telling readers:
“Johnson wants ‘pass-through’ companies to be treated more like other corporations that are seeing their rates reduced from 35 percent to 20 percent under the GOP legislation.”
Johnson absolutely does not want pass-through corporations to be treated like other corporations. Pass-through corporations by definition pay zero tax. Their profits are passed through to their owner(s), who then pay tax on it as normal income under current law.
Johnson has no interest in seeing the tax rate on pass-through corporations (which enjoy the privilege of limited liability like other corporations) raised to the same levels as other corporations. Instead, Johnson is arguing that individuals who get income from pass-through corporations should pay a lower tax rate than other people. This is an argument about the tax rate individuals face, it has nothing to do with corporate tax rates.
This is also considered textbook bad tax policy, since it means taxing income at different rates, depending on its source. If there is a big difference in the tax rate that people pay on income they get from pass-through corporations, as opposed to say working as a lawyer or doctor, then they have a large incentive to have their income come from a pass-through corporation. As a result, people will be spending lots of money creating pass-through corporations and misrepresenting the source of their income.
This is a great policy if the point is to promote the tax shelter industry, it is terrible policy if the goal is increasing economic growth and a fair tax code.
In the bizarre world of Washington economics, where patent monopolies are “free trade” and projections of Social Security shortfalls decades in the future are a “crisis,” it’s perhaps not surprising to see reality turned on its head in the debate over the Republican tax bill. The Washington Post had a major article on Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson’s objections to the tax bill.
According to the article, Johnson’s is objecting because he wants a lower tax rate on income that individuals receive from pass-through corporations. In presenting Johnson’s case, the article gets the issue completely backward by telling readers:
“Johnson wants ‘pass-through’ companies to be treated more like other corporations that are seeing their rates reduced from 35 percent to 20 percent under the GOP legislation.”
Johnson absolutely does not want pass-through corporations to be treated like other corporations. Pass-through corporations by definition pay zero tax. Their profits are passed through to their owner(s), who then pay tax on it as normal income under current law.
Johnson has no interest in seeing the tax rate on pass-through corporations (which enjoy the privilege of limited liability like other corporations) raised to the same levels as other corporations. Instead, Johnson is arguing that individuals who get income from pass-through corporations should pay a lower tax rate than other people. This is an argument about the tax rate individuals face, it has nothing to do with corporate tax rates.
This is also considered textbook bad tax policy, since it means taxing income at different rates, depending on its source. If there is a big difference in the tax rate that people pay on income they get from pass-through corporations, as opposed to say working as a lawyer or doctor, then they have a large incentive to have their income come from a pass-through corporation. As a result, people will be spending lots of money creating pass-through corporations and misrepresenting the source of their income.
This is a great policy if the point is to promote the tax shelter industry, it is terrible policy if the goal is increasing economic growth and a fair tax code.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Since 47 percent of the benefits of the proposed tax bill go to the richest one percent, and the very rich, like Donald Trump, will get an enormous bonanza from ending the estate tax and other provisions, many people thought the goal of Republicans with this tax bill was to give more money to the rich people who finance their campaigns. Thankfully, the New York Times is there to correct this mistaken impression.
The NYT told readers that the Republican tax proposals are an:
“…effort to clean up the tax code, close loopholes and secure bigger tax cuts for all.”
Fortunately, we have the NYT to explain the Republicans’ motives. Certainly, based on the evidence in the public domain, almost everyone would have thought they were just trying to give money to the rich.
Since 47 percent of the benefits of the proposed tax bill go to the richest one percent, and the very rich, like Donald Trump, will get an enormous bonanza from ending the estate tax and other provisions, many people thought the goal of Republicans with this tax bill was to give more money to the rich people who finance their campaigns. Thankfully, the New York Times is there to correct this mistaken impression.
The NYT told readers that the Republican tax proposals are an:
“…effort to clean up the tax code, close loopholes and secure bigger tax cuts for all.”
Fortunately, we have the NYT to explain the Republicans’ motives. Certainly, based on the evidence in the public domain, almost everyone would have thought they were just trying to give money to the rich.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That is the question millions are asking after she made this assertion in a segment on Morning Edition today. Economists would usually look to evidence that budget deficits are creating too much demand in the economy, such as a rising inflation rate and/or high interest rates. Both interest rates and inflation are at historically low levels, with inflation consistently running below the Federal Reserve Board’s 2.0 percent target. Based on these facts, it is not clear what could be the basis of Liasson’s assertion.
In some cases, people point to the interest on the debt as a burden placed on our children. This is misleading since some of our children (or at least Bill Gates’ children) will be receiving this interest. However, even this measure does not suggest a major problem. Currently, interest payments on the debt, after netting out money refunded by the Federal Reserve Board (the government pays interest on the bonds held by the Fed, which is then refunded to the Treasury) are less than 0.8 percent of GDP. They were more than 3.0 percent of GDP in the early 1990s.
Also, if anyone is concerned about the burden imposed by these future payments, they should also be concerned about the much larger commitments the government makes when issuing patent and copyright monopolies in order to finance innovation and creative work. In the case of prescription drugs alone, the added expense of patents and related protections comes to close to $370 billion a year, or almost 2.0 percent of GDP.
