Voice For Liberty

Tag: Stimulus bill

  • The yardstick for the Kansas experiment

    The yardstick for the Kansas experiment

    A politician’s boasting should not be the yardstick for policy.

    As noted by Ed Flentje in the Wichita Eagle:

    As a newly elected governor in 2011 Brownback embraced the discredited, tax-cut dogma of Arthur Laffer in the belief that tax cuts would dramatically stimulate economic growth. He told a friendly audience that cutting income tax rates would generate even more revenue for government. Soon after, the governor elevated the bluster. His tax cuts would give “a shot of adrenaline in the heart of the Kansas economy.” “We’ll have a real live experiment.” “Look out Texas. Here comes Kansas!” “Glide path to zero.”

    Despite Professor Flentje’s claim, there is much evidence that higher taxes, especially higher income taxes, mean lower economic growth. 1 2 3 (There’s also the side benefit of leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it, rather than transferring it to the wasteful public sector.) Cutting taxes — or raising taxes, for that matter — is a treatment that influences things in one direction. If other more powerful forces influence things in an opposite direction, it doesn’t mean the original treatment didn’t work.

    In the case of Kansas, think how much worse things might be if not for the stimulative effect of the tax cuts.

    Still, Governor Brownback should have been more measured in his remarks — or his bluster. He shouldn’t have followed the example of President Barack Obama. He, right after becoming president, promised that the unemployment rate would not top eight percent if his stimulus bill was passed. That plan passed.

    In January 2009 two Obama administration officials, including Christina Romer (who would become chair of the Council of Economic Advisers) wrote a paper estimating what the national unemployment rate would be with, and without, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, commonly known as the stimulus. The Romer paper included a graph of projected unemployment rates. The nearby chart from e21 took the Romer chart and added
    actual unemployment rates. (The accompanying article is Revisiting unemployment projections. That chart and article were created in 2011. I’ve updated the chart to show the actual unemployment rate since then, as black dots. The data shows that the actual unemployment rate was above the Obama administration projections — with or without the stimulus plan — for the entire period of projections.

    The purpose of this is not to defend Brownback by showing how Obama is even worse. (Disclosure: Although I am a Republican, I didn’t vote for Brownback for governor.) Instead, we ought to take away two lessons: First, let’s learn to place an appropriately low value on the promises, boasts, and bluster made by politicians. Then, let’s recognize the weak power government has to manage the economy for positive effect. Indeed, the lesson of the Obama stimulus is that it made the unemployment rate worse than if there had been no stimulus — at least according to the administration projections.

    Governor Brownback was right to cut taxes because Kansas taxes were too high.

    Unemployment with and without stimulus through 2014-01

    1. “So what does the academic literature say about the empirical relationship between taxes and economic growth? While there are a variety of methods and data sources, the results consistently point to significant negative effects of taxes on economic growth even after controlling for various other factors such as government spending, business cycle conditions, and monetary policy. In this review of the literature, I find twenty-six such studies going back to 1983, and all but three of those studies, and every study in the last fifteen years, find a negative effect of taxes on growth. Of those studies that distinguish between types of taxes, corporate income taxes are found to be most harmful, followed by personal income taxes, consumption taxes and property taxes.” McBride, William. What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth? Tax Foundation. Available at https://taxfoundation.org/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth/. ↩
    2. “Research finds that higher state taxes are generally associated with lower economic performance. There is somewhat weaker evidence that state and local taxes can significantly reduce income growth within a state, particularly when the revenues raised are devoted to transfer payments. More recent research corroborates this finding in relation to net investment and employment. However, when additional tax revenue is used to improve the quality of public goods and services, economic growth may increase. When looking at business activity more broadly, more comprehensive reviews of the literature find higher taxes to be associated with less economic growth. They also find this relationship to be stronger within metropolitan areas than across metropolitan areas, which means that local taxes have a larger effect on economic growth when it is less costly for firms and taxpayers to relocate to avoid the tax.” Mercatus Center. Economic Perspectives: State and Local Tax Policy. Available at https://www.mercatus.org/publication/economic-perspectives-state-and-local-tax-policy. ↩
    3. “Two research papers illustrate the need to maintain low taxes in Kansas, finding that high taxes are associated with reduced income and low economic growth.” Weeks, Bob. Kansas needs low taxes. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansas-needs-low-taxes/. ↩
  • Lessons from Kansas tax reform

    Lessons from Kansas tax reform

    What can the rest of the nation learn from our experience in Kansas? Come to think of it, why haven’t we learned much?

    Economists from American Legislative Exchange Council have looked at Kansas and derived some lessons from our state’s struggle with tax reform. The document is titled Lessons from Kansas: A Behind the Scenes Look at America’s Most Discussed Tax Reform Effort. A few remarks and quotations:

    It may be difficult for us in Kansas to see how the rest of the country views our state. But it’s all about the struggle between those who want more government, and those who want more private sector activity: “… it is clear to most observers of state policy at this point Kansas was, and continues to be, a flashpoint in debates about state tax policy. That flashpoint has served as something of a proxy war between big government advocates and those who would prefer to shrink the size and scope of state government.”

    While taxes were cut, the state failed to make the other needed reform: “Spending reductions necessary to implement the plan were eschewed in favor of other tax increases, making any honest judgement of the original plan’s success or failure impossible.”

    On the 2012 plan, was it all for business pass-throughs, or for everyone? “Enacted an estimated $4.5 billion in tax relief over five years, about 80 percent of which was for individuals and 20 percent for business pass-through income.”

