Competitively Priced Electricity Costs More, Studies Show – New York Times

The problem with monopolies, as our AP students have learned, is that a monopolistic firm, left to its own accord, will most likely choose to produce at an output level that is much lower and provide their product at a price that is much higher than would result from a purely competitive industry. A monopolist will produce where its price is greater than its marginal cost, indicating an under-allocation of resources towards the product. By restricting output and raising its price, the monopolist is assured maximum profits, but at the cost to society of less overall consumer surplus or welfare.

Unfortunately, in some industries, because of the wide range of output over which economies of scale are experienced, it sometimes makes the most sense for only one firm to participate. Such markets are called “natural monopolies” and some examples are cable television, utilities, natural gas, and other industries that have large economies of scale. (click graph to see full-sized)

Government regulators face a dilemma in dealing with natural monopolistic industries such as the electricity industry. A electricity company with a monopoly in a particular market will base its price and output decision on the profit maximization rule that all unregulated firms will; they’ll produce at the level where their marginal revenue is equal to their marginal cost. The problem is, for a monopolist its marginal revenue is less than the price it has to charge, which means that at the profit maximizing level of output (where MR=MC), marginal cost will be less than price: evidence of allocative inefficiency (i.e. not enough electricity will be produced and the price will be too high for some consumers to afford).

Here arises the need for government regulation. A government concerned with getting the right amount of electricity to the right number of people (allocative efficiency) may choose to set a price ceiling for electricity at the level where the price equals the firm’s marginal cost. This, however, will likely be below the firm’s average total cost (remember, ATC declines over a WIDE RANGE of output), a scenario which would result in losses for the firm, and may lead it to shut down altogether. So what most governments have done in the past is set a price ceiling where the price is equal to the firm’s average total cost, meaning the firm will “break even”, earning only a “normal profit”; essentially just enough to keep the firm in business; this is known as the “fair-return price”.

Below AP Economics teacher Jacob Clifford illustrates and explains this regulatory dilemma. Watch the video and see how he shows the effect of the two price control options on the firm’s output and the price in the market.

The article above examines the differences in the price of electricity in states which regulate their electricity prices and states that have adopted “market” or unregulated pricing, in which firms are free to produce at the MR=MC level:

“The difference in prices charged to industrial companies in market states compared with those in regulated ones nearly tripled from 1999 to last July, according to the analysis of Energy Department data by Marilyn Showalter, who runs Power in the Public Interest, a group that favors traditional rate regulation.

The price spread grew from 1.09 cents per kilowatt-hour to 3.09 cents, her analysis showed. It also showed that in 2006 alone industrial customers paid $7.2 billion more for electricity in market states than if they had paid the average prices in regulated states.”

The idea of deregulation of electricity markets was that removing price ceilings would lead to greater economic profits for the firms, which would subsequently attract new firms into the market. More competitive markets should then drive prices down towards the socially-optimal price, benefiting consumers and producers by forcing them to be more productively efficient in order to compete (remember “Economic Darwinism”?). It appears, however, that higher prices have not, as hoped, led to lower prices:

“Since 1999, prices for industrial customers in deregulated states have risen from 18 percent above the national average to 37 percent above,” said Mrs. Showalter, an energy lawyer and former Washington State utility regulator.

In regulated states, prices fell from 7 percent below the national average to 12 percent below, she calculated…

In market states, electricity customers of all kinds, from homeowners to electricity-hungry aluminum plants, pay $48 billion more each year for power than they would have paid in states with the traditional system of government boards setting electric rates…”

That $48 billion represents higher costs of production for other firms that require large inputs of energy in their own production, higher electricity bills for cash-strapped households, and greater profits and shareholder dividends for the powerful firms that provide the power. On the bright side, higher prices for electricity should lead to more careful and conservative use of power, reducing Americans’ impact on global warming (since the vast majority of the country’s power is generated using fossil fuels).

Here arises another question? Should we be opposed to higher profits for powerful electricity firms if their profits result in much needed energy conservation and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? An environmental economist might argue that if customers are to pay higher prices for their energy, it might as well be in the form of a carbon tax, which rather than increasing profits for a monopolistic firm would generate revenue for the government. In theory tax revenue could be used to subsidize or otherwise promote the development and use of “green energies”.

Whether customers paying higher prices for traditionally under-priced electricity is a good or bad thing depends on your views of conservation. But whether higher profits for a powerful electricity company are more desirable than increased tax revenue for the government are beneficial for society or not seems clear. If we’re paying higher prices, the resulting revenue is more likely to be put towards socially desirable uses if it’s in the government’s hands rather than in the pockets of shareholders of fossil fuel burning electricity monopolies.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why do governments regulate the prices in industries such as natural gas and electricity?
2. Why would a state government think that de-regulation of the electricity industry might eventually result in lower prices in the long-run?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Externalities are a common concept, that we unknowingly encounter each day.

