You got a 20% debasement (roughly) in the currency, a 20% increase in the stock market (net zero) but look at what went for a rocket ride.... just all the things you need to buy....
QE2 and Bernanke: FAIL
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Deconstructing the Left's Argument for Increasing Tax Rates on the Rich
 Return to the Article |
By Jim Stuart
In response to the deficit and to the debt crisis, the left repeatedly and forcefully argues for higher taxes on the "rich." Aside from the fact that the entire income of the rich -- beyond what they already pay -- is insufficient to eliminate the deficit, conservatives argue that the top earners already pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes. In addition, conservatives argue that raising taxes on the rich, and particularly on small business owners, would suppress job creation, making the already serious unemployment problem worse at a time when we can least afford it. The left responds that the rich should pay the lion's share of taxes because they earn the lion's share of income, arguing that since Reagan, almost all growth in income has gone to the rich. The top 1% (the rich) earned 20% of all personal income in 2008 versus 8.51% in 1980 (See Figure 2 at the end). Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of earners (the poor) earned 12.75% of the total income in 2008 versus 17.68% in 1980 (Figure 2). Given that the income share for the rich went up while the income share for the poor went down, the left argues that it is unfair to pursue policies that will continue to disproportionately benefit the rich.
Let's examine the numbers a little more closely, looking at the tax share relative to income share for the two groups between 1980 and 2008. The share of income tax paid by the rich in proportion to the share of their total income went from 2.25 to 1.9 between 1980 and 2008, while the same ratio for the poor went from .40 to .21 (Figure 2). The effective tax burden (tax share in relation to income share) was 5.62 times higher for the rich than for the poor in 1980 and 9.0 times higher in 2008. Thus, the relative tax burden on the rich -- relative to income -- compared to the poor nearly doubled from 1980 to 2008 -- from 5.62 to 9.0 (Figure 3). Nevertheless, and despite the heavier and increasing tax burden on the rich, the fact that the income share for the rich increased while the income share for the poor decreased creates a seemingly irrefutable talking point for the left in the current budget debate.
Figure 2: Federal Income Tax Burden, 1980 and 2008
Bottom 50%
Figure 3: Ratio of Tax Burden Top 1% to Bottom 50%, 1980 and 2008
Let's examine the numbers a little more closely, looking at the tax share relative to income share for the two groups between 1980 and 2008. The share of income tax paid by the rich in proportion to the share of their total income went from 2.25 to 1.9 between 1980 and 2008, while the same ratio for the poor went from .40 to .21 (Figure 2). The effective tax burden (tax share in relation to income share) was 5.62 times higher for the rich than for the poor in 1980 and 9.0 times higher in 2008. Thus, the relative tax burden on the rich -- relative to income -- compared to the poor nearly doubled from 1980 to 2008 -- from 5.62 to 9.0 (Figure 3). Nevertheless, and despite the heavier and increasing tax burden on the rich, the fact that the income share for the rich increased while the income share for the poor decreased creates a seemingly irrefutable talking point for the left in the current budget debate.
Like many seemingly straightforward arguments, however, the claim that income growth has primarily benefited the rich does not in fact signify inequity, as it would appear.
The key is that the individuals paying taxes in the top 1% or bottom 50% in 1980 are not the same individuals as the taxpayers in the top or bottom segments thirty years later. Over a period of many years, people move up and down the income ladder, depending on their ability, ambition, and experience and other factors. The income categories more appropriately refer to classes of jobs or positions, not classes of people, and most individuals change jobs over their lifetime. Arguably, it would be unfair for John, CEO, to have benefited from tax policy over the last thirty years, while Frank, dishwasher, did not. It makes no sense, however, to argue that it is unfair to Frank that CEO salaries in general have gone up relatively more than dishwashers', particularly when John, 50, started out his career thirty years ago as a dishwasher and rose to become CEO through hard work, and Frank, 19, dishwasher, is in his first job and aspires to be CEO some day in the future. It is not at all obvious that Frank is harmed rather than benefited by the fact that opportunities for him at the upper end of the income spectrum are improving over time, and if he is able to prepare himself, work hard, and advance, his prospects of earning an excellent living will get better as time goes by.
