US Consumption and Tax Policy


[Skip to the end]

Some interesting bits.

Supports my contention that we are seeing real wealth flowing upward and will continue to do so.

Note the distribution of consumption, which has been moving north as well.

Proposed tax policy won’t change any of this- higher incomes will more than offset increased marginal tax rates for the top tax brackets, and consumption will increase.

And yes, an economy can work via aggregate demand coming predominately from the top, with the bottom at subsistence levels. And we are moving in that direction.

Interestingly, as this happens the wealthy are considered ‘good’ when they hire hundreds of service people to take care of their homes, boats, personal fitness, and entertaining, etc. as they are ‘providing jobs.’

This also fits well with the export economy model our leaders are pushing hard to achieve. And the trade numbers are looking like they are succeeding. Notice the trade gap narrowing as standards of living fall.

Interesting research from ML-BAS highlighting the importance of the tax policy debate for US consumption growth and consequently US GDP:

US Consumption (Currently 72% of GDP)

  • Outlook for consumption depends on consumer outlook—on disposable income, wealth, and credit quality.
  • Wealthy (top 10% of earners) have a surprisingly high share of consumption (42%) with the middle class (40-90 percentile) composing 46% of consumption.

The US consumer as a whole is not overleveraged—the middle class is.

  • 200% debt to income and 25% debt to assets ratios are substantially higher than the wealthy’s corresponding ratios of approx. 120% and 8% respectively.

Housing wealth has a bigger impact on consumption than stock market wealth.

Wealthy have weathered the last two years a lot better than the middle class:

  • Retained employment much better.
  • Suffered lower wealth losses
  • Substantially less proportion of assets in housing.

Conclusions:

  • Overleveraged middle class burdened by real estate losses will not help consumption rebound.
  • Lower income segment has a relatively small proportion of income, suffers from a disproportionate share of unemployment which lags GDP out of a recession.
  • Wealthy –with modest leverage, near full employment, and experiencing a faster rebound in their wealth should lead consumption if all else stays the same.
  • However, reliance on government borrowing has increased as a result of addressing the credit crisis as well as the potentially ambitious health care reform bill.
  • Rising taxes (especially the “soak the rich” policies that are on the table) may offset potential consumption growth as the most important determinant of consumption is after tax income.
  • The outlook for tax policy on the top earners may provide a key swing factor to the consumption outlook.


[top]

Federal Taxation (for Dummies)

Federal Taxation (for Dummies)

So why does the Federal Government tax us?

No, not to get money to spend!

In fact, if you pay your taxes with actual cash, they give you a receipt, a thank you, and then throw that cash into a shredder.

True!!!

So how does taking your cash and shredding it pay for anything??? It doesn’t!

And suppose you pay by check.

When the check clears, all the Federal Government does is change the numbers in your checking account downward for the amount of the check. They don’t get anything.

And so how does the Federal Government actually spend?

When they write you a check, and when the check is deposited, they change the numbers in your bank account upward by the amount of the check. This doesn’t use up anything.

They just change numbers.

Just like when you score a touchdown and get 6 points. The stadium gives you 6 points. But those points doesn’t come from anywhere and the stadium isn’t using up some pile of points it has when it gives you 6 of them.

Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke made this exact point when Congress asked him where the money for the banks was coming from. He told them the Fed just changes the numbers in their Fed bank accounts.

So this means, operationally, Federal spending is in no case dependent on tax revenues (or borrowing).

The Federal Government can’t run out of money as the President has been telling us. It doesn’t have any to run out of. All it does is change numbers in our bank accounts.

So then why does the Federal Government tax us?

Answer: to take away some of our spending power.

Why would it want to do that?

Because if it didn’t, then our spending of all the income and profits we make, plus all the Federal Government’s spending, would overwhelm the markets and cause prices to go higher and higher. There would be too much spending power chasing too few goods for sale. That’s called inflation.

So what does the government do?

They tax us to take away some of our spending power, so their spending, combined with our spending, doesn’t cause inflation.

That’s why the Federal Government taxes us. Not to get money for them to spend. They don’t use money when they spend. They just change numbers in our bank accounts.

So what’s the right amount to tax?

If they tax too much, we don’t have enough spending power to buy what’s left for sale after the Federal Government is done with its spending.

And that’s exactly what’s happening now. We can build a lot more cars and houses and other goods and services that we’d then like to buy.

But the Federal Government has taxed away too much of our spending power, so sales are way down and unemployment sky high.

Can the Federal Government go broke or run out of money if it taxes less then it spends and runs a deficit?

How can it? It’s just changing numbers in our bank accounts in its own monetary system run by its own Federal Reserve.

Why do they say deficits are bad?

Because they don’t understand their own monetary system and it’s ruining our lives!

Will lower taxes today mean higher taxes later?

Every year, taxes can be adjusted to make sure we have enough spending power to buy whatever we can produce and want to have.

Taxes only have to be raised if we have too much spending power, and the economy is doing so well and unemployment is so low we want to cool things down with a tax increase, to keep inflation where we want it.

So lower taxes today mean prosperity today, and higher taxes later only if things get too good and we get worried about inflation.

deficits and future taxes


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

The latest noise is that today’s deficits mean higher taxes later.

Answer:

1. Taxes function to reduce aggregate demand.

2. A tax hike is never in order with a weak economy, no matter how high the deficit or how high the interest payments may be.

3. Future tax increases would be a consideration should demand rise to the point where unemployment fell ‘too far’- maybe below 4%.

4. That is a scenario of prosperity and an economy growing so fast that it might be causing inflation which might need a tax hike or spending cut to cool it down.

So when someone states that today’s high deficit mean higher taxes later, he is in fact saying that today’s high deficits might cause the economy to grow so fast that it will require tax increases or spending cuts to slow it down.

Sounds like a good thing to me — who can be against that?

And, of course, the government always has the option to tax interest income if interest on the debt is deemed a problem at that time.

>    On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:46 AM, James Galbraith wrote:
>   
>   A comment in the National Journal, on the ever-green deficit alarmism that so preoccupies
>   people in Washington, to no good effect.
>   
>   Also, my June 5 lecture in Dublin, at the Institute for International and European Affairs, on the
>   crisis.
>   
>   With Q&A
>   
>   And a small postscript, reprising the old story of Eliza in Cuba, which I’ve promised her I
>   will now retire
>   
>   Jamie


[top]

Obama Serious About Balancing the Budget


[Skip to the end]

Yes, it’s early, but seems he’s serious about his campaign promise to balance the budget.

The economy won’t see the drop in demand until it actually happens.

But valuations can adjust to rising tax rates long before GDP does.

Obama Proposes New Taxes on Dealers, Life Insurance

by Ryan J. Donmoyer

May 11 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama proposed raising money to pay for his health-care overhaul by imposing $58 billion in new taxes on securities dealers, life insurance products and Americans with valuable estates.

The eight new proposals, outlined in budget documents released today, are in addition to more than $1 trillion in tax increases over the next decade the president wants to impose beginning in 2011. Those would include higher rates for top earners and restrictions on tax-avoidance techniques commonly used by U.S.-based multinational corporations.


[top]