U.S. food stamp use up sharply, sign of hard times (Reuters) by Charles Abbott

FT.com / Weekend columnists / Tim Harford - Why a tax cut just isn’t fair on teenagers

Tim Harford, aka The Undercover Economist, loves to expose the overlooked effects of governments’ economic policies. For example, both the United States and the UK have recently announced tax cut and rebate plans aimed at putting hundreds of dollars back into the hands of taxpayers, with the hope that households will spend their “free money” from the government, giving the national economies a much needed boost in a time of economic slowdown.

Expansionary fiscal policy, as such a tax cut is known, is a popular tool in times of macroeconomic slowdowns. The hope, of course, is that taxpayers who experience sudden fiscal relief will rejoice upon their newfound disposable income, spending it on goods and services, creating new income for various sectors of the economy, which in turn will be spent on more goods and services. In economics, we call this the “multiplier effect”, the idea being that a certain tax cut (say $150 billion), will ultimately create some multiple of that amount in new spending and income throughout the economy as a whole.

In reality, however, house holds do not spend 100% of a tax rebate or tax cut like those recently passed in the US and the UK. When disposable income increases, household will spend a certain proportion and save or pay off past debts with the rest. The proportion of new income spent is determined by an individual’s marginal propensity to consume, and the proportion saved is based on his or her marginal propensity to save. The greater proportion of additional income that is spent, the larger the multiplier effect in the economy as a whole, and the greater impact expansionary fiscal policy will have towards achieving growth in the economy.

Policy makers, therefore, prefer households spend, rather than save, new income from a tax cut or rebate. According to the Undercover Economist, however, saving a tax rebate is precisely what smart households will do. Why? Because of the basic economic truth learned in the first week of most principles of economics courses: There’s no such thing as a free lunch! Tim Harford explains:

…since neither the UK nor US governments plans to alter its spending plans, these tax holidays will be funded by government borrowing – borrowing that must eventually be repaid. That will require taxes to go up in the future, or not to fall when they otherwise might.

Who should celebrate? Not the typical taxpayer, that is for sure. The tax cut makes no difference to her. If she – assume she is British – had wanted an extra £120 right now, she could already have it in her pocket, either by withdrawing it from savings or by borrowing the money. If she did that, of course, she would later have to repay £120 plus interest. But that is exactly what Darling’s successor as chancellor will require of her. To look at it another way, the rational taxpayer should save the £120 windfall now, keeping it to pay the higher taxes that are surely on the horizon.

A tax rebate financed through government borrowing does not make American or British households any better off. Imagine a scenario where your buddy is experiencing some financial difficulties (maybe he’s lost his job, maybe he’s experienced an expensive injury and has no health insurance…), so you decide you’ll help him out by throwing some cash his way. The catch is, you’re already in debt and have spent more in the last couple of years than your actual income should have allowed. So, in order to help your buddy out, you actually need to borrow money from him. So you give him an IOU, he scrounges up the little cash he can find, gives it to you for the IOU, and you turn around and give it back to him to “help him out.” You can imagine, your buddy is not very thankful and certainly doesn’t feel any richer.

On the macro level, the cash mailed out to American households as part of the recent stimulus package came from new borrowing by the government from American households. All those IOUs issued to finance the stimulus must be paid back, and must be done so through future tax increases. The government has chosen to forgo future spending in order to stimulate current spending. Not everyone should dismay, however, as a certain lucky group will clearly benefit from today’s debt-financed fiscal stimulus packages:

…some people should count themselves wealthier after the tax cut. Anyone expecting to die without making a bequest should be pleased: if the Grim Reaper knocks on the door before the taxman does, he can spend the tax rebate now and leave the bill for some other sucker.

Who will be the fall guy? We don’t know for sure, because we can’t say who a future government will tax. But an obvious candidate would be today’s teenagers, very few of whom are paying income tax right now, but most of whom will pay it in the next few years. Their best hope is that their grandparents add the tax windfall to their bequests rather than blowing the money on a weekend in the sun.

A tax cut today almost certainly implies a tax increase tomorrow. Since teenagers enjoy almost none of the tax cuts today, but will bear the future increases required to pay back new debt, it is you, my students, who should be most opposed to the shortsighted policies being undertaken by US and UK policy-makers.