It is interesting to speculate about the reasons why higher-level positions have appreciated more than lower-level positions. The compensation of nonunion workers, whether dishwashers, engineers, CEOs, or media celebrities, is determined by supply and demand in the free market. The salaries of surgeons and engineers may be high because too few are willing to undergo the rigors of science and mathematics curricula and could perhaps be pushed downward by policies encouraging the education of more doctors and engineers, as well as policies facilitating entrepreneurship. The salaries of dishwashers could perhaps be pushed upward by policies that reduce the competition from unskilled illegal aliens or reduce the number of high school dropouts and instead prepare them for better jobs. Factors such as the increasing pervasiveness of computers may put added emphasis on knowledge and information-processing skills and concentrate more and more economic value in top positions and high-tech, fast-growing companies. In any case, railing against the fact that economic compensation for unskilled positions isn't increasing faster than GDP makes no more sense than railing against the prices of food, energy, or raw materials, whose markets are increasingly global in scope and are largely unrelated to tax policy.
A ladder of opportunity will always exist that starts at the bottom with minimum wage jobs for new and unskilled workers and rises to the most competitive and demanding positions at the upper end of the scale. How rich a person becomes depends on how far he or she is able to advance up the ladder and not on how much any particular position at any particular level at any particular moment in time is worth.
Whatever the explanation for pricing trends for high-paying versus low-paying work categories, the tax code should not be used in a misguided attempt to level after-tax income, when the result will be to discourage ambitious workers from preparing and competing for much-needed but demanding high-value positions.
A further reason for not increasing the relative federal income tax burden on the rich is that since the bottom half pay only 2.7% of the total federal income taxes and since nearly half of taxpayers pay no income federal income taxes at all, an incentive exists for a majority constituency to vote to accelerate the growth and spending of the federal government and to increase income taxes that they themselves do not pay. Perhaps the solution would be "no representation without taxation."
Finally, as can be seen in Figure 1, showing adjustable gross incomes in 1980, 2007, and 2008, the income of the rich is much more volatile than that of the poor. The income of the rich decreased by 16% between 2007 and 2008 as a result of the recession; compare that with less than 1% for the poor. Overdependence of federal revenue on the rich thus exacerbates the problem for the federal government of falling tax revenue and resulting deficits during recessions.
In summary, there is a high and increasing progressivity in our tax code, which results in the rich currently paying nine times as much as the poor after taking income into account, and this progressivity has increased dramatically since 1980. Both for maintaining individual economic independence and federal income stability, a broader tax base is desirable. Finally, when we look at how the benefits of growth are distributed from the perspective of individuals rather than income groupings, we realize that income is not static and that workers realize their hopes and dreams through preparation, advancement, and promotion or entrepreneurship, not through magically gaining higher wages for the same, static position. What conservatives seek to offer are conditions of full employment in a dynamic, prosperous economy that permits new entrants in the labor market to readily find jobs at the start of their working lives and that at the same time, provides an abundance of higher-paying jobs that workers at all stages of their work life can aspire to.
Figure 1: Adjusted Gross Income between 1980 and 2008 ($ Billions)
| Year | Adjusted Gross Income Top 1% | Adjusted Gross Income Bottom 50% |
| 1980 | 138 | 288 |
| 2007 | 2008 | 1078 |
| 2008 | 1685 | 1075 |
Figure 2: Federal Income Tax Burden, 1980 and 2008
| Year | Share of Tax % | Share of Income % | Tax Share/Income Share Ratio |
| 1980 | 19.05 | 8.46 | 2.25 |
| 2008 | 38 | 20 | 1.9 |
Top 1%
| 1980 | 7.05 | 17.68 | .4 |
| 2008 | 2.7 | 12.75 | .212 |
Bottom 50%
Figure 3: Ratio of Tax Burden Top 1% to Bottom 50%, 1980 and 2008
| Year | Tax Burden Ratio -- Top 1% Relative to Bottom 50% |
| 1980 | 5.62 |
| 2008 | 9.0 |
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/deconstructing_the_lefts_argum.html at May 16, 2011 - 10:37:45 AM CDT
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Health Care Number You Didn't Hear
Return to the Article
February 26, 2010
By David Gratzer
On Thursday, the President gathered with Congressional members to discuss health reform. The President and Democratic leaders spoke of many numbers in their attempt to rebuild support for their proposals.