    We have to remember the failure of the legislative process in 2012 and the next year: “It is important to note at this point that the revenue increasing offsets included in the 2013 tax plan were nowhere near as comprehensive as the revenue raising offsets in Governor Brownback’s original 2012 tax reform proposal. It was this discrepancy in revenue raising offsets and the failure to rein in state spending that would ultimately lead to revenue problems for Kansas down the road.”

    Credit downgrades are a sign of a mismatch between revenues and expenses. Those who want more spending say the downgrades are caused by a lack of revenue, but we could have cured the mismatch by reforming spending, too: “Contrary to this popularly reported narrative, Moody’s cited much more than just recent tax cuts as the rationale for a downgrade, specifically failure to reduce spending to offset tax cuts, pension liabilities and state debt.

    The purpose of tax cuts? Let us keep more resources in the productive private sector: “It is certainly true that in the years following the tax reductions, Kansas did experience lower revenue collections, even lower than what had been projected. But, part of the goal of the Kansas tax reform was to reduce the amount of money taken in by state government and enhance the resources available to the private sector. Importantly, however, was the resistance to any meaningful spending reductions. Even as the 2012 tax reductions were projected to let Kansans keep $4.5 billion more of their own money, the state increased spending in 2012 by $432 million.”

    Would more taxes help the Kansas economy? “In a late 2012 literature review on this topic, William McBride, former Chief Economist for the Tax Foundation, found that of 26 peer-reviewed academic studies since 1983, only three fail to find a negative effect on economic growth from taxes.”

    The 2015 legislative session: “A block of legislators held out for reductions in the cost of government rather than tax increases but they were unable to get a majority. … The final plan that passed both houses and was signed by Governor Brownback included two main tax increases. The state raised the cigarette tax by 50 cents per pack and increased the sales tax rate from 6.15 percent to 6.5 percent. The two tax increase proposals added up to $384 million in new state revenue and were bolstered by $50 million in spending cuts, although there was still a net increase in spending.”

    Our legislature failed the people of Kansas: “The first lesson to glean from the Kansas experience is that politics affects policy. The final reforms that passed in 2012 were not the reforms that anybody wanted. Specific tax reform ideas are easily diluted and changed, and without the political will to fix imperfect reforms, unintended consequences can be difficult to avoid.”

    Then, politicians should be so boastful. Don’t overpromise. (Ask Barack Obama about that. He said if we don’t pass the ARRA stimulus bill, the unemployment rate would rise above a certain level. Well, the stimulus passed, the unemployment rate went above that level, and it was several years before it fell below. In other words, unemployment was worse with the stimulus than Obama said it would be without the stimulus.) “The second important lesson that can be learned from the Kansas experience is economic growth resulting from bold tax reductions takes time. Governor Brownback’s previous comments about the Kansas tax reforms being ‘a shot of adrenaline’ to the state’s economy continued to hound him throughout the ups and downs of revenue and economic reports. Setting expectations too high or too early can make pushing forward with future reforms nearly impossible, while setting unrealistic expectations can lead to the unwinding of sound economic reforms.”

    Finally: “Even though the tax reductions improved economic growth, the lack of commensurate spending reductions led to trouble for the state’s budget. Budget shortfalls and tough negotiations about possible tax increases mean uncertainty for businesses and families, which can hamper some of the positive economic effects of decreasing taxes.”

  • How would higher Kansas taxes help?

    How would higher Kansas taxes help?

    Candidates in Kansas who promise more spending ought to explain just how higher taxes will — purportedly — help the Kansas economy.

    Are low taxes important to an economy, especially a state economy? When the Tax Foundation looked at the issue, it concluded this: “In this review of the literature, I find twenty-six such studies going back to 1983, and all but three of those studies, and every study in the last fifteen years, find a negative effect of taxes on growth.”1

    Per-capita tax collections, Kansas and nearby states. Click for larger.
    Per-capita tax collections, Kansas and nearby states. Click for larger.
    Many of these studies concerned the national economy and taxes, but some looked at state taxes. When we look at Kansas, we see that Kansas already taxes and spends quite a lot, compared to other states. Nearby is a chart showing per-capita state tax collections in Kansas and Colorado.2

    State and Local Government Employee and Payroll. Click for larger.
    State and Local Government Employee and Payroll. Click for larger.
    Looking at other data, I found that considering all state and local government employees in proportion to population, Kansas has many, compared to other states, and especially so in education.3

    State and local government employment and costs, selected states. Click for larger.
    State and local government employment and costs, selected states. Click for larger.
    From another source of data, I found this: “In the visualization, you can see that Kansas spends quite a bit more than nearby states. Of special interest is Minnesota, which is often used as an example of a high-tax state, and a state with excellent schools and services. But Minnesota spends barely more than Kansas, on a per-person basis. What about Colorado? It seems that Kansans often look to Colorado as a state full of bounty. But Kansas outspends Colorado. Same for New Mexico, Wisconsin, Texas, and — especially — Missouri.”4

    Please don’t argue that the economic health of a state is determined by its budget, that is, whether it is balanced or not. And if you want to argue that Kansas has borrowed money through the highway fund and spent it in the general fund: That’s true, and we should not do that. But that action allowed Kansas to keep spending, much like borrowing allows the federal government to keep spending more that it raises through taxes.

    Some argue that if the state taxes more, it can spend more, and therefore the economy expands. But: The money taken from Kansans is money that they can’t spend. And if one wants to argue that government spends more carefully and efficiently than do private individuals spending their own money — well, give it a try. Empirically, not many people believe this.

    And isn’t government spending the purpose of taxation? Nearby are figures showing Kansas general fund spending. You can see that for two years Kansas spent much more than it collected in revenue, using a large ending balance as the source of funds. If one believes in the Keynesian theory of fiscal effects — which most liberals and progressives do — this “deficit” spending spared spending cuts and therefore boosted the Kansas economy.