Judging by today’s headlines, things aren’t looking too hot for the US economy:

• Job losses, unemployment both worse than forecast - Apr. 4, 2008
• Dollar slips against euro, yen on jobs - Apr. 4, 2008
• BBC NEWS | Business | Oil price edges up on Opec stance
• FT.com / Asia-Pacific / China - US economy is ‘down sharply’, Paulson says
• Bernanke Nods at Possibility of a Recession - New York Times

From the last article:

In his bleakest economic assessment to date, the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, said Wednesday that the American economy could contract in the first half of 2008, meeting the technical definition of a recession, and he encouraged Congress to help homeowners caught up in the mortgage crisis.

For the first time during his three years in the job, Bernanke has admitted we could be in a recession, defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. By June, we could very well have experienced just such a decline in output; every central banker’s nightmare!

The source of America’s economic woes? Weak housing market. In fact, house prices have fallen around 10% nationwide over the last 12 months. To understand why, we need to recall the basic microeconomic principles of supply and demand. Quite simply, too many homes were built over the last decade, as low interest rates and optimism about the continued strenght of the housing market (rooted, of course, in the irrational exuberance about the economy as a whole) led builders to expand the suburban sprawl like never before, anticipating growing demand forever into the future. Problem was, demand couldn’t keep up with supply, and now the price is starting to reflect this basic economic principle.

To make things more complicated, many home buyers over the last seven years should never have been given loans based on their credit histories and household incomes. Many of these buyers were thus given “sup-prime” loans, many with adjustable interest rates, which means that today people who were too poor to get a normal loan four years ago are seeing their monthly payments increase just as the economy is slowing down. Rising unemployment puts downward pressure on wages, and inflation (caused by rising energy and commodity prices) forces poor homeowners to allocate more of their wages towards food and electricity, making it doubly hard to make their monthly mortgage payments.

The outcome is predictable: foreclosures. Banks that made loans to uncreditworthy buyers are now taking the houses back and putting them on the market for really low prices, putting even more downward pressure on all home prices. Since their homes make up the majority of Americans’ wealth, and since wealth and disposable income are the main determinants of consumption, inflation and falling home prices both lead to huge decreases in consumption.

The cycle continues: declines in household consupmtion signals to firms that it’s a bad time to invest, so investment spending declines. As consumption and investment fall, aggregate demand shifts in, causing output and employment to fall, hence our current recession.

“It now appears likely that real gross domestic product, or G.D.P., will not grow much, if at all, over the first half of 2008 and could even contract slightly,” he said. “We expect economic activity to strengthen in the second half of the year, in part as the result of stimulative monetary and fiscal policies.”

For now, however, judging by today’s headlines, conditions will continue to worsen for the American worker, homeowner, consumer and firm.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Wednesday’s class this week was one of my favorite of the year. Why? We got to talk taxes. Oh my goodness, you say, what’s wrong with Welker? How could he actually enjoy talking about taxes? As I said at the beginning of class, there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes.

For most people, taxes are a dismal subject, to say the least. But for teachers of economics, especially in this presidential election year, taxes make for an exciting economic, political and philosophical debate.

The premise of our discussion in class was the idea put forth by Arthur Laffer nearly 30 years ago towards the beginning of the Regan administration: that if the government would cut taxes on businesses and households, the incentive to invest and work would increase so much that gains in total output and income would be such that the government’s tax revenue might actually increase, despite the tax cut! Cutting taxes on the wealthy would have the greatest positive effect, however, since it’s the wealthy who do most of the investing and much of the spending in the economy.

This basic philosophy underpinned the tax cuts the wealthy enjoyed during Regan’s presidency, and again during George W. Bush’s term in 2001 and 2003. The debate about whether taxes cuts made by the current president is one at the heart of the Democratic/Republican divide today.

Watch the videos below, then answer the questions that follow:

First, the Democratic view:

Then the Republican view:

Discussion questions:

1. Why do Obama and Clinton promise that if they’re elected we’ll “go back to the tax rates we had before President Bush”?
2. What is McCain’s criticism of Obama’s view on taxes?
3. What do you think about the “supply-side” argument that lower taxes will stimulate spending, growth, employment, and possibly even the amount of tax revenue collected by the government? Do you buy it?
4. Are you a “supply-sider” or more of a Keynesian when it comes to the role of government in the economy? What’s the difference?