Adding in the costs from these monopolies in medical equipment, software, and other sectors would almost certainly double this amount. Anyone seriously concerned about burdens on future generations would have to be noting the burdens created by patent and copyright monopolies, which swamp any plausible interest burden of the debt. The fact this is never mentioned suggests that burdens on our kids are not a major concern for people complaining about budget deficits.
That is the question millions are asking after she made this assertion in a segment on Morning Edition today. Economists would usually look to evidence that budget deficits are creating too much demand in the economy, such as a rising inflation rate and/or high interest rates. Both interest rates and inflation are at historically low levels, with inflation consistently running below the Federal Reserve Board’s 2.0 percent target. Based on these facts, it is not clear what could be the basis of Liasson’s assertion.
In some cases, people point to the interest on the debt as a burden placed on our children. This is misleading since some of our children (or at least Bill Gates’ children) will be receiving this interest. However, even this measure does not suggest a major problem. Currently, interest payments on the debt, after netting out money refunded by the Federal Reserve Board (the government pays interest on the bonds held by the Fed, which is then refunded to the Treasury) are less than 0.8 percent of GDP. They were more than 3.0 percent of GDP in the early 1990s.
Also, if anyone is concerned about the burden imposed by these future payments, they should also be concerned about the much larger commitments the government makes when issuing patent and copyright monopolies in order to finance innovation and creative work. In the case of prescription drugs alone, the added expense of patents and related protections comes to close to $370 billion a year, or almost 2.0 percent of GDP.
Adding in the costs from these monopolies in medical equipment, software, and other sectors would almost certainly double this amount. Anyone seriously concerned about burdens on future generations would have to be noting the burdens created by patent and copyright monopolies, which swamp any plausible interest burden of the debt. The fact this is never mentioned suggests that burdens on our kids are not a major concern for people complaining about budget deficits.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Both the NYT and Washington Post articles on the battle over the succession and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) neglected to mention the legislative history around the creation of the CFPB. There were competing sections on the order of succession in the event of the director’s departure in the House and Senate versions.
One specified that the normal procedure on vacancies, in which the president gets to appoint an acting director, would be followed. The other had language indicating that the deputy director would become acting director until a new director was approved by Congress. This was the language that was used in the final bill. That supports the interpretation of the Democrats that the deputy director should fill in as acting director until Trump nominates a person to be director and that person is approved by Congress.
Both the NYT and Washington Post articles on the battle over the succession and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) neglected to mention the legislative history around the creation of the CFPB. There were competing sections on the order of succession in the event of the director’s departure in the House and Senate versions.
One specified that the normal procedure on vacancies, in which the president gets to appoint an acting director, would be followed. The other had language indicating that the deputy director would become acting director until a new director was approved by Congress. This was the language that was used in the final bill. That supports the interpretation of the Democrats that the deputy director should fill in as acting director until Trump nominates a person to be director and that person is approved by Congress.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Okay, that’s not quite what the NYT said. Instead, an article on the impact of ending the tax deduction for state and local income taxes told readers:
“Eliminating the deduction has long been a goal of many Republican lawmakers, who view the tax break as a subsidy that poorer red states provide to richer blue ones that spend heavily on government services.”
Contrary to what the NYT tells us, their reporters really don’t know how Republican lawmakers “view” the tax break. However, for some reason they couldn’t just tell us what they say, they had to pretend to know what they think.
How about if reporters just stuck to telling us what politicians say and do and not pretend to read their minds? Then, we would all have something to be thankful for next Thanksgiving.
Okay, that’s not quite what the NYT said. Instead, an article on the impact of ending the tax deduction for state and local income taxes told readers:
“Eliminating the deduction has long been a goal of many Republican lawmakers, who view the tax break as a subsidy that poorer red states provide to richer blue ones that spend heavily on government services.”
Contrary to what the NYT tells us, their reporters really don’t know how Republican lawmakers “view” the tax break. However, for some reason they couldn’t just tell us what they say, they had to pretend to know what they think.
How about if reporters just stuck to telling us what politicians say and do and not pretend to read their minds? Then, we would all have something to be thankful for next Thanksgiving.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It’s amazing how so many reporters feel the need to tell us what politicians really think. Sorry, but I don’t believe they know.
The example this time is a piece reporting on how 2018 may be a wave election with defeats for the Republicans comparable to what the Democrats experienced in 2010. It concludes by discussing the effort to shove through a tax bill before the end of the year:
“Republicans do not think the tax bill will be a political albatross once voters gain a fuller appreciation of its advantages. Of course, that is exactly what Democrats thought about the health care bill at this point in 2009.”
It’s entirely plausible that Republicans don’t say that they think the bill is a political albatross. After all, what would that look like? Would members of the House and Senate be telling reporters:
“…we know the public hates this bill because it gives so much money to rich people, but these are our campaign contributors and we have to come through for them. Furthermore, even if we lose our election, they will pay us millions of dollars a year to work for them as lobbyists.”