    Kansas General Fund spending, showing large deficits of revenue compared to spending in 2014 and 2015.
    Kansas General Fund spending, showing large deficits of revenue compared to spending in 2014 and 2015.

    Regarding the spending cuts that some claim: Have there been severe spending cuts in Kansas? While some programs have been trimmed, overall state spending continues on a largely upward trend (for all funds spending) or remains mostly flat (for general fund spending), after accounting for population and inflation.5

    kansas-per-capita-spending-adjusted-for-cpi-2016-10

    Kansas revenue estimate errors. Click for larger.
    Kansas revenue estimate errors. Click for larger.
    We also hear that the Kansas economy is in bad shape because tax revenue has fallen short of estimates. This is not a good indicator of economic health. Instead, it illustrates the difficulty of economic forecasting. Moreover, the negative estimate variances — revenue shortfalls, in other words — in 2002 to 2003 and 2009 to 2010 were generally much larger in magnitude than those of recent years.6 Remember how the Obama administration told us that without the 2009 stimulus package unemployment would rise to a certain level? Well, the stimulus bill passed, we spent the money, and unemployment was higher than what the administration said it would be without the stimulus. And for a long time, too.7

    We also hear that transfers from KDOT — the highway fund — have hurt Kansas, especially in construction jobs. Our state’s two largest newspapers recently editorialized on this matter.8 They correctly reported that Kansas construction jobs were down. But it wasn’t highway construction jobs that caused the loss of jobs, except for a very small portion.

    KDOT spending on major road programs. Click for larger version.
    KDOT spending on major road programs. Click for larger version.
    Furthermore, the state has continued to spend on highway programs, without regard to transfers from the highway fund. When we look at actual spending on roads, we see something different from what is often told. KDOT’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report shows spending in the categories “Preservation” and “Expansion and Enhancement” has grown rapidly over the past five years. Spending in the category “Maintenance” has been level, while spending on “Modernization” has declined. For these four categories — which represent the major share of KDOT spending on roads — spending in fiscal 2015 totaled $932,666 million, up from a low of $698,770 in fiscal 2010.

    We should not borrow money, place it in the highway fund, and then transfer the funds to the general fund, as the state has done for many years. But actual spending on highways has risen, nonetheless.

    So: Just how will higher taxes help the Kansas economy?

    —
    Notes

    1. McBride, William. What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth? Tax Foundation, 2012. http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth. ↩
    2. Weeks, Bob. Tax collections by the states. Interactive visualization. http://wichitaliberty.org/economics/tax-collections-states-2/. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. State and local government employee and payroll. Interactive visualization. http://wichitaliberty.org/economics/state-local-government-employee-payroll/. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. Kansas, a frugal state? Interactive visualization. http://wichitaliberty.org/economics/kansas-frugal-state/ ↩
    5. Weeks, Bob. Kansas government spending. http://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansas-government-spending-2/. ↩
    6. Weeks, Bob. Kansas revenue estimates. http://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansas-revenue-estimates/. ↩
    7. Weeks, Bob. Brownback and Obama stimulus plans. http://wichitaliberty.org/economics/brownback-and-obama-stimulus-plans/. ↩
    8. Weeks, Bob. Topeka Capital-Journal falls for a story. http://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-news-media/topeka-capital-journal-falls-story/. ↩

  • Kerr’s attacks on Pompeo’s energy policies fall short

    We often see criticism of politicians for sensing “which way the wind blows,” that is, shifting their policies to pander to the prevailing interests of important special interest groups. The associated negative connotation is that politicians do this without regard to whether these policies are wise and beneficial for everyone.

    So when a Member of Congress takes a position that is literally going against the wind in the home district and state, we ought to take notice. Someone has some strong convictions.

    This is the case with U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican representing the Kansas fourth district (Wichita metropolitan area and surrounding counties.)

    The issue is the production tax credit (PTC) paid to wind power companies. For each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced, the United States government pays 2.2 cents. Wind power advocates contend the PTC is necessary for wind to compete with other forms of electricity generation. Without the PTC, it is said that no new wind farms would be built.

    The PTC is an important issue in Kansas not only because of the many wind farms located there, but also because of wind power equipment manufacturers that have located in Kansas. An example is Siemens. That company, lured by millions in local incentives, built a plant in Hutchinson. Employment was around 400. But now the PTC is set to expire on December 31, and it’s uncertain whether Congress will extend the program. As a result, Siemens has laid off employees. Soon only 152 will be at work in Hutchinson, and similar reductions in employment have happened at other Siemens wind power equipment plants.

    Rep. Pompeo is opposed to all tax credits for energy production, and has authored legislation to eliminate them. As the wind PTC is the largest energy tax credit program, Pompeo and others have written extensively of the market distortions and resultant economic harm caused by the PTC. A recent example is Puff, the Magic Drag on the Economy: Time to let the pernicious production tax credit for wind power blow away, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

    The special interests that benefit from the PTC are striking back. An example comes from Dave Kerr, who as former president of the Hutchinson/Reno County Chamber of Commerce played a role in luring Siemens to Hutchinson. Kerr’s recent op-ed in the Hutchinson News is notable not only for its several attempts to deflect attention away from the true nature of the PTC, but for its personal attacks on Pompeo.

    There’s no doubt that the Hutchinson economy was dealt a setback with the announcement of layoffs at the Siemens plant that manufactures wind power equipment. Considered in a vacuum, these jobs were good for Hutchinson. But we shouldn’t make our nation’s policy in a vacuum, that is, bowing to the needs of special interest groups — sensing “which way the wind blows.” When considering everything and everyone, the PTC paid to producers of power generated from wind is a bad policy. We ought to respect Pompeo for taking a principled stand on this issue, instead of pandering to the folks back home.

