Tag Archives: taxes

Another Impact of Obamacare

Posted on by
Reply

The Labor Department released its April jobs data last Friday.  First, the good news: the labor force participation rate didn’t change from March—good news because it actually means more folks, in absolute terms, are participating, since the US’ population increased from March, and because while participation still is down from last January and remains near 30-year lows, it’s not dropping further.  Also, 165,000 new non-farm jobs were added in April—no great shakes compared with what’s needed for actual economic growth, but it’s better than even the upwardly revised number for March.  These combined to lower the unemployment rate a tick from March, to 7.5%.

Buried in the numbers, though, are some worrisome data [emphasis added].

[A] broader rate, known as the “U-6” for its data classification by the Labor Department, increased to 13.9% from 13.8% a month earlier.
…
In April, the rate ticked up as the number of workers who are part-time but want full-time work increased.  That came even as the numbers of hours worked also dropped this month for all workers.

The primary reason the hours are dropping is illustrated by this.

…the decision by some employers to keep fewer full-time workers on the payroll or reduce the hours of near full-time workers to avoid having to provide health insurance.

It’s not limited to private enterprise:

Consider the city of Long Beach.  It is limiting most of its 1,600 part-time employees to fewer than 27 hours a week, on average.  City officials say that without cutting payroll hours, new health benefits would cost up to $2 million more next year, and that extra expense would trigger layoffs and cutbacks in city services.

And

Overall, an estimated 2.3 million workers nationwide, including 240,000 in California, are at risk of losing hours as employers adjust to the new math of workplace benefits, according to research by UC Berkeley.  All this comes at a time when part-timers are being hired in greater numbers as US employers look to keep payrolls lean.

As the WSJ put it,

This raises the question about the kinds of jobs being created, and whether they can support a faster recovery.

The Party of Stupid, Again

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Peters and Neil King, writing in The Wall Street Journal, described the party’s latest escapades, this time in state governments, late last week.

Republican lawmakers in several states are blunting plans by GOP governors to reduce or eliminate income taxes, putting the legislators at odds with figures many in the party see as leading voices on reshaping government.

Friction over tax policy within the GOP has flared in states such as Louisiana, Nebraska, Kansas and Ohio, as Republican lawmakers raise concerns over projected revenue losses from income-tax cuts.  Three of those states shelved big income-tax cuts that would be paid for by broadening the sales tax, and in Kansas, legislators will return next week to a continuing debate over the size and speed of proposed cuts.

And

What is playing out is a collision of long-held Republican Party ideals as lawmakers want to cut taxes to spur economic growth without running up deep budget deficits.  Most of the governors promoting cuts are first-termers who say the income tax damps consumer spending and business creation.  The boldest plans, however, can’t be done without expanding the sales tax and eliminating certain exemptions, a shift many legislators aren’t willing to embrace.

As I’ve pointed out many times, these beefs flow from the false premise that the (state) governments need the revenues.  No.  Cut spending to fit within the (lower) taxes—which actual revenues will increase, anyway, from the resulting stronger and growing state economies.  Reduce overdone services; eliminate the frivolous and/or duplicative ones (New Jersey has six separate services related to agriculture as well as an Arts Council and an Arts and Recreation service that are better done locally and/or in the private sector; Arizona’s descriptions of its state-run services run to 500 pages of…regulations); let the private sector do more with its own money; let private charity, church, community play more of their proper role.

Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma (R, Indianapolis) said of a tax reduction plan generated by Governor Mike Pence (R)

You can’t just have a reaction and say, “Yep, we’re going to cut a tax.”  You have to look in the long haul—over a decade—to be sure it’s sustainable.

Yes, you can.  It’s sustainable from cutting spending commensurately.

Peters and King note

[t]he tax debate in Republican-dominated capitols comes as national party leaders see the states as a source of policy innovations and fresh faces following Republican election defeats on the federal level last November.  The Republican National Committee recently heralded its 30 GOP governors as “America’s reformers in chief.”

It’s hard to make this case, though, with the evident hypocrisy the Republican state legislators are showing.

Figure it out, guys.  Either you’re for low taxes, little spending, and limited government, or you’re not.  Do we need to generate a new party that takes shrinking government seriously?