Externalities relate to the spillover costs or benefits that arise from the consumption or production of goods and services. To put this more simply, your friend’s consumption of products can sometimes have an effect on you. For instance his increased level of education can make him a valuable asset in quiz games, or his over-indulgence in caffeine can make him a hard person to work with in class. Sometimes society would prefer more social benefits and less of the spillover costs. The concept is called a social equilirium, where price and quantity reflect the social beliefs.

Spillover costs and benefits are things that exist in many nations. Governments for instance, work hard to discourage consumption of products with substantial spill over costs such as alcohol, cigarettes or chewing gum in Singapore. They will also aim to subsidize the production of goods, which generate positive spillover costs such as public gyms, swimming pools, running tracks or national immunization schemes.

Here are a few examples from Singapore to get you thinking about this new topic.

Negative Externality of Consumption – Cars

Living on a small island a mere 50km by 60km with 5 million people brings about many problems including traffic congestion. Whilst Singapore has an excellent system of public transport, including buses and a subway system, people still demand cars in ever increasing quantities. The spillover effects of private car use are traffic congestion and pollution. The government therefore has developed an array of policies to curb the rate of car ownership.

• When you purchase a new car you must pay, an additional 100% of the cars value to the government as an indirect tax. Imagine a new Audi, retailing for $50,000 now costing $100,000 including the tax.
• When you purchase a car you must also purchase a registration permit to drive it on the roads. These permits last for 10 years, after which you must sell the car overseas. A permit is sold through an auction system. When the demand for cars is high the price of the permit rises and demand for new cars may drop. A permit for a 2 litre engine car costs about $14,000 SGD for 10 years.
• Throughout the inner city and freeway system an electronic road-pricing scheme operates. When you drive you car under one of the gantry’s you pay a small congestion tax which is deducted from a debit card in your car. When congestion is high the early evenings the congestion tax is increased from $0.50c to $1.50 on bad days. An evening commute can result is five or six congestion charges, costing drivers anything between $6 and $12.

Negative Externality of Consumption – Chewing Gum
Chewing gum is a product, that to different people, brings either a cost or benefit to society. The consumption of chewing gum can boost the production of saliva and help reduce chance of tooth decay. On the other hand chewing gum is a sign of urban decay with pavements littered with sticky blobs and grey scars.

The Singapore government feels that society would to prefer to minimize the spillover costs of chewing gum. Instead of imposing a tax on a packet of gum, it has been banned. You can not buy gum at any supermarket in Singapore. The result is pristine pavements that allows council cleaners to focus on other tasks.

Funnily enough, the nicotine gum (used to help smokers kick the habit) is legal with a prescription from your doctor.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why is chewing gum not banned in every country, if it produces spill over costs?
2. What are some possible alternative government interventions to reduce traffic congestion in Singapore?
3. Can you apply the concept of externalities to the consumption of deodorant? Draw a graph to show the private and social equilibriums.

The elasticity, or perceived necessity of different products can influence the decision to introduce a tax. In Russia, two products, Beer and Vodka are being looked at as a potential sources of new government revenue. A proposed increase in the tax duties on beer, will potentially increase retail prices by between 20-30%. An increase in the price of one form of alcohol (beer) could shift demand towards other close substitutes, such as vodka or home brewed spirits. Hopefully, increased tax revenue will support the government finances and in the long run, the money could be reallocated to treat alcoholism.

An Economist article from last week gives a good analysis of this issue. Russia is a country where people drink 30 litres of hard liquor alcohol each year, six times more than the average European. Alcohol taxes are a sensitive subject, and the implications complex, but they need to be addressed.

The Economist – Russia raises tax on beer: Sin-Tax Error

Discussion Questions:

1. “Pushing up beer prices is far more likely to encourage drinkers to swallow even more vodka.” What does this quote suggest, about the cross elasticity of beer and spirits in Russia. Use evidence from the article so support your explanation.
2. The Russian government is suggesting adding a tax to beer.  What effect do you think this will have on the market price and market quantity of beer consumed.
3. The government wishes to impose a tax on these products. Assume a specific tax is imposed on each product. Assume the demand for beer is relatively elastic and the demand for vodka relatively inelastic and draw two graphs to show the effect on consumers and the relative tax burdens.
4. Explain what the aim of introducing taxes on vodka and beer is. Evaluate if the taxes will achieve the aims of increasing government revenue and reducing the social harms related to alcohol consumption in Russia.