    Kerr is right about one claim made in his op-ed: The PTC for wind power is not quite like the Solyndra debacle. Solyndra received a loan from the Federal Financing Bank, part of the Treasury Department. Had Solyndra been successful as a company, it would likely have paid back the government loan. This is not to say that these loans are a good thing, but there was the possibility that the money would have been repaid.

    But with the PTC, taxpayers spend with nothing to show in return except for expensive electricity. And spend taxpayers do.

    Kerr, in an attempt to distinguish the PTC from wasteful government spending programs, writes the PTC is “actually an income tax credit.” The use of the adverb “actually” is supposed to alert readers that they’re about to be told the truth. But truth is not forthcoming from Kerr — there’s no difference. Tax credits are government spending. They have the same economic effect as “regular” government spending. To the company that receives them, they can be used — just like cash — to pay their tax bill. Or, the company can sell them to others for cash, although usually at a discounted value.

    From government’s perspective, tax credits reduce revenue by the amount of credits issued. Instead of receiving tax payments in cash, government receives payments in the form of tax credits — which are slips of paper it created at no cost and which have no value to government. Created, by the way, outside the usual appropriations process. That’s the beauty of tax credits for big-government spenders: Once the program is created, money is spent without the burden of passing legislation.

    If we needed any more evidence that PTC payments are just like cash grants: As part of Obama’s ARRA stimulus bill, for tax years 2009 and 2010, there was in effect a temporary option to take the federal PTC as a cash grant. The paper PTC, ITC, or Cash Grant? An Analysis of the Choice Facing Renewable Power Projects in the United States explains.

    Astonishingly, the wind PTC is so valuable that wind power companies actually pay customers to take their electricity. It’s called “negative pricing,” as explained in Negative Electricity Prices and the Production Tax Credit:

    As a matter of both economics and public policy, no government production tax subsidy should ever be so large that it creates an incentive for a business to actually pay customers to take its product. Yet, the federal Production Tax Credit (“PTC”) for wind generation is doing just that with increasing frequency in electricity markets across the United States. In some “wind-rich” regions of the country, wind producers are paying grid operators to take their generation during periods of surplus supply. But wind producers more than make up the cost of the “negative price” payment, because they receive a $22/MWH federal production tax credit for every MWH generated.

    In western Texas since 2008, wind power generators paid the electrical grid to take their electricity ten percent of the hours of each day.

    Once we recognize that tax credits are the same as government spending, we can see the error in Kerr’s argument that if the PTC is ended, it is the same as “a tax increase on utilities, which, because they are regulated, will pass on to consumers.” Well, government passes along the cost of the PTC to taxpayers, illustrating that there really is no free lunch.

    Kerr attacks Pompeo for failing to “crusade” against two subsidies that some oil companies receive: Intangible Drilling Costs and the Percentage Depletion Allowance. These programs are deductions, not credits. They do provide an economic benefit to the oil companies that can use them (“big oil” can’t use percentage depletion at all), but not to the extent that tax credits do.

    Regarding these deductions, last year Pompeo introduced H. Res 267, titled “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should end all subsidies aimed at specific energy technologies or fuels.”

    In the resolution, Pompeo recognized the difference between deductions and credits, the latter, as we’ve seen, being direct subsidies: “Whereas deductions and cost-recovery mechanisms available to all energy sectors are different than credits, loans and grants, and are therefore not taxpayer subsidies; [and] Whereas a deduction of costs and cost recovery with respect to timing is not a subsidy.”

    Part of what the resolution calls for is to “begin tax simplification and reform by eliminating energy tax credits and deductions and reducing income tax rates.”

    Kerr wants to deflect attention away from the cost and harm of the PTC. Haranguing Pompeo for failing to attack percentage depletion and IDC with the same fervor as tax credits is only an attempt to muddy the waters so we can’t see what’s happening right in front of us. It’s not, as Kerr alleges, “playing Clintonesque games of semantics with us.” As we’ve seen, Pompeo has called for the end of these two tax deductions.

    If we want to criticize anyone for inconsistency, try this: Kerr criticizes Pompeo for ignoring the oil and gas deductions, “which creates a glut in natural gas that drives down the price to the lowest levels in a decade.” These low energy prices should be a blessing to our economy. Kerr, however, demands taxpayers pay to subsidize expensive wind power so that it can compete with inexpensive gas. In the end, the benefit of inexpensive gas is canceled. Who benefits from that, except for the wind power industry? The oil and gas targeted deductions also create market distortions, and therefore should be eliminated. But at least they work to reduce prices, not increase them.

    By the way, Pompeo has been busy with legislation targeted at ending other harmful subsidies: H.R. 3090: EDA Elimination Act of 2011, H.R. 3994: Grant Return for Deficit Reduction Act, H.R. 3308: Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act, and the above-mentioned resolution.

    I did notice, however, that Pompeo hasn’t called for the end to the mohair subsidy. Will Kerr attack him for this oversight?

    Finally, Kerr invokes the usual argument of government spenders: Cut the budget somewhere else. That’s what everyone says.

    Creating entire industries that exist only by being propped up by government subsidy means that we all pay more to support special interest groups. A prosperous future is best built by relying on free enterprise and free markets in energy, not on programs motivated by the wants of politicians and special interests. Kerr’s attacks on Pompeo illustrate how difficult it is to replace cronyism with economic freedom.

  • The Obama tax cuts

    In the presidential debate last week, President Barack Obama spoke of his tax cuts: “So at the same time that my tax plan has already lowered taxes for 98 percent of families, I also lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times. And what I want to do is continue the tax rate — the tax cuts that we put into place for small businesses and families.”