This is a follow up to a recent post to this blog, Hey, what are you Laffing at? The relationship between tax rate and tax revenue

The unbearable lightness of being Martin Feldstein | Free exchange | Economist.com

Supply-side economics, advocated by most Republican politicians, including presidential candidate John McCain, places great emphasis on the idea that investment is the main engine of economic growth, price level stability, and low unemployment. To encourage firms to invest, government should play a minimal role in the economy; taxes should be sufficiently low to incentivize firms to invest, while at the same time government spending should be reduced to avoid crowding-out of private investment.

Without a healthy level of investment, a country’s capital stock wears out and is not replaced, raising costs of production and shifting short-run (and maybe even long-run) aggregate supply leftward. If investment remains sufficiently low, over time an economy’s output could even begin to shrink.

In the article below, The Economist’s Free Exchange explores the relationship between tax rates and long-run economic growth. The Economist takes the position of “supply-siders” who study the impact of tax rates on the level of output. The idea of supply-side economics is that lower taxes encourage more investment and thus higher growth rates.

Here’s the gist of the supply-side argument:

Our baseline specification suggests that an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly three percent.

On the other hand…

…we find that a tax cut of one percent of GDP increases real output by approximately three percent over the next three years.

In the case of the Laffer Curve, which shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue, the article concludes that:

Tax cuts don’t exactly “pay for themselves”, but they also don’t diminish revenue after about two years. That is, after about two years, the government receives revenues equal to what it would have received at the higher rate, but taxpayers enjoy a lower burden. It is an important advance to discover that because cuts do lead to an immediate dip in revenue, they often inspire offsetting tax increases that retard the growth effect of the origina cut. Nevertheless, the effect of cuts on output is generally strong enough to bring revenue back to where it would have been otherwise.

Supply-side economics, folks. Understanding the effects of fiscal and monetary policies on not only aggregate demand, but on aggregate supply (both short-run and long-run) is a crucial skill in  answering AP free response questions.

Powered by ScribeFire.

A short walk on the supply side | Free exchange | Economist.com

The Economist’s Free Exchange Blog wrote this timely piece on supply-side economics and the Laffer Curve. I couldn’t have (in fact, I didn’t) explained this better myself!

“The basic reasoning behind the so-called “Laffer curve” is plain, uncontroversial, and by no means was discovered by Arthur Laffer. There is nothing to tax if no one produces anything. But taxes affect the return and therefore the motive to supply labour to economic production. An increase in the tax rate can reduce the pool of wealth to tax — the tax base — by reducing the supply of labour. No taxes, no revenue. Also, 100 percent tax rates, no revenue. Somewhere in between — exactly where depends on, among other things, the responsiveness of labour supply to after-tax wages — there will be a point at which an increase in rates delivers a decrease in revenue. If the tax rate is already past that point, a tax cut delivers more revenue.

…labour supply is just one of many ways in which an increase in tax rates may reduce the effective tax base. In addition to working less, individuals may alter their savings and investment patterns, bargain to shift more of their labour compensation to untaxable perks and benefits, move to a different tax jurisdiction, consume more tax-deductible goods, or simply hide income from the tax authorities.”

As Laffer’s model shows, at certain tax rates, a tax cut will lead to an increase in tax revenue. So how can policy makers be sure whether a country’s tax rate is at such a level? In America, where relatively high income earners pay around 35% tax, economists calculate that a tax cut of 10% would increase taxable income due to more labor and greater productivity, but indeed decrease overall tax revenue.

Conclusions? “Supply-siders” who advocate tax cuts need to look more carefully at where America is on the Laffer curve.

Republican politicians of late have exhibited a dismaying lack of respect for basic science, and it is not much of a surprise that many are also cavalier about fiscal economics. At current tax rates, new cuts will not “pay for themselves” in the short run. Emphasizing this point, however, does not begin to imply that raising tax rates is smart or harmless.

Powered by ScribeFire.

OECD Cuts Growth Forecast to Below 2% - Bloomberg.com

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development predicts a global slowdown in growth. Among its 30 member nations, the OECD predicts growth of below 2% for 2008.

The [OECD] cut its forecast for expansion this year in its 30 member nations to “less than” 2 percent, the weakest since 2003. This “will be a difficult year of lower growth and some more unpleasant surprises,” OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria said in an interview in Oslo. “We have revised downwards a number of our projections.”

Okay, 2% isn’t that bad, right? I mean, it’s still growth. In fact, the OECD believes the strongest growth will be in emerging economies such as China and India, which it predicts will grow at 6.9%. The US and Europe may not enjoy such comfortable rates of expansion in this time of restricted credit, low consumption and investment and dwindling optimism among households and firms.

