Why public sector workers should not have actual bargaining power

Government, desirous of provisioning itself, does it as follows:

1. It imposes nominal tax liabilities payable in it’s currency of issue.

2. This serves to create a population desirous of obtaining the funds needed to pay the tax.

3. The real tax is then paid as government transfers real resources from private to public domain by spending it’s otherwise worthless currency, hiring its employees and buying the goods and services it desires to provision itself and function as directed by the legislature.

4. Prices paid by government when it spends defines the value of the currency, and therefore the terms of the real taxation.

Therefore, the hiring and compensation of public sector employees is the real taxation, which is a legislative function.

Letting individuals negotiate the terms of their taxation other than through the legislative process makes no sense whatsoever.

This is not to say that public employees can not have representatives to make their case before the legislature, much like any tax payer or group of taxpayers might address the legislature.

And this is not to say public employees should not be treated well, well paid in real terms, or abused.

It is to suggest public employee compensation be recognized as part of the real process of taxation of the electorate and treated accordingly by all parties involved.

DPJ Suffers Crushing Defeat; LDP Wins Most Seats

The loss seems to have been over the proposed sales tax increase, which would have been a strong negative for GDP, so this result is equity friendly:

“Public support for the DPJ rebounded when Kan took, but tumbled quickly after he floated a rise in the sales tax from 5 percent to help rein in debt.”

“Critics blame Kan’s eagerness to hike the rate for causing the DPJ’s major defeat in Sunday’s Upper House election.”

Japan Headlines:

DPJ Suffers Crushing Defeat; LDP Wins Most Seats

Corp Goods Prices Up 0.5% On Year In June

Japan’s used vehicle sales in Jan.-June fall to 2nd-lowest level

IMF Shinohara: Japan Must Be Cautious Discussing Taxes; No Sharp Yuan Rise

Edano: Won’t Rigidly Stick To Drafting Sales Tax Hike This Fiscal Year

LEAD: Tokyo stocks edge lower as post-election uncertainty weighs+

Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse, Laffer

Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse

By Arthur Laffer

June 7 (WSJ) —People can change the volume, the location and the composition of their income, and they can do so in response to changes in government policies.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates. People and businesses change the location of income based on incentives.

Likewise, who is gobsmacked when they are told that the two wealthiest Americans—Bill Gates and Warren Buffett—hold the bulk of their wealth in the nontaxed form of unrealized capital gains? The composition of wealth also responds to incentives. And it’s also simple enough for most people to understand that if the government taxes people who work and pays people not to work, fewer people will work. Incentives matter.

People can also change the timing of when they earn and receive their income in response to government policies. According to a 2004 U.S. Treasury report, “high income taxpayers accelerated the receipt of wages and year-end bonuses from 1993 to 1992—over $15 billion—in order to avoid the effects of the anticipated increase in the top rate from 31% to 39.6%. At the end of 1993, taxpayers shifted wages and bonuses yet again to avoid the increase in Medicare taxes that went into effect beginning 1994.”

Just remember what happened to auto sales when the cash for clunkers program ended. Or how about new housing sales when the $8,000 tax credit ended? It isn’t rocket surgery, as the Ivy League professor said.

On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush’s tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.

Tax rates have been and will be raised on income earned from off-shore investments. Payroll taxes are already scheduled to rise in 2013 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be digging deeper and deeper into middle-income taxpayers. And there’s always the celebrated tax increase on Cadillac health care plans. State and local tax rates are also going up in 2011 as they did in 2010. Tax rate increases next year are everywhere.

Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.

Also, the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe “double dip” recession.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan—with bipartisan support—began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan’s delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama’s delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.

But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don’t work until they take effect. Mr. Obama’s experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011.

Consider corporate profits as a share of GDP. Today, corporate profits as a share of GDP are way too high given the state of the U.S. economy. These high profits reflect the shift in income into 2010 from 2011. These profits will tumble in 2011, preceded most likely by the stock market.

In 2010, without any prepayment penalties, people can cash in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Keough deferred income accounts and 401(k) deferred income accounts. After paying their taxes, these deferred income accounts can be rolled into Roth IRAs that provide after-tax income to their owners into the future. Given what’s going to happen to tax rates, this conversion seems like a no-brainer.

The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past. If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Yes, those are very strong forces, especially for the second half.

They will also cause tax collections to go up this year, reducing non gov net financial assets which means we go into next year’s slow down that much weaker financially.

The thing that can reverse it is an acceleration of borrowing to spend in the domestic private sectors. That’s usually from housing, cars, maybe cap ex, commercial construction, etc. But those traditional areas of credit growth aren’t showing any signs of being able to take up the slack, at least yet. while the employment picture is modestly improving (see Karim’s work on total hours worked) seems to me it has a long way to go before it generates robust credit growth.

And, of course, the external risks remain.

Taylor

This means we can have far lower taxes for any given amount of govt spending.

Hope they all see it that way!

Friday, May 21, 2010

The Administration and the IMF on the Multiplier
In a soon to be published paper, several economists at the International Monetary Fund report estimates of government spending multipliers which are much smaller than those previously reported by the U.S.