    Are these Obama tax cuts “real” cuts that will lead to economic growth, or just government spending programs in disguise? For tax cuts to be productive in growing the economy, they have to be associated with something positive, namely with work, saving, or investment. What many people positively respond to is a reduction in marginal tax rates, that is, the tax that must be paid on the next dollar earned.

    Many of the Obama tax cuts were part of the stimulus bill passed in February 2009. Polls show that very people know of these tax cuts. Many were temporary.

    The largest item that benefited most people was the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, a two-year program that rebates $400 per year to individual taxpayers, or $800 per year for married couples. The program was effective for tax years 2009 and 2010 only. This is not a reduction in marginal tax rates, although the program will reduce the average tax rate that people pay. It is simply a reduction in the overall amount of tax someone must pay.

    This tax credit is not associated with any positive effort or activity by the recipients other than doing what they already do. The same criticism applies to the Bush tax rebate in 2008, too.

    Besides the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, the Obama tax cuts consisted of other tax credits that apply not to everyone, but only to people who qualify.

    For example, a child care tax credit pays up to $1,200 per year in child care expenses. Obviously, the only people who can claim this credit are working people with children who chose to place them in daycare. Beyond that, it is not a “tax cut” by any stretch of the imagination. Properly, it is a spending program implemented through the tax system. Sometimes called tax expenditures, these measures often escape the usual scrutiny and appropriations process that spending receives. Since they’re billed as a “tax cut,” they sound like a good thing to most people, as few like paying taxes.

    If we need any more evidence that these programs are really spending disguised as tax cuts, consider the description of the child care tax credit as provided by the Internal Revenue Service: “It is a refundable credit, which means taxpayers may receive refunds even when they do not owe any tax.” That’s right. Even if you have no income tax liability, you can still get a tax credit — that is, a payment from the government.

    As to the claim of 18 business tax cuts, a CNN analysis finds “If extensions or expansions aren’t double counted, the list comes out to 14 tax breaks — and only five are still around.”

    In its analysis of the business tax cuts, a New York Times article concluded “As you can see, some of these aren’t tax cuts in the way many people would define them. Rather, they’re tax incentives — you’ve got to spend money (on health insurance, a new employee or new equipment) to save money.”

    An example of one of the temporary business tax measures that were part of the ARRA stimulus bill was bonus depreciation. This measure allowed businesses to capture depreciation of assets more quickly than usual. This reduces taxable income, and therefore would act as an incentive for businesses to make capital investments.

    Ironically, when business jets received a similar accelerated depreciation benefit, President Obama denounces this as a harmful tax break.

    These measures, while reducing the amount of tax a business might pay, don’t change the marginal tax rate. Reducing marginal tax rates is what contributes to growth.

    There has been the temporary payroll tax cut, which is a reduction in tax rates that pay for Social Security and Medicare. This tax, however, applies only to income up to $110,100, so after that level, the reduction no longer applies. Further, this is an example of reducing taxes, but not making corresponding reductions in spending. This means that government has to borrow more, which is a negative factor for economic growth.

    Programs that reduce the average tax rate like Obama’s Making Work Pay Tax Credit and the Bush tax rebates of 2008 aren’t effective because they don’t affect the marginal rate — the rate paid on the next dollar earned. While anything that reduces the burden of taxes is welcome, we ought to implement the type of tax cuts that spur economic growth.

    Who responds most positively to reductions in marginal tax rates? As Jeffrey A. Miron explains, it is the most economically productive members of society:

    The Bush cuts provided lower taxes on ordinary income, especially for taxpayers at the high end of the income distribution. These are some of the most energetic and productive people in society; raising tax rates would discourage their effort and entrepreneurship. High-income taxpayers also have multiple ways of avoiding high tax rates, so any revenue gain from raising rates would be modest. The Bush cuts also lowered taxes on dividend and capital gains income; maintaining these lower rates is even more important for economic performance. Capital is mobile: when it is taxed heavily here, it flees somewhere else, meaning lower investment and employment in the United States. And because capital income taxes discourage investment or drive it overseas, they generate little if any tax revenue. (Jeffrey A. Miron, “Why the Bush Tax Cuts Worked”)

    It is these “energetic and productive” people that are responsible for a great deal of business activity and job creation. When these people take steps to avoid taxes it means less productive economic activity and more unproductive tax shelters.

    In Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform, author Leslie Carbone explains the harm of high marginal taxes, especially progressive taxes, where rates become higher as more income is earned:

    The discouragement of earning money by working, saving, or investing inherent in any income tax is exacerbated by progressivity. While any high tax rates are economically destructive, high marginal rates are even worse, because high marginal rates particularly discourage productivity and inhibit economic growth. … By lowering potential pay off, high investment taxes especially discourage risky investment. Discouragement of risky investment squelches technological advancement, because new technologies are the most risky. This means our progressive tax system actually reduces progress and inhibits improve quality of life.

    If the goal of the Obama Administration is to create private sector economic growth instead of growth in government, it needs to keep the Bush tax cuts in place and avoid increases in marginal tax rates for everyone, especially the most productive members of society. A better strategy would be to reduce these tax rates farther to create even more economic growth.

  • The true size of the Obama stimulus

    When we think of the “Obama stimulus,” most people are referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This legislation called for a variety of fiscal stimulus measures estimated to cost $787 billion at the time the law was passed.

    The reasoning behind the stimulus comes from a school of thinking known as Keynesian economics, which holds that government should actively and aggressively manage the economy, most importantly by stepping up spending when demand is low. Through this deficit spending, it is said that government action can increase employment. This government spending purportedly accomplishes this through a multiplier effect, as dollars are spent again and again.