They mentioned 30 million (the number of uninsured Americans, according to the White House), 17 (the percentage of GDP spent on health care), and 1912 (the year when Teddy Roosevelt first called for universal coverage). But here's the number that no one mentioned: 12. And while all the other numbers are important, the key to reforming American health care rests with that one number, unmentioned.
American health care is expensive. If we spent what Switzerland does, we could cut income tax rates by 80%. And American health care is getting more expensive. Federal government figures indicate that health costs rose by 3.4% last year, roughly double the rate of inflation. It's not surprising, then, that the Obama White House has advocated "bending the curve" of health costs since Inauguration.
And, for the past year, the Administration has attempted to explain to Americans why health costs keep rising. The President spoke in July of Americans being offered two pills - "a red pill and a blue pill" - that are equally good, but one is half the price. Translation: drug companies are greedy. The President toured the Mayo Clinic, one of the best hospital complexes in the world and noted that Mayo physicians are on salary. Translation: your fee-for-service doc is greedy. The President used his September address to a joint session of Congress to bemoan the dearth of competition in the health insurance industry. Translation: insurance companies are greedy (and running a cartel).
If greed is the trouble, the White House seeks to address these woes with a raft of new regulations and rules. Obamacare will cut the profitability of pharmaceutical companies; it will create a committee to pay doctors for what the committee views as quality medicine; it will introduce a new Medicare-style public insurance to compete with private providers. Washington, in other words, will grow. The House version of the White House's proposal would create more than 100 new federal agencies and bodies.
But the problem with American health care isn't greed, its structural. After all, food and clothing are all organized with the profit motive - and the President isn't giving speeches that your butcher is too greedy or that Macy's is overly concerned with the bottom line.
The problem, ultimately, is 12.
A bit of background: American health care is an accidental system. Private coverage - the type most Americans have - has its origins in the wage controls of the Second World War as employers offered rich health-insurance benefits in pre-tax dollars. Public coverage like Medicaid and Medicare, on the other hand, takes its inspiration from the Beveridge report in Britain, drafted in the early 1940s; Lord William Beveridge believed in zero-dollar health care - that people ought to pay nothing at the point of use. Today's American health care fuses these two systems, but with a common economic flaw: people are overinsured, paying pennies directly on every dollar of health service they receive.
The end result: for every dollar spent on health care in the United States, just 12 cents comes out of the individuals' pockets. Imagine what food costs might be if your employer paid 88% of your grocery bill or what a trip to Saks might be like if your company covered the vast majority of the costs of the shopping spree.
Far from addressing the 12 cent problem, Obamacare would exacerbate it. With its rich subsidies, expansion of government programs, insistence that all insurance cover specific services (and some with no copayments at all), Obamacare would pour fuel on the fire of health inflation. It's one reason that even the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - a federal employee - predicts cost rises under the President's plan.
The White House has been sharp with its critics, demanding that they outline an alternative vision. Here's one: that Washington move decisions away from bureaucrats (be they corporate or government) and empower individuals and families. In other words, American health care should be more like the other five-sixths of the economy where consumers spend more of their own money - certainly much more than 12 cents on the dollar - and get more value for it.
checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');
Dr. David Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is the author of Why Obama’s Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster (Encounter Books, 2009).
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/02/26/the_health_care_number_you_didnt_hear_98362.html at May 13, 2011 - 07:30:01 AM CDT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
