Tag Archives: political economy

Obamacare and Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

Casey Mulligan has looked into this in a paper he has at the National Bureau of Economic Research titled “Average Marginal Labor Income Tax Rates under the Affordable Care Act“.  The full paper can be had through the NBER for five bucks.

Mulligan summarizes his paper here, on his blog supply and demand (in that order).

My summary of Mulligan’s summary is his comparison of Obamacare’s impact on our marginal tax rates with the impact of a couple of other programs and his comment on the impact of Obamacare on our take home pay—the part of our paychecks we actually get to use for our own purposes.

Several SNAP (formerly food stamp program) expansions in combination were a quarter of the ACA’s magnitude.  In terms of its impact on average marginal tax rates, the ACA hike is almost double the effect of permanently increasing unemployment benefit payments to 99 weeks from a baseline of 26 weeks[.]

And

[Obamacare] has not been introduced into a tax-free economy, so its marginal tax rate hikes add to marginal tax rates already in effect.  I estimate that, by 2015, the average marginal after-tax share among household heads and spouses with near-median weekly earnings will have fallen to 0.50 from 0.60 in 2007, largely from the ACA but also from other expansions in safety net programs.  That is a massive 17 percent reduction in the reward to working—akin to erasing a decade of labor productivity growth without the wealth effect….

That is to say, in just two short years—immediately on implementation of Obamacare—our median income wage earner will see his take home pay drop 17%, from 60% of his paycheck (already too small a portion) to a miniscule 50% of his paycheck.  As Mulligan notes, that is an enormous penalty to pay for the opportunity to work for one’s living.

Keep in mind, also, that the median weekly income in the US as recently as 2012 was the princely sum of $775.  This works out to a skosh over $40,000 per year.  It’s hard enough to feed, cloth, and educate a family on three-fifths of that.  Think about trying to do it on only half.

National Competitiveness

Posted on by
Reply

James Pethokoukis had some thoughts on this in his recent AEIdeas article, “We’re #5: US gains in global competitiveness rankings.  But guess what our biggest problems are…”  In citing the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, he noted

After having declined for four consecutive years in the ranking, the United States reverses its downward trend, rising by two positions to take 5th place this year and overtaking the Netherlands and Sweden.

And

While the economy is getting back on track, the deleveraging process in the banking sector continues to show positive effects on the stability and efficiency of the country’s financial markets, improving from 31st three years ago to 10th this year in that pillar.

But.  There’s always a but, and Petholoukis doesn’t disappoint.  See this graph:

The graph is hard to read; the “most problematic factors” in the red box are, in order, Tax regulations, Tax rates, and Inefficient government bureaucracy.  (Note: The numbers (e.g., Tax regs’ 16.3) are businessmen responses on a scale of 1 (best) to 5 (worst), which are then weighted so that the final values for the 16 factors sum to 100.  Thus, Tax regulations can be interpreted as held roughly 16 times more important than Foreign currency regulations.  The bars visualize the numbers.)

Yet our man in the White House demands to continue raising taxes, to the point he’s willing to shut down the government and blow up our economy (he also refuses to negotiate over the debt ceiling, remember) if he can’t get more and higher taxes.  And it’s his tax collection agency that targets political groups and their speech of which he disapproves.

Hmm….

Mr Panetta Misunderstands

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had an opinion in a recent Washington Post.  As he went on about how disastrous the sequester is (while ignoring the salutary effect it’s having in reducing government spending even trivially while the apocalypse of spending cuts is not destroying our economy), he also made this remark:

…US citizens will lose trust in our system of governing….

Thus, his misunderstanding: Americans haven’t, at all, lost trust in our system of governing.  We’ve lost trust in the present government, given its blatant, years-long, and cynical deviation from our system of governing.

Oddly separately, Panetta had these remarks, too, but I’m not sure he fully understands what it is he said:

If leaders are willing to take the risks associated with leadership, it’s at least possible to avoid crisis. But if leadership is not there, then we will inevitably govern by crisis. Today, unfortunately, we are governing by crisis after crisis after crisis.

…

the world will view the United States as less able to back its word with power.

Indeed.  Yet President Barack Obama insists on leading from behind.  Or not at all.

Who’s Actually Repaying Federal Loans?

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s one example.

Under the 2008 Farm Bill, the United States Department of Agriculture is required to buy sugars like refined beet sugar and sell it to ethanol producers if the sugar producers are, in the opinion of the USDA, likely to default on certain Federal loans (this requirement is unchanged by the current Farm Bill modifications wending their way through Congress).

You read that right: the Feds loan sugar producers money, then the Feds buy the producers’ output so the producers can repay the loans.  Federal money—which is to say, our money sent to the Feds as taxes—is loaned to sugar producers in support of an ethanol program that no one wants.  Then, when repaying those loans becomes inconvenient, or even impossible, more of our (tax) money is used to buy the borrowers’ output, providing them with the funds with which to pay up.  The borrowers, courtesy of…Uncle Sugar…use (our) purchase money to pay us back.  We’re screwed two times in one deal.

But wait—there’s more.  In one illustrative case,

[t]he USDA paid about $3.6 million for the sugar, which it purchased from Western Sugar Cooperative, a sugar-beet processor based in Denver, according to a notice posted on the agency’s website Friday.  Front Range Energy LLC, a Windsor, CO-based ethanol maker, paid $900,000 for the sugar, according to the USDA notice.

We’re screwed a third time.

And that’s the purpose:

By buying the sugar, the USDA aims to boost prices to a level where sugar processors will be able to repay $298 million in outstanding federal loans that come due at the end of August and September.

It really is just this barefaced.

Some Employment Numbers

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some graphs of our nearby employment history, from Express Employment Professionals, a 30-year-old provider of professionals for temporary employment.

This first graph shows the labor force participation rate since its peak in 2007.

This second graph shows the unemployment rate over the same time period.

There are two items of interest in these two graphs.  The first is that although participation rate was starting to drift down from its early 2007 peak, it didn’t get going in earnest until late summer 2008—with the unemployment rate peaking just a few months later.

The other takeaway is that the unemployment rate began drifting back down from that peak, and fairly steadily so, in concert with the labor participation rate drop-off.  While the unemployment rate has fallen by roughly 2.5 per centage points, the labor force participation rate (the denominator of the unemployment fraction) has also fallen by almost 2.5 per centage points.

Folks just aren’t able to get back to work.  More than 4 million Americans have been out of work for more than 6 months, and that number hasn’t shrunk much over these last 4, and more, years.

What kinds of jobs are being had?  Americans working part-time workers for economic reasons (they would work full-time if they could, but full-time work isn’t available) numbered some 8.2 million as recently as last July.  That’s “only” some 5.5% of those employed that month, but so far this year, there have been nearly 4.5 part-time jobs created for every full-time job.  Last year, that ratio was reversed: 0.2 part-time jobs were created for every full-time job.

We have to think about whether this is a structural change to our work environment and our labor force composition, or whether this is “just” an aspect of the continuing failed economic recovery.