Econ professor and blogger Tim Haab has posted a great story on market failure, efficiency and corrective taxes at his blog, Environmental Economics: I love when someone else does my work for me.

With appreciation, I re-post his blog here in its entirety. Tim’s “Questions to consider” are perfect for IB and AP Econ students to answer in their Market Failure unit. Read and answer Tim’s discussion questions in the comments:

Today’s Econ 101 topic–actually AED Economics 200 but same diff–the deadweight loss from taxes in otherwise well-functioning markets. In my neverending–futile?–attempt to stay current, I plan to use this example from today’s Wall Street Journal:

Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system.

The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.

…

The Congressional Budget Office, which is providing lawmakers with cost estimates for each potential change in the health overhaul, included the option in a broad report on health-system financing in December. The office estimated that adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to these types of sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years. So far, lawmakers have not indicated how big a tax they are considering.

Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Questions to consider:

1. How do you reconcile the seemingly conflicting goals of reducing soda consumption and raising revenues to pay for health care?
2. Which effect do you expect to dominate: reduction in quantity demanded due to higher prices or increased revenue from higher prices?
3. Assuming the market for sodas (pop around here) is currently working efficiently, what effect do you expect a new tax to have on consumer well-being, producer well-being, government revenue and total social welfare?
4. What role do the elasticity of demand and elasticity of supply play in your answers to 1,2 and 3?

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.

Discussion questions:

1. Under what circumstances would a tax increase harm not only workers and firms, but reduce government tax revenue as well?
2. What do you think of the Republican view in the United States that tax cuts will “pay for themselves” through increased national income? Will cutting taxes lead to more tax revenue in the short-run? What about in the long-run? Discuss.
3. What is the likely relationship between tax rates and economic growth? Explain.

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.

Harvard Economist Niall Ferguson appeared on CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria over the weekend. Ferguson has stood out among mainstream economists lately in his opposition to the US fiscal stimulus package, an $880 billion experiment in expansionary Keynesian policy. While economists like Paul Krugman argue that Obama’s plan is not big enough to fill America’s “recessionary gap”, Ferguson warns that the long-run effects of current and future US budget deficits could lead the US towards economic collapse. This blog post will attempt to explain Ferguson’s views in a way that high school economics students can understand.

Government spending in the US is projected to exceed tax revenues by $1.9 trillion this year, and trillions more over the next four years. An excess of spending beyond tax revenue is known as a budget deficit, and must be paid for by government borrowing. Where does the government get the funds to finance its deficits? The bond market. The core of Ferguson’s concerns about the future stability of the United States economy is the situation in the market for US government bonds. According to Ferguson:

One consequence of this crisis has been an enormous explosion in government borrowing, and the US federal deficit… is going to be equivelant to 1.9 trillion dollars this year alone, which is equivelant to nearly 13% of GDP… this is an excessively large deficit, it can’t all be attributed to stimulus, and there’s a problem. The problem is that the bond market… is staring at an incoming tidal wave of new issuance… so the price of 10-year treasuries, the standard benchmark government bond… has taken quite a tumble in the past year, so long-term interest rates, as a result, have gone up by quite a lot. That poses a problem, since part of the project in the mind of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is to keep interest rates down“

There’s a lot of information in Ferguson’s statements above. To better understand him, some graphs could come in handy. Below is a graphical representation of the US bond market, which is where the US government supplies bonds, which are purchased by the public, commercial banks, and foreigners. Keep in mind, the demanders of US bonds are the lenders to the US government, which is the borrower. The price of a bond represents the amount the government receives from its lenders from the issuance of a new bond certificate. The yield on a bond represents the interest the lender receives from the government. The lower the price of a bond, the higher the yield, the more attractive bonds are to investors. Additionally, the lower the price of bonds, the greater the yield, thus the greater the amount of interest the US government must pay to attract new lenders.

Ferguson says that the price of US bonds has “taken a tumble”. The increase of supply has lowered bond prices, increasing their attractiveness to investors who earn higher interest on the now cheaper bonds. Below we can see the impact of an increase in the quantity demanded for government bonds on the market for private investment.

Financial crowding-out can occur as a result of deficit financed government spending as the nation’s financial resources are diverted out of the private sector and into the public sector. Granted, during a recession the demand for loanable funds from firms for private investment may be so low that there is no crowding out, as explained by Paul Krugman here.