Jean-Luc Schneider, deputy director of the OECD’s economics department, said the agency is “not yet completely convinced there will be a recession” in the U.S., though it will be “flirting” with contraction. That will affect other OECD economies, especially those in Europe, said Gurria.

While European growth won’t be as “uncomfortable” as in the U.S., it’ll “probably be worse than we know today…”

In times of macroeconomic weakness as described above, an active role for government may be required in order to stimulate consumption and investment, increase aggregate demand and restore a healthy rate of economic growth.

Keynesian economists advocate an active role for government and central banks in times of recession. The Keynesian school of economics rests on the theory of downwardly inflexible wages and prices, the implication being that in times of declining demand (low investment and consumption), the economy slides into recession characterized by rising unemployment and slow or negative growth. (as illustrated in the graph here)

The classical view of recession, however, holds that as employment and output decline, the price level will fall due to weak aggregate demand. This “flexible price” theory leads classical economists to argue that if left alone, the economy will self-correct because workers will eventually accept lower wages, leading firms to hire more workers, increase output, and restore full-employment (as shown in the graph on the left). No government intervention is needed in such a scenario.

Keynesians argue that “flexible prices” are a myth, that in times of recession prices may remain high or even rise (in the case of a supply-shock as illustrated in the graph below). Due to the “sticky prices”, workers are not willing to work for lower wages, thus firms are not able to increase their employment in a time of weak aggregate demand. Without downwardly flexible wages, aggregate supply will not adjust outwards to restore full employment output.

Keynesian economists therefore support action by the government and central banks in times of slow or negative growth. In America today, the mainstream view adopted by most macroeconomic policy makers is still rooted in Keynesian theory, which explains the government’s recent fiscal stimulus package and expansionary monetary policies undertaken by the Fed.

Expansionary policies like a tax rebate, the Fed’s buying of bonds on the open market, and the lowering of the discount rate are aimed at shifting Aggregate Demand outward to restore full employment. The problem is that in addition to weak demand, the world economy is simultaneously experiencing rising costs of production as a result of record energy and food prices.

Cost-push inflation and rising unemployment pose a whole new policy challenge for central bankers and politicians. To combat recession in the face of rising prices is tricky, as the trade-off between unemployment and inflation is tenuous. The Phillips Curve illustrates the inverse relationship between the inflation rate and the unemployment rate. To understand the logic of this model it is useful to examine the current challenge face by the Fed.

Both unemployment and inflation are rising in the US right now. The reason for this is the rising costs faced by firms due to a weak dollar combined with high energy and food prices. Normally, a Keynesian approach to recession alleviation would be in order to restore full employment. Stimulating spending through expansionary policies, however, will only worsen the inflation problem.

The “supply shock” faced by America today has caused both unemployment and inflation to increase, which is illustrated by an outward shift in the Phillips Curve. The best policy action in this scenario may, in fact, be to allow the US to enter a recession; in other words, no policy, or laissez faire.

If the US and European economies are allowed to experience a significant slowd0wn or contraction in growth, the global demand for commodities such as fossil fuels, minerals, and other raw materials for production should decline, putting downward pressure on these commodity prices. In addition, rising unemployment should eventually result in workers accepting lower wages. The combination of falling commodity prices and wages should encourage firms to increase output, shifting aggregate supply outward and the Phillips Curve inward, restoring full-employment and price level stability.

In all likelihood we will not see the above scenario transpire. Governments and central bankers are already making moves to maintain growth and low unemployment, even in the face of rising prices. The Keynesian/classical debate, however, will continue. For now, at least, it seems as if the Keynesians are still winning the battle of the hearts and minds of political and economic leaders today.

What McCain Could Do About Taxes - New York Times

McFlation?

John McCain admits that economics is not his strongest suit. He recently claimed that he  wished “interest rates were zero.” Perhaps the fallacy of this policy position is over his head, but I think there are at least 74 AP Econ students here in Shanghai who could explain to Mr. McCain the inflationary impact zero percent interest rates would have.

Regardless, the article above is not about interest rates (thankfully, interest rate and monetary policy decisions will never be his to make even if he does end up in the White House, granted Fed independence remains intact!), rather, tax policy, which would be within McCain’s powers as the designer of the US federal budget. Ben Stein, economist, actor, and humorist, writes a letter to Mr McCain offering his advice on tax policy. Continue Reading »