    What’s often lost in the discussion is that all deficit spending ought to be included in the amount of stimulus the economy has received. When President Obama took office, the national debt — the accumulation of all deficits — was $10.626 trillion, according to CBS News.

    Just recently this figure passed $15 trillion, meaning that there has been over $4 trillion dollars of deficit spending under President Obama. That’s $4,000 billion in deficit stimulus spending, or about five times the “official stimulus” amount.

    Now, we’re starting to understand why Keynesian economics doesn’t work. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Stanford economist Michael J. Boskin summarizes recent research that finds that the spending multiplier that Keynesian economists rely on is small, and actually turns negative by the start of the second year. Furthermore, the government spending crowds out private sector spending. The effect of Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill is estimated at 0.2 percent of GDP, an amount described as “puny.”

    Tax cuts, however, are estimated to have a multiplier of 3.0, with “substantial tax cuts” having a multiplier of up to 5.0.

    In context, Obama’s economic advisers, at the time he took office, estimated that the spending multiplier for government purchases was 1.57, while the multiplier for tax cuts was 0.99.

    Of the new studies finding a small spending multiplier, Boskin writes: “These empirical studies leave many leading economists dubious about the ability of government spending to boost the economy in the short run. Worse, the large long-term costs of debt-financed spending are ignored in most studies of short-run fiscal stimulus and even more so in the political debate.”

    In conclusion, he writes: “The complexity of a dynamic market economy is not easily captured even by sophisticated modeling (an idea stressed by Friedrich Hayek and Robert Solow). But based on the best economic evidence, we should reject increased spending and increased taxes.” He calls for reductions in personal and corporate marginal tax rates and an “enforceable gradual phase-down of the spending explosion of recent years.”

    We should note that Obama and many of those in government are easily seduced by the allure of Keynesian deficit spending. It’s government, after all, that gets to spend the money. Republicans, even those who consider themselves conservative, have been seduced in this way, too.

    Tax cuts, on the other hand, leave money and spending decisions in the private sector.

    Why the Spending Stimulus Failed

    New economic research shows why lower tax rates do far more to spur growth.

    By Michael J. Boskin

    President Obama and congressional leaders meeting yesterday confronted calls for four key fiscal decisions: short-run fiscal stimulus, medium-term fiscal consolidation, and long-run tax and entitlement reform. Mr. Obama wants more spending, especially on infrastructure, and higher tax rates on income, capital gains and dividends (by allowing the lower Bush rates to expire). The intellectual and political left argues that the failed $814 billion stimulus in 2009 wasn’t big enough, and that spending control any time soon will derail the economy.

    But economic theory, history and statistical studies reveal that more taxes and spending are more likely to harm than help the economy. Those who demand spending control and oppose tax hikes hold the intellectual high ground.

    Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal (subscription not required)

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Friday September 9, 2011

    A citizen call to action. This month’s meeting of Americans for Prosperity, Kansas focuses on the Douglas Place project in downtown Wichita. Event organizers write: “On September 13, 2011 the Wichita City Council will be holding a public hearing to consider approval of millions of dollars of public incentives being offered to the downtown Douglas Place project developers. Monday’s meeting will have these topics: Learn about the incentive programs being offered. … Learn and consider getting involved in this issue as a citizen. … Consider testifying before the City Council. … Attend the council meeting to show your support for other speakers. … Please attend and participate in a group discussion to share ideas on how you can make a positive difference in local city government. … Presenters include Bob Weeks, Susan Estes, and John Todd.” This free event is Monday September 12th from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm at the Lionel D. Alford Library located at 3447 S. Meridian in Wichita. The library is just north of the I-235 exit on Meridian. The event’s sponsor is Americans for Prosperity, Kansas. For more information on this event contact John Todd at john@johntodd.net or 316-312-7335, or Susan Estes, AFP Field Director at sestes@afphq.org or 316-681-4415.

    Troubles with Kansas City tax increment financing. I think the problems in Kansas City are larger than what we have in Wichita. But then, Wichita hasn’t relied on TIF as much as Kansas City has. But plans for the revitalization of downtown Wichita call for its expanded use. We need to be cautious, as Jon N. Hall explains in Creative Destruction in Kansas City?

    Effects of stimulus on hiring. A new paper from the Mercatus Center sheds light on the effects of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as ARRA, also known as the stimulus bill, and one of the first legislative initiatives by President Obama. “In an effort to boost hiring and job creation and to invest in a variety of domestic infrastructure programs, Congress passed and the president signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), commonly known as the economic stimulus package, in 2009. ARRA represented one of the largest peacetime fiscal stimulus packages in American history. But little is known about the ways in which organizations and workers responded to the incentives created by the bill.” Among the report’s findings: “Hiring isn’t the same as net job creation. In our survey, just 42.1 percent of the workers hired at ARRA-receiving organizations after January 31, 2009, were unemployed at the time they were hired (Appendix C). More were hired directly from other organizations (47.3 percent of post-ARRA workers), while a handful came from school (6.5%) or from outside the labor force (4.1%)(Figure 2). Thus, there was an almost even split between “job creating” and “job switching.” This suggests just how hard it is for Keynesian job creation to work in a modern, expertise-based economy: even in a weak economy, organizations hired the employed about as often as the unemployed.” See Did Stimulus Dollars Hire the Unemployed? for the full report.

    Kansas education summit. On Thursday September 15th, Kansas Policy Institute is holding a summit on education in Kansas. In its announcement, KPI writes: “Kansas can expand educational opportunities for students in need — even in our current economic climate. Join a “Who’s Who” of the nation’s education reformers in a discussion on how Kansas can give every student an effective education. … Invited participants include Gov. Sam Brownback, the Kansas Department of Education, Kansas National Education Association, Kansas Association of School Boards, state legislators, and other public education stakeholders.” … KPI notes that we increased total aid to Kansas public schools by $1.2 billion between 2005 and 2011, that 25 percent of Kansas students are unable to read at grade level. The event will be held at the Holiday Inn & Suites, Overland Park West. The cost is $35, which includes breakfast and lunch for the all-day event. … RSVPs are requested. For more information, click on Kansas Policy Institute Education Summit.