But crowding out is not Ferguson’s only concern. The increase in interest rates caused by the US government’s issuance of new bonds could lead to a decrease in private investment in the US economy, inhibiting the nation’s long-run growth potential. But the bigger concern is one of America’s long-run economic stability. If the Obama administration does not put forth a viable plan for balancing its budget very soon, the demand for US government bonds could fall, which would further excacerbate the crowding-out effect, and eliminate the country’s ability to finance its government activities. In other words, such a loss of faith could plunge the United States into bankruptcy.

Fareed Zakaria asks Ferguson:

“Is it fair to say that this bad news, the fact that we can’t sell our debt as cheaply as we thought, overshadows all the good news that seems to be coming?”

Ferguson’s reply:

The green shoots that are out there (referring to the phrase economists and politicians have been using to describe the signs of recovery in the US economy) seem like tiny little weeds in the garden, and what’s coming in terms of the fiscal crisis in the United States is a far bigger and far worse story.

Finally Fareed asks the question everyone wants to know:”What the hell do we do?”

Ferguson:

One thing that can be done very quickly is for the president to give a speech to the American people and to the world explaining how the administration proposes to achieve stabilization of American public finance… the administration doesn’t have that long a honeymoon period, it has very little time in which it can introduce the American public to some harsh realities, particularly about entitlements and how much they are going to cost. If a signal could be sent really soon to the effect that the administration is serious about fiscal stabilization and isn’t planning on borrowing another $10 trillion between now and the end of the decade, then just conceivably markets could be reassured.

Ferguson is saying that only if the Obama administration begins taking serious steps towards balancing the US government’s budget can it hope to stave off an eventual loss of faith among America’s creditors (and thus a fall in demand for US bonds). It will be a while before tax revenues are high enough to finance the US budget. But if the country does not begin working towards such an end immediately, it may find itself unable to raise the funds to pay for such public goods as infrastructure, education, health care, national defense, medical research, as well as the wages of the millions of government employees. In other words, the US government could be bankrupt, and its downfall could mean the end of American economic power.

The power of the bond market should not be underestimated. America’s very future depends on continued faith in its financial stability and fiscal responsibility.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why do you think the US government has such a huge budget deficit this year? ($1.9 trillion) Previously, the largest budget deficit on record was only around $400 billion.
2. How does the issuance of new bonds by the US government lead to less money being available to private households and firms?
3. Do you think investors will ever totally lose faith in US government bonds? Why or why not?
4. In what way is the government’s huge budget deficit a “tax on teenagers”? In other words, how will today’s teenagers end up suffering because of the federal budget deficit?

To learn more about the power of the bond market, watch Niall Ferguson’s documentary, The Ascent of Money. The section on the bond market can be viewed here:

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look – washingtonpost.com

Here in Switzerland I enjoy the luxury of having to pay a relatively small federal income tax of 9.6%. In the US, at my current income level, I would be paying a 25% federal income tax. On the other hand, everything I buy here in Switzerland, from food to clothes to train tickets and bike parts, costs me an additional 7.6% of value added tax. If a product is imported, chances are there is also an additional 20% import tariff. In other words, what I save coming in (because of the low direct tax) I lose going out (through high indirect taxes).

The incentive, therefore, is to save as much of my income as possible. I shop much less than I would in the US where indirect taxes are much lower, but when I do shop prices are much higher. Much of Switzerland’s government revenue comes from the value added tax and other indirect taxes, which means households keep much more of their earned income.

In the United States, where the government has not seen a balanced budget since 2001, there has been much talk about creating a national sales tax to help raise revenue to pay for many of the social plans that the Obama administration wants to pursue, such as national health care. VATs and sales taxes are regressive, which means more of the tax burden is born by low income households compared with high a direct, income tax, which is progressive, meaning the higher a household’s income, the greater percentage it pays. But with budget shortfalls expected to reach $4 trillion over the next four years, new sources of tax revenue are needed.

“Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we’re going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate,” said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. “It’s common to the rest of the world, and we don’t have it.”

The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation’s money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it’s all about the money.

To counter claims that a national sales tax is regressive, advocates point out that such a tax would allow the federal government to lower income tax rates for low income Americans, giving them more disposable income to spend on goods and services, which would be more expensive because of the VAT.

Another option the government should consider is a tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, Obama is advocating a carbon permit market, which would be less effective at generating income for the government as permits, once they are issued or auctioned to industry, are bought and sold by firms, creating revenue for companies and not the government. A carbon tax, on the other hand, would create new tax revenue for the federal government and help reduce the negative externalities causing global warming and encourage development of alternative “green” methods of production.