Administration. In order to obtain the estimates the IMF economists use a very large complex model called the Global Integrated Monetary and Fiscal (GIMF) Model developed by Douglas Laxton and his colleagues at the IMF . The paper is quite technical, but the bottom line summary is that a one percent increase in government purchases (as a share of GDP) increases GDP by a maximum of 0.7 percent and then fades out rapidly. This means that government spending crowds out other components of GDP (investment, consumption, net exports) immediately and by a large amount.

The IMF estimate is much less than the multiplier reported in a paper released last year by Christina Romer of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and Jared Bernstein of the Vice President’s Office. The attached graph shows how huge the difference is. It shows the impact on GDP of a one percentage point permanent increase in government purchases as a share of GDP reported in the IMF paper (labeled GIMF) and in the Administration paper (labeled Romer-Bernstein).

John Cogan, Volker Wieland, Tobias Cwik and I raised questions about Romer-Bernstein paper soon after it was released last year because the estimates seemed to be much different from comparable estimates based on more modern new Keynesian models. We classified the Romer-Bernstein estimates as old Keynesian. Since then many technical papers have been written on this subject, of which a recent paper by Michael Woodford is the most comprehensive in my view. The IMF model is of the new Keynesian variety and adds more evidence of the huge policy differences between new Keynesian and old Keynesian models.

Posted by John B. Taylor at 12:48 AM

Ruml 1946

Note the US was back on gold internationally after Bretton Woods:

The Bretton Woods Conference took place in July 1944, but did not become operative until 1959, when all the European currencies became convertible. Under this system, the IMF and the IBRD were established. The IMF was developed as a permanent international body. The summary of agreements states, “The nations should consult and agree on international monetary changes which affect each other. They should outlaw practices which are agreed to be harmful to world prosperity, and they should assist each other to overcome short-term exchange difficulties.” Wikipedia

So Ruml’s analysis didn’t apply until after 1971 when the US finally dropped convertibility.

Might be why Ruml’s points didn’t gain any traction back then.

Dallas speech

I guess he thinks the coming fiscal spending will close the output gap…

Cash Crunch Will Force Governments to Do Less

By Gerald F. Seib

April 9 (WSJ)

In a speech in Dallas, Mr. Bernanke bluntly noted that two giant fiscal waves were headed for the federal government, one atop the other. First comes the big deficit caused by the economic downturn. That will be followed immediately by ballooning costs for baby-boom retirees drawing Social Security and Medicare funds. “To avoid large and unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above,” Mr. Bernanke

Tax Receipts Rebound as 15 Biggest States See Gain

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Jason wrote:
>   
>   State tax receipts are reportedly up…
>   

Yes, federal looking like they’ve bottomed as well.

Definitely looks like activity has bottomed.

And still feels like we are going the way of Japan, but too early to tell.

>   
>   Granted we are still well below 2008 peak revenue levels
>   
>   and the budget crisis is far from over.
>   
>   But Muni CDS remains near the wide end of the range when compared with
>   Corporate IG:
>   
>   Still looks like a great trade to me…
>   

Tax Receipts Rebound as 15 Biggest States See Gain



By Dunstan McNichol


March 30 (Bloomberg) — The two-year slide in tax

collections that opened a $196 billion gap in U.S. state budgets

has stopped, easing pressure on credit ratings and giving leeway

to lawmakers as they craft spending plans for next year.

The 15 largest states by population forecast a 3.9 percent

gain in tax revenue in fiscal 2011, budget documents show. The

50 states on average may increase collections by about 3.5

percent, the first time in two years the figure is expected to

grow, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com,

California took in 3.9 percent more since December than

projected in January, Controller John Chiang said this month.

New York got $129 million above forecasts in its budget year

through February, according to a report from Comptroller Thomas

DiNapoli. In New Jersey, the second-wealthiest state per capita,

January sales-tax collections were 1.9 percent higher than a

year earlier, the first annual increase in 19 months,

forecasters said in a report last month.

“This time last year, we were sliding down a mountain,”

said David Rosen, chief budget officer for the New Jersey

Legislature. “I don’t think we are now; it’s stabilized.”

States collected about $79 billion less in sales, income

and corporate taxes in 2009 than in 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau

said today in a report, as the economy struggled through its

deepest slump since the Great Depression. Emergency spending

cuts and tax increases became routine during the recession that

began in December 2007.

‘Panic Mode’

The end of the collections crash will ease fiscal strains

that led New York-based Moody’s Investors Service to lower the

ratings of five states last year, after no downgrades in 2008.

It will also enable governors and legislators to draw up budgets

for fiscal 2011, which starts July 1 for most states, with more

confidence that money they plan to spend will arrive.

“As long as revenues were sliding, budgeters were in a

panic mode,” said Zandi, whose West Chester, Pennsylvania-based

company provides economic analysis to businesses, government and

investors. “It’s not as scary when revenues are rising.”

States’ combined budget gaps will still total $180 billion

in fiscal 2011 and $120 billion in fiscal 2012, the Washington-

based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates.