    Why should conservatives like libertarian ideas? From LearnLiberty.org, a project of Institute for Humane Studies: “Are you a conservative? If so, Dr. Stephen Davies provides a few compelling reasons to consider libertarianism. For instance, conservatives tend to prefer institutions that have been tried and trusted, and want to maintain and uphold a traditionally established way of life. They also typically believe in an established or correct moral code. However, it does not logically follow that government should enforce all of these things. In fact, government enforcement of morals and traditions is often detrimental to both.”

  • Obama job plan not likely to help

    In order to help the economy President Barack Obama promises to soon reveal a plan to create jobs. Today’s preview before a union audience in Detroit didn’t provide many details, but based on the president’s past actions and guesses as to what the plan is likely to contain, it’s unlikely the plan will work.

    Various news reports and commentary have mentioned these as possible elements of an Obama jobs plan:

    A tax credit for hiring new workers. Some sources have suggested the plan might use tax credits to pay companies as much as $5,000 per new worker hired. Another estimate said Obama will have another tax credit plan that creates 900,000 additional jobs at a cost of $30 billion. That’s $33,333 per job. There’s evidence that these programs don’t work very well, as many of the jobs the government pays for are ones that companies were going to create anyway. This is also not a cut in marginal tax rates. Instead, it is more properly classified as a government spending program.

    Job training. This is a common response by government. Government, however, has a history of training the wrong people for the wrong jobs. The private sector is much better positioned to train its employees. But job training sounds like education, something that’s it’s difficult to be opposed to, no matter how poor a job the government does.

    Spending on infrastructure, especially school repairs.

    Extending the one-year cut in the payroll (Social Security and Medicare) tax. Less tax money flowing to government is always a good idea. Balanced against this is the need to pay for Social Security and Medicare.

    Extending unemployment insurance benefits. There’s some sense in doing this. Obama didn’t start the recession, but his policies are prolonging it and preventing recovery. So it’s not necessarily workers’ fault they were laid off and can’t find a job. But there’s a lot of evidence that extending unemployment insurance benefits extends the time many people will be out of work.

    Signing trade agreements. This is a good idea, as allowing free trade increases the wealth of everyone. But, you don’t need a treaty in order to have free trade.

    Help for homeowners. The housing crisis, caused by government, is a major problem. The value of houses must be allowed to fall to their natural level. Any programs that prevent this, or delays this market-clearing from happening, only prolongs the problem. It’s likely that any program coming from the Obama administration will do this.

    In his speech today, Obama’s speech today mentioned spending on “roads and bridges.” he also called for an extension of the payroll tax cut, which he said placed an extra $1,000 in the pocket of the average family, and he alluded to the trade agreements.

    He challenged Republicans to support tax cuts for working class companies, instead of for oil companies and the rich, and said “The time for Washington games is over. The time for action is now.”

    The problem with the president’s proposals is that they do not provide an environment for the growth of business. Some of his plans, like repairing schools, simply grow government at the expense of the private sector and leave future taxpayers a bill.

    The tax cuts for hiring workers is simply a spending program. The president — if he does propose these tax credits — will likely present them as a tax cut. That’s true in one sense, as it leaves more money in the private sector rather than government, which is good. But these tax credits aren’t what we need to really grow the economy, even through the program will leave more money in the private sector.

    For tax cuts to be productive in growing the economy, they have to be associated with something positive, namely with work, saving, or investment. What people positively respond to is a reduction in marginal tax rates, that is, the tax that must be paid on the next dollar earned.

    Programs that reduce the average tax rate like Obama’s Making Work Pay Tax Credit and the Bush tax rebates of 2008 aren’t effective because they don’t affect the marginal rate — the rate paid on the next dollar earned. This is not to say that I am not in favor of these programs. Anything that reduces the burden of taxes is welcome. But they are not the type of tax cuts that spur economic growth.

    Why are low marginal tax rates important to economic growth? First, high marginal tax rates discourage people from producing. As people get to keep less and less of what they produce after they pay higher tax rates, most decide to produce less. Some stop producing anything.

    Second, high marginal tax rates encourage people to invest in economically unproductive investments — like tax shelters — simply to avoid paying tax, without regard to the underlying wisdom of the investment. Or, people decide that since government takes so much of the money they earn, they might as well spend it on tax-deductible expenses that they might not buy otherwise. A company might hold an engineering conference at an expensive luxury resort instead of a modestly-priced facility — or instead of holding it electronically.

    Who responds most positively to reductions in marginal tax rates? First, with about half of American households paying no federal income tax at all — although they do pay payroll taxes — the idea of marginal tax rates doesn’t apply to them. That leaves high-income workers, or as Jeffrey A. Miron explains, the most economically productive members of society that are positively affected by marginal income tax rates:

    The Bush cuts provided lower taxes on ordinary income, especially for taxpayers at the high end of the income distribution. These are some of the most energetic and productive people in society; raising tax rates would discourage their effort and entrepreneurship. High-income taxpayers also have multiple ways of avoiding high tax rates, so any revenue gain from raising rates would be modest. The Bush cuts also lowered taxes on dividend and capital gains income; maintaining these lower rates is even more important for economic performance. Capital is mobile: when it is taxed heavily here, it flees somewhere else, meaning lower investment and employment in the United States. And because capital income taxes discourage investment or drive it overseas, they generate little if any tax revenue. (Jeffrey A. Miron, “Why the Bush Tax Cuts Worked”)

    It is these “energetic and productive” people that are responsible for a great deal of economic activity and job creation. When these people take steps to avoid taxes it means less productive economic activity and more unproductive tax shelters.