In the short-term, it is unlikely that the US government will legislate any significant new taxes. Carbon taxes have been ignored by the Obama administration and Congress, under the argument that during a recession any new tax on industry might just break the nation’s manufacturing and energy sectors’ backs. A VAT is just as unpopular, for the reason that any policy raising consumer prices puts even greater burden on already strapped household incomes. Tradeable carbon permits are popular for the reason that they appear to be a “market based” approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions; but Congress is talking about putting a price ceiling on carbon permits of $28 per ton, a price at which the incentives to reduce emissions among firms is minimal.

America’s long period of strong growth, low savings, and deficit financed government spending will necessitate belt-tightening in the near future as ultimately the government will have to start financing its budgets through tax revenues, not the issuing of new debt. Carbon taxes, higher marginal income taxes, or a national sales tax are all options the Obama administration can choose from. For now, it appears it’s choosing none of these, and instead selling more bonds to the public, foreigners, and the Fed, increasing the moneys supply in the hope that households and firms begin spending once more. The path towards fiscal discipline is a hard one to get started on, especially during a recession when no new taxes are politically viable.

Discussion Questions:

1. What make’s a sales tax regressive if everyone has to pay, say, 10% on top of the regular sales price of a good or service?
2. How does the US government finance its massive budgets when its revenue from taxes don’t even come close to equaling the amount of spending?
3. Why is it important for a country, in the long-run, to achieve a balnced budget?
4. What would you prefer to do: pay a higher income tax or a higher sales tax? What are the pros and cons of direct versus indirect taxes?

Economic View – A Dose of Skepticism on Government Spending – NYTimes.com

We all understand that fiscal stimulus is one of the tools that governments can use to increase the level of economic activity during a recession. The fiscal medicine can be delivered in one of two ways. The government can tweak the tax systems to boost incentives to spend and work or it can increase government spending. One tool that we can use to evaluate the merits of these two policies is to compare the relative multipliers that relate to government spending and taxation.

The multiplier is the key component of Keynesian theory and shows the possibility of a given increase in injections, e.g. government spending, investment and exports, increasing aggregate demand by more than the initial value. This logic fits with our understanding of the circular flow where say increased government spending will lead to increased derived demand for other products, and increased demand for labour. Workers will spend additional wages on other products which leads to further increases in aggregate demand. This flow on effect can be diluted by withdrawals from the system such as taxation or savings.

Greg Mankiw wrote an excellent analysis of this issue in the New York Times in Janurary. “A dose of skepticism on government spending”

An essential skill for IB and AP Economics students is to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of Keynesian  demand-side policies as well as classical supply-side policies, both fiscal and monetary. An understanding of multipliers can improve a student’s ability to evaluate fiscal policy. Greg writes:

“Economics textbooks, including Mr. Samuelson’s and my own more recent contribution, teach that each dollar of government spending can increase the nation’s gross domestic product by more than a dollar. When higher government spending increases G.D.P., consumers respond to the extra income they earn by spending more themselves. Higher consumer spending expands aggregate demand further, raising the G.D.P. yet again. And so on. This positive feedback loop is called the multiplier effect.

In practice, however, the multiplier for government spending is not very large. The best evidence comes from a recent study by Valerie A. Ramey, an economist at the University of California, San Diego. Based on the United States’ historical record, Professor Ramey estimates that each dollar of government spending increases the G.D.P. by only 1.4 dollars. So, by doing the math, we find that when the G.D.P. expands, less than a third of the increase takes the form of private consumption and investment.”

This low multiplier effect implies that any government spending must be used in an effective manner where it will increase the long-term productivity of the country. During a “jobs think-tank” recently in New Zealand, a media release announced an idea of the government spending a vast sum of money to develop a walking track from one end of the country to the other. Would this lead to increased tourism? How much money would these hiking visitors spend? Would it create more jobs?

Should we therefore expect that tax cuts will lead to a greater increase in GDP through the feedback loop compared to government spending? Well, we have to remember that not all tax cuts will be spent immediately, according to the marginal propensity to consume. In a recession some workers will be pessimistic about the future and save the money. Will tax cuts compensate workers who are working shorter hours? Greg suggests that tax cuts might actually be more potent than government spending according to current research.

“Textbook Keynesian theory says that tax cuts are less potent than spending increases for stimulating an economy. When the government spends a dollar, the dollar is spent. When the government gives a household a dollar back in taxes, the dollar might be saved, which does not add to aggregate demand.

The evidence, however, is hard to square with the theory. A recent study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer, then economists at the University of California, Berkeley, finds that a dollar of tax cuts raises the G.D.P. by about $3. According to the Romers, the multiplier for tax cuts is more than twice what Professor Ramey finds for spending increases.