If something like this were, in fact, the case it is extremely unlikely that Republican politicians would be saying it to NYT reporters. It is far more likely that they would be uttering nonsense about how the tax bill is really good for the country and that people will come to realize this after it is approved.
Competent reporters would just tell readers what the politicians say. They would not try to tell us what the politicians actually believe, since they don’t know.
It’s amazing how so many reporters feel the need to tell us what politicians really think. Sorry, but I don’t believe they know.
The example this time is a piece reporting on how 2018 may be a wave election with defeats for the Republicans comparable to what the Democrats experienced in 2010. It concludes by discussing the effort to shove through a tax bill before the end of the year:
“Republicans do not think the tax bill will be a political albatross once voters gain a fuller appreciation of its advantages. Of course, that is exactly what Democrats thought about the health care bill at this point in 2009.”
It’s entirely plausible that Republicans don’t say that they think the bill is a political albatross. After all, what would that look like? Would members of the House and Senate be telling reporters:
“…we know the public hates this bill because it gives so much money to rich people, but these are our campaign contributors and we have to come through for them. Furthermore, even if we lose our election, they will pay us millions of dollars a year to work for them as lobbyists.”
If something like this were, in fact, the case it is extremely unlikely that Republican politicians would be saying it to NYT reporters. It is far more likely that they would be uttering nonsense about how the tax bill is really good for the country and that people will come to realize this after it is approved.
Competent reporters would just tell readers what the politicians say. They would not try to tell us what the politicians actually believe, since they don’t know.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had a good piece discussing the potential impact of capping the mortgage interest deduction and property taxes on the housing market; however, the piece missed an important way in which the Republican tax bills would reduce the benefits of the mortgage interest deduction. The piece notes that doubling the standard deduction will reduce the number of people who itemize and therefore benefit from the mortgage interest deduction.
But both bills also end the deduction for state and local income taxes. Without this deduction, most homeowners will have few other deductions apart from their mortgage interest and whatever is allowed for property taxes. These deductions will be less for almost everyone than their standard deduction ($24,000 for a couple). This means that they would just take the standard deduction and the mortgage interest deduction would be of no value to them. (The Tax Policy Center projects that just over 5 percent of tax filers would still itemize their deductions if these changes in the tax code are put into effect.)
In fact, even if they still chose to itemize the mortgage interest deduction will be far less valuable under this new code. Suppose that they had $10,000 in property taxes that are deductible and pay $15,000 a year in mortgage interest and have no other deductions. Since the combined total of $25,000 exceeds the $24,000 standard deduction, it would pay for this couple to itemize; however, the benefit is much smaller.
Their benefit from itemizing is just the difference between their itemized deductions and the standard deduction. In this case, this difference reduces their taxable income by $1,000, saving them $250 on their taxes if they are in the 25 percent bracket. If we still had a $12,000 standard deduction, their itemized deductions would be reducing their taxable income by $13,000, saving them $3,250 on their taxes.
In short, by raising the standard deduction and reducing the number of itemized deductions that are available, the Republican tax proposals will be hugely reducing the value of the mortgage interest deduction even if they follow the Senate bill and don’t reduce the cap on deductible interest.
Addendum
Thanks to Robert Salzberg for calling my attention to the Tax Policy Center projection.
The NYT had a good piece discussing the potential impact of capping the mortgage interest deduction and property taxes on the housing market; however, the piece missed an important way in which the Republican tax bills would reduce the benefits of the mortgage interest deduction. The piece notes that doubling the standard deduction will reduce the number of people who itemize and therefore benefit from the mortgage interest deduction.
But both bills also end the deduction for state and local income taxes. Without this deduction, most homeowners will have few other deductions apart from their mortgage interest and whatever is allowed for property taxes. These deductions will be less for almost everyone than their standard deduction ($24,000 for a couple). This means that they would just take the standard deduction and the mortgage interest deduction would be of no value to them. (The Tax Policy Center projects that just over 5 percent of tax filers would still itemize their deductions if these changes in the tax code are put into effect.)
In fact, even if they still chose to itemize the mortgage interest deduction will be far less valuable under this new code. Suppose that they had $10,000 in property taxes that are deductible and pay $15,000 a year in mortgage interest and have no other deductions. Since the combined total of $25,000 exceeds the $24,000 standard deduction, it would pay for this couple to itemize; however, the benefit is much smaller.
Their benefit from itemizing is just the difference between their itemized deductions and the standard deduction. In this case, this difference reduces their taxable income by $1,000, saving them $250 on their taxes if they are in the 25 percent bracket. If we still had a $12,000 standard deduction, their itemized deductions would be reducing their taxable income by $13,000, saving them $3,250 on their taxes.
In short, by raising the standard deduction and reducing the number of itemized deductions that are available, the Republican tax proposals will be hugely reducing the value of the mortgage interest deduction even if they follow the Senate bill and don’t reduce the cap on deductible interest.
Addendum
Thanks to Robert Salzberg for calling my attention to the Tax Policy Center projection.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