The Growth Deficit Redux

Posted on by
Reply

There’s this from last fall:

Let’s look at this another way.  It’s been widely reported that this “recovery” is the weakest, most anemic post-recession recovery in our nation’s history.  Those reports aren’t far wrong.  A normal recovery coming out of a downturn as deep and steep as was the Panic of 2009 typically sees growth rates of 5%-6% per year, or more.  This Obama recovery has been 6.7% over the entirety of his term in office—nearly four years [as of October 2012.  It’s not any better today].  Had we seen a normal recovery (and using a pessimistic 5%/year growth rate), we would have reached today’s unemployment rate after a shade over one year—in 2010—and we would have been back to full employment (in the range of 4.8%-5.5%) in just under 2 years—by last year.

Next, there’s this from last weekend:

We are now in year five of what has been one of the great experiments in Keynesian economic policy.  We were told that if Congress would spend $830 billion more temporarily, and the Federal Reserve would unleash monetary policy, a recovery would begin and rapid growth would resume.  Larry Summers, Alan Krueger, Jared Bernstein and their allies on Wall Street got their policy wishes.  Their economy has delivered mediocre growth and declining middle-class incomes—though we will concede that the wealthy have done well as the stock market has recovered.

So now the same Keynesians say the spending blowout wasn’t large or long enough, taxes still aren’t high enough, and monetary policy hasn’t been easy enough.  What this economy really needs is a statute of limitations on intellectual denial.

Finally, there’s this from Henry Morgenthau in the depths of that earlier great experiment in Keynesian economic policy:

We have tried spending money.  We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.  I want to see this country prosper.  I want to see people get a job.  I want to see people get enough to eat.  We have never made good on our promises.  I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started.  And enormous debt to boot.

Hmm….

National Debt

Posted on by
Reply

Kevin Williamson, writing in the National Review Online, is not optimistic about our 2023 national debt, projecting our interest costs on the assumption that interest rates won’t rise over the next 10 years (OK, he’s pessimistic; he holds rates at their current near-zero levels only to make a point).

Williamson projected the interest payments on the $26 trillion debt projected for 2023 to be $763 billion at today’s rates.  That works out to an interest rate of 2.9%.  Those $763 billion would be more than what the Federal government spent on Social Security, national defense, or all nondefense discretionary spending in 2011, Williamson noted.

But suppose interest rates rise as lenders decide our sovereign debt just isn’t all that valuable, our ability to repay that debt just isn’t all that assured?

First a rounding exercise: let’s say our interest rates rise to 3%.  That runs our 2023 interest payment to $780 billion.  That’s not so bad, eh?  However, nearby historical treasury rates, dating back 1990, have run around 5%.  That runs the interest bill to $1,300 billion.  If rates run to 7%, where they were during the Vietnam War, the interest bill gets over $1,800 billion.  If it spikes to 14%–the Carter Recession—the interest bill explodes: $3,600 billion. That’s what the Federal government spent—on everything—in 2012.

Who wants to bet lender confidence levels in our debt will keep our interest rates from rising above that historical average?

Taxes, Again

Posted on by
Reply

The Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution has had time to go over President Barack Obama’s budget “proposal,” and they’ve

found that the budget plan would raise roughly $1.1 trillion over 10 years….

Their graph below illustrates from where those trillion dollars would come.

Notice that.  Those at the bottom of the economic totem pole—a strait contributed to in no small way by Obama’s rather cynical wealth redistribution policies—will see a larger drop in their take home pay from Obama’s tax increase than will his highly touted middle class.

So much for Obama’s promise of not raising taxes on those making less than $250k.  But that promise went by the boards long ago.

Then there’s the sin tax bump on tobacco:

The White House proposes raising the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes to $1.95 from $1.05.  It estimates this would raise $78 billion over 10 years, and it plans to use the proceeds for expanded preschool education.

The White House has defended the proposal by saying it would both discourage smoking and fund an education initiative that low-income families would benefit from the most.

But apparently the sin tax shouldn’t be used to deal with the health-related outcomes of this particular sin.  Never mind that “low-income families would benefit most” from this alternate use.  This is one of the contradictions inherent in Progressive attempts to use our tax code to achieve their social goals.

There’s more; RTWT.

2014 (and 2016) aren’t coming soon enough.