Why this is so remains a puzzle. One can easily conjecture about what the textbook theory leaves out, but it will take more research to sort things out. And whether these results based on historical data apply to our current extraordinary circumstances is open to debate.”

So the current research indicates that one-dollar of tax cuts can increase G.D.P by $3 compared to an additional dollar of government spending increasing GDP by $1.40. But why is there such a large difference? Is this related to the arguments about the efficiency of increased government spending? The verdict is still out and we may need to wait till the next global recession to find out.

Below is a picture of the aptly named Bridge to Nowhere located in the central North Island of New Zealand. It was built by the government in a spending splurge in the 1936 to open up land in the area. The land is now no longer fertile or accessible and all access to the area is cut off except for this concrete relic. The area is now popular with trampers.

Discussion Questions:

1. How do economists calculate the multiplier?
2. What are leakages from the circular flow that reduce the multiplier effect?
3. Explain the link between the accelerator model and the multiplier.
4. What would multipliers for other injections such as export receipts or investment look like? Would they be higher or lower than multipliers for taxation or government spending?
5. Evaluate the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus to increase the level of economic activity.

From today’s New York Times:

Just How Progressive Is the Tax System? – Economix Blog – NYTimes.com

Not as much as you might think. So says Citizens for Tax Justice, which today released an updated analysis of the effective tax rates for Americans at different income levels.

Data released last week by the Congressional Budget Office underscored the progressive nature of the federal tax system. And in an op-ed article today in The Wall Street Journal, Ari Fleischer, who served as President George W. Bush’s press secretary, used that data — in particular, the income tax numbers — to argue that the wealthiest Americans bear an unfair share of the tax burden. Other research has found that many states and local governments have more regressive tax systems, though, that might offset the progressiveness of federal tax rates.

The research from Citizens for Tax Justice — a liberal organization that advocates “fair taxes for middle and low-income families” — uses 2008 data for all federal, state and local taxes combined. It found that the average effective tax rate is 29.8 percent, and that including state and local taxes makes the tax curve look much less steep:

Horizontal axis shows the income group. Vertical axis shows the percentage of income that the average member of that group pays in taxes. Taxes include all federal, state and local taxes (personal and corporate income, payroll, property, sales, excise, estate, etc.). Incomes include cash income, employer-paid FICA taxes and corporate profits net of taxable dividends.

The group also finds that in 2008 the share of total federal, state and local taxes paid by each income group was relatively close to the share of income that that group brings in, at least as compared to comparable 2006 numbers for effective federal tax rates:

Horizontal axis shows the income group. Taxes include all federal, state and local taxes (personal and corporate income, payroll, property, sales, excise, estate, etc.). Incomes include cash income, employer-paid FICA taxes and corporate profits net of taxable dividends.

Discussion questions:

1. Based on the data above, do the rich in America pay an unfair proportion of the total taxes the US government collects? Why or why not?
2. Why do the richest 5% in America actually pay a lower level of tax on average than the 5% below them?
3. How much of America’s total income is earned by the richest 1% compared to the poorest 20%? Does America’s progressive tax system destroy the incentive for Americans to work hard and become rich? Why or why not?
4. Does the gap between the richest and the poorest Americans surprise you? Do you think that America’s tax system is effective at re-distributing the nation’s income? How does it succeed? How could it do better?

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Taxes

The following was published in the Chicago Tribune’s “Voice of the People” page on October 29, 2008 in the midst of the US presidential race:

Redistributing wealth
On my way to lunch recently, I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama; I need the money.” I laughed. In a restaurant my server had on an “Obama 08″ tie. Again I laughed. Just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Barack-Obama-redistribution-of-wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need—the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

—A. Hart, Forest Park

The comment reflects a general contempt for the concept of taxation, specifically progressive taxes, or those that tax high income earners at a higher rate than those who earn low incomes. The idea behind a progressive tax, of course, is that higher income earners have income left over after they have provided themselves with the necessities of life, therefore should bear a larger burden of the nation’s tax revenue, which thereby enables the government to “re-distribute” wealth from the nation’s higher income earners across all levels of society through the provision of public goods.

The federal income tax in the United States is progressive in that the higher one’s income, the higher the percentage he or she pays to the US government. As seen in the table below, America’s poor will pay as little as 0-10% in income tax, while the nation’s richest households can pay up to 35%.