    In Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform, author Leslie Carbone explains the harm of high marginal taxes, especially progressive taxes, where rates become higher as more income is earned:

    The discouragement of earning money by working, saving, or investing inherent in any income tax is exacerbated by progressivity. While any high tax rates are economically destructive, high marginal rates are even worse, because high marginal rates particularly discourage productivity and inhibit economic growth. … By lowering potential pay off, high investment taxes especially discourage risky investment. Discouragement of risky investment squelches technological advancement, because new technologies are the most risky. This means our progressive tax system actually reduces progress and inhibits improve quality of life.”

    This is one of the things the president needs to do to grow jobs: reduce marginal tax rates. Then, reduce spending. This, along with sound monetary policies, has the best track record of producing private sector economic growth, and with that, jobs. But both of these, since they reduce rather than grow government, are not within Barack Obama’s realm of thinking, and so are not likely to be proposed.

  • Obama’s tax hikes must be resisted

    As our nation’s leaders consider the possibility of raising income tax rates, we need to be aware of the negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on the economy and make sure we resist the lure of higher taxes. This is especially important even if the new higher tax rates are confined to to the rich.

    The concept of marginal tax rates is important to understand, as it holds the key to understanding how we can drive economic growth, and how we can kill it, too. President Barack Obama believes he has already cut taxes in the name of economic growth. These tax “cuts” — I use quotes deliberately — are part of the stimulus bill passed in February 2009.

    So what are the Obama tax cuts? There was one program that qualified — sort of — as a “cut,” and several tax credit programs. The largest item that benefited most people is the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, a two-year program that rebates $400 per year to individual taxpayers, or $800 per year for married couples.

    It’s important to note that this is not a reduction in marginal tax rates, which is the tax rate that people pay on the next dollar they earn. That’s what people focus on. The program will, however, reduce the average tax rate that people pay.

    This bears repeating: People can’t control the tax on income they’ve already earned. But they can decide whether to submit themselves to the marginal tax rate: The tax rate the government charges on the next dollar they may — or may not — earn.

    So why isn’t Obama’s Making Work Pay Tax Credit a stimulus boon to the economy? It’s not associated with any positive effort or activity by the recipients other than doing what they already do. (This applies to the Bush tax rebate in 2008, too.)

    For tax cuts to be productive in growing the economy, they have to be associated with something positive, namely with work, saving, or investment. What many people positively respond to is a reduction in marginal tax rates, that is, the tax that must be paid on the next dollar earned.

    Programs that reduce the average tax rate like Obama’s Making Work Pay Tax Credit and the Bush tax rebates of 2008 aren’t effective because they don’t affect the marginal rate — the rate paid on the next dollar earned. This is not to say that I am not in favor of these programs. Anything that reduces the burden of taxes is welcome. But they are not the type of tax cuts that spur economic growth.

    Why are low marginal tax rates important to economic growth? First, high marginal tax rates discourage people from producing. As people get to keep less and less of what they produce after they pay higher tax rates, many decide to produce less. Some stop producing anything.

    Second, high marginal tax rates encourage people to invest in economically unproductive investments like tax shelters simply to avoid tax, without regard to the underlying wisdom of the investment. Or, people decide that since government takes so much of the money they earn, they might as well spend it on tax-deductible expenses that they might not buy otherwise. A company might hold an engineering conference at an expensive luxury resort instead of a modestly-priced facility — or instead of holding it electronically.

    Who responds most positively to reductions in marginal tax rates? First, with about half of American households paying no federal income tax at all — although they do pay payroll taxes — the idea of marginal tax rates doesn’t apply to them. That leaves high-income workers, or as Jeffrey A. Miron explains, the most economically productive members of society that are positively affected by marginal income tax rates:

    The Bush cuts provided lower taxes on ordinary income, especially for taxpayers at the high end of the income distribution. These are some of the most energetic and productive people in society; raising tax rates would discourage their effort and entrepreneurship. High-income taxpayers also have multiple ways of avoiding high tax rates, so any revenue gain from raising rates would be modest. The Bush cuts also lowered taxes on dividend and capital gains income; maintaining these lower rates is even more important for economic performance. Capital is mobile: when it is taxed heavily here, it flees somewhere else, meaning lower investment and employment in the United States. And because capital income taxes discourage investment or drive it overseas, they generate little if any tax revenue. (Jeffrey A. Miron, “Why the Bush Tax Cuts Worked”)

    It is these “energetic and productive” people that are responsible for a great deal of economic activity and job creation. When these people take steps to avoid taxes it means less productive economic activity and more unproductive tax shelters.

    In Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform, author Leslie Carbone explains the harm of high marginal taxes, especially progressive taxes, where rates become higher as more income is earned:

    The discouragement of earning money by working, saving, or investing inherent in any income tax is exacerbated by progressivity. While any high tax rates are economically destructive, high marginal rates are even worse, because high marginal rates particularly discourage productivity and inhibit economic growth. … By lowering potential pay off, high investment taxes especially discourage risky investment. Discouragement of risky investment squelches technological advancement, because new technologies are the most risky. This means our progressive tax system actually reduces progress and inhibits improve quality of life.”

    If the goal of the Obama Administration is to create private sector economic growth instead of growth in government, it needs to keep the Bush tax cuts in place and avoid increases in marginal tax rates for everyone, especially the most productive members of society. A better strategy would be to reduce these tax rates farther to create even more economic growth.