Economic Growth

This fiscal year, the 15 largest states expect to collect

11 percent less taxes than in fiscal 2008, budget proposals

show. It won’t be until 2013 that revenue returns to 2008

levels, said New Jersey’s Rosen and Barry Boardman, the North

Carolina General Assembly’s chief economist.

Collections of personal income and sales taxes, the two

largest components of state revenue, fell by 17 percent and 7

percent, respectively, last year compared with 2008, according

to the Census Bureau. Declines were less steep in the fourth

quarter than earlier in the year, with income taxes dropping by

4.7 percent to $59.9 billion and sales taxes sliding by 2.8

percent to $71.7 billion.

Corporate taxes increased 3.4 percent to $9.1 billion in

the fourth quarter, the Census Bureau said, after declining in

seven of the previous nine quarters.

Combined state and local tax collections climbed to $360.1

billion during the final three months of 2009, the first year-

over-year gain in five quarters and an almost 1 percent boost

from the same period in 2008, according to the agency.

State coffers are beginning to get a boost from an economy

that expanded at a 5.6 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter

of 2009, the most in six years. That’s stopped the drop in sales

tax collections, which generated $23 billion less last year than

in 2008, according to the Census Bureau.

Predictability a ‘Positive’

Arizona, which sold state buildings and canceled health

insurance for 47,000 children as collections this fiscal year

fell 34 percent below 2007 levels, said its January revenue was

$14.2 million above projections, the first time since March 2007

that collections exceeded forecasts.

Virginia recorded a 31.6 percent increase in corporate

taxes through February, it said on March 11. Governor Robert

McDonnell, a Republican who took office in January, increased

this year’s revenue projections by $82.5 million last month.

Improved revenues may help states replenish reserves, curb

borrowing for expenses and strengthen their debt ratings, said

Robin Prunty, credit analyst for Standard & Poor’s in New York.

“Just having predictability is a positive from a credit

standpoint,” Prunty said.

“We’ve seen the worst,” said Philip Condon, who oversees

about $9.4 billion in municipal bonds for DWS Investments in

Boston. “While it may not be great, it’s getting better.”

California Sale

DWS was among the buyers of last week’s $3.4 billion

issuance of taxable California bonds, its first such sale since

November. A scarcity of municipal debt, coupled with indications

that California’s revenue decline may have reached bottom,

attracted investors and drove down bond yields, Condon said.

“The recent uptick in revenue collections certainly didn’t

hurt us,” said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for Treasurer Bill

Lockyer in Sacramento.

Forty-five states reduced outlays for health care, the

elderly and disabled and primary and higher education in 2008

and 2009, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said.

Lawmakers now may be able to restore spending or avoid

further reductions. California’s Chiang this month scrapped a

plan to delay tax refunds after revenue exceeded projections for

three months. In January, an impasse over the state’s $20

billion budget imbalance led S&P to cut its credit rating to A-,

the lowest of any state.

“The fact that revenues are performing better I think is

certainly the first bit of good news we’ve heard in a long

time,” said Amy Doppelt, a San Francisco-based managing

director at Fitch Ratings who follows California. Fitch last

year downgraded more than 200 municipal issuers, the most ever,

according to a March 25 report from the rating company.

Negative Outlook

S&P lowered its rating on California, Illinois and Arizona

last year and has a negative outlook on those and four other

states. Moody’s cut those three plus Nevada and Ohio, its first

state downgrades since Michigan in 2007. It’s negative on 15,

including five of the 10 largest: Florida, Illinois,

Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.

Jobless rates in 18 states including Florida and Rhode

Island exceeded the national average of 9.7 percent in February.

Unemployment in most states is about double pre-recession

levels, according to the Labor Department.

Michigan, with the nation’s highest unemployment rate at

14.1 percent in February, is in its 10th year of job losses and

expects to end fiscal 2011 with the fewest jobs in 24 years.

“As the employment situation continues to be weak, income

tax revenues will continue to lag,” the Center on Budget and

Policy Priorities said in a Feb. 25 report.

Pension Expenses

As workers lose income, states face rising expenses for

Medicaid and other social services. Through March, they had

borrowed $37 billion from the federal government to cover

unemployment benefits, the Treasury Department said.

States face a $1 trillion gap between assets in public

pension plans and their obligations to retirees, a Feb. 18 study

by the Washington-based Pew Center on the States said. Illinois

borrowed $3.5 billion in January to finance its pension

contribution, which led Moody’s and S&P to cut their ratings to

the second-lowest of any state.

More Jobs

“You can’t exclude the expense side,” said Howard Cure,

New York-based director of municipal research for Evercore

Wealth Management LLC, which oversees $1.7 billion, half in

fixed-income municipals. “What really would alleviate that

situation is more jobs.”

States also have to prepare for the June 2011 end of help

from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which will

provide them with about $140 billion of aid since its inception

in February 2009.

“States may have reached the end of the beginning of a

multiyear fiscal crisis,” the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute

of Government in Albany, said in a January report. “The best to

be hoped for in 2010 may be the beginning of the end.”