Opponents of progressive income taxes, which are also known as direct taxes because they are taken directly from a person’s income, argue that such a tax system creates a disincentive to work among American households. They argue that progressive income taxes penalize hard work and innovation, since the higher a worker’s productivity, the more of his income he must relinquish to the government.

One commonly misunderstood fact about the US income tax, however, is that it is a marginal tax system, meaning that when a person goes from, say the 25% to the 28% bracket, he does not pay 28% on ALL of his income, only on the marginal income above  $82,250 (according to the 2009 column above).  The implication is, therefore, that the average tax paid by an American will at any level of income be lower than the marginal tax. Below is a graphical representation of this concept. [source: http://aufrecht.org/pictures/images/858554/tax400.png]

It is the re-distributive intentions and effect of a progressive income tax system such as America’s (and every other country, click here to see tax rates from around the world) that has led to such intense opposition to the US tax system. Many in America’s government have proposed a “fair tax” that does away with America’s current direct tax system in favor of a nation-wide indirect, or sales tax on most goods and services. Watch the video below:

The fair tax is a indirect tax, meaning it is levied not directly on peoples’ income but indirectly on the purchase of goods and services in the economy, and is described as follows:

The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation, is 23 percent of the total payment including the tax ($23 of every $100 spent in total—calculated similar to income taxes). This would be equivalent to a 30 percent traditional U.S. sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent before taxes).^[4] The effective tax rate for any household would be variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebates that are used to “untax” purchases up to the poverty level.^[3] The tax would be levied on all U.S. retail sales for personal consumption on new goods and services.

The two guests argue that the fair tax “is the only tax that totally untaxes the poor; the poor get a free ride totally across the board at the federal level under this plan.”

However, a national sales tax is a “regressive tax” meaning that as a percentage of income, the fair tax places a larger burden on lower income earners than higher income earners. An example is useful:

• Two shoppers walk into a computer store. One earns $50,000 a year, the other $100,000 a year.
• Both are looking at a computer that costs $2,000. Under the fair tax, $460 of the purchase price of this computer will go to the government as tax.
• $460 represents .92% of the income of the shopper who earns $50,000 per year.
• $460 represents .46% of the income of the shopper who earns $100,000 per year.
• The higher income earner pays a lower percentage of his income to the government in tax than the low income earner, making this a regressive tax.

One of the four macroeconomic goals governments aim to achieve in their policy making is more equal distribution of income. The fair tax, despite the arguments its advocates make, does not achieve a more equal distribution of income in America. It does place a smaller tax burden on the rich than the current system, but on the other hand America’s lower income earners bear a relatively larger burden of tax.

Discussion Questions:

1. Are taxes necessary? Why? What are some of the “public goods” tax revenues are used to provide in America and your country?
2. Discuss the claim that a progressive tax system stifles innovation, entrepreneurship and incentive to work.
3. On whom does the largest burden of a sales tax (like the fair tax) fall? Is a sales tax “fair”? Why or why not?

On my way to work this morning I listened to the latest episode of WEBZ Chicago Public Radio’s excellent show This American Life. The theme of this week’s radio show was “the New Boss”. America’s new boss, Barack Obama, has embarked on an ambitious experiment aimed at rescuing the American economy from the most severe recession it has seen since the Great Depression. The economic theory behind Obama’s nearly $1 trillion economic stimulus package was developed by a man we have all heard of in our AP and IB Economics classes, but probably know little about in a historical sense.

The clip from This American Life that I have included below presents a fascinating examination of Keynes’ life and times, and puts his theory into perspective in the history of macroeconomics of the last century. We learn that Keynesian theory has not been truly put to the test, and that Obama’s $830 billion stimulus package is the first real test of Keynesianism.

 

 Keynes.mp3: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The clip is a bit long, but it is definitely worth listening to if you are a student or teacher of economics. I know that when I come teo Macroeconomics and Fiscal Policy in my course this spring, I will have my kids listen to and discuss the podcast below. If you’re teaching or learning Macro now, feel free to listen and leave comments about your impressions of the story here.

I love this discussion between John Stewart and former director of the National Economics Council Lawrence Lindsey. Stewart pitches his own version of a fiscal stimulus package to the economist, and is surprised when Lindsey agrees with the plan.

I find Lindsey’s suggestion that a stimulus package should include subsidized mortgage rates to home owners fascinating. According to Lindsey, a homeowner with a $200,000 mortgage paying 6% interest on his loan would save $4,000 per year on interest payments if the government accommodated a refinanced rate of 4%. Millions of Americans currently struggling to meet all of their monthly debt obligations while continuing to put food on the table and participate in the consumer economy would benefit from such a scheme. In its current form, Obama’s stimulus package with its $150 billion or so in tax cuts will only put approximately $500 per year for two years into taxpayers’ pockets.

As a homeowner paying a 6% mortgage myself, I can personally say I’d prefer $4,000 in savings on my annual interest payments for the next 23 years (the time remaining on my mortgage) than I would $1000 in cash over the next two years. The mortgage relief plan would result in nearly $100,000 less in interest payments, freeing that income up to be spent on goods and services and contributing to real job creation.

And check out last night’s “moment of Zen”. While Obama’s stimulus package is not quite $1 trillion, it is darn close. Senator Mitch McConnell puts the vast size of the spending bill into perspective for us:

This week the CEOs of the “Big Three” US auto makers boarded their private jets in Detroit and touched down in Washington to beg and plead in front of Congress for a “low-interest bridge loan” from the US government to help them avoid bankruptcy. They are asking Congress for $25 billion of taxpayer money to give them the chance to re-structure and re-equip themselves for the future.

Below are eight arguments based on basic economic principles for why a bailout of the United States automobile industry is a bad idea and is bound to fail:

1. Incentives matter: A bailout of the US auto industry ignores the basic economic principle that incentives matter. Individuals and firms respond to incentives, pursuing behavior that is likely to bring them the greatest rewards. In the face of falling demand for their product and ever-increasing competition from more efficient foreign producers, providing a $25 billion bailout creates a disincentive to drastically reduce costs and increase competitiveness, and an incentive to continue using tired old techniques and providing the same old models for which demand has declined among Americans for over a decade.
2. Comparative advantage: The basic economic principle of comparative advantage states that in an era of free trade and globalization, countries should produce the types of goods for which they have the lowest opportunity cost. Since the average American car of a particular class costs the Big Three $2000 more in wages and benefits for workers than its Japanese counterpart, it makes sense that Japan (and other lower-cost countries) produce more cars, and the Big Three produce less.
3. Efficient allocation of resources: The United Auto Workers Union has a member ship of over 400,000 workers. Since the 1970s the union has lost over 1 million workers. Clearly the US auto industry has been in decline for decades, a fact that should be taken as a sign: resources employed in America’s car industry are inefficient and represent a over-allocation of resources. A drastic down-sizing of the auto industry, while resulting in short-run hardships for the hundreds of thousands whose jobs will be lost, will in the long run strengthen the US economy as labor and other resources will be freed up to be employed in sectors in which the US has comparative advantage.
4. Economic Darwinism or “the survival of the most efficient”: America has stood for free trade in the world since helping found GATT in 1948 and later the WTO. The gains from embracing free trade are shared among all stakeholders in the economy. Consumers enjoy lower prices (thus higher real income), firms enjoy access to cheaper inputs and larger markets for their products, and governments enjoy the increased tax revenues from rising incomes driven by export-led economic growth. To bail out an uncompetitive, inefficient, and long-declining industry is to spit in the eye of free trade and denies America any moral suasion it may hold in the future over potential trading nations in our attempt to open their markets to our nation’s products. To protect our own dying industry now will send a clear message to our trading partners. “America does NOT stand for free trade”. If we believe in free trade and the allocative power of markets, then we must let the dinosaurs of American industry meet the fate the natural selection of the marketplace has determined for it.
5. The benefits enjoyed by the few represent costs born by the many: A bailout by the US government of the auto industry will protect a few hundred thousand jobs for a few years at the most but spells a reduction in the disposable incomes and spending power of millions for years to come. The US does not have $25 billion laying around to give the Big Three, which means the money must be borrowed. Increased government borrowing raises interest rates now (further tightening the credit markets) and will result in increased taxes down the road. All government debt must eventually be paid off, and in the immediate future interest on this debt must be paid directly from tax revenue. A $25 billion bailout is the same as a subsidy, meaning it redistributes income and welfare from consumers to producers. Millions are asked to sacrifice for the continued survival of a few hundred thousand in an industry that has failed to evolve in a global auto market that has seen increased competition and efficiency from foreign firms for decades.
6. Moral hazard: Bailing out the Big Three today represent a classic case of moral hazard. When American industries fail to take steps to increase their efficiency and remain competitive in the face of increased global competition, they find themselves not surprisingly on the brink of collapse. To reward these firms by taking money out of Americans’ pockets and handing it to them to do as they will, we send the wrong message and create the wrong incentives in the American economy. The message is: “Don’t worry, the market doesn’t choose the winners and losers in the economy, the government does, and certain industries are too big to fail”.
7. Market failure, or Firm Failure?: The fate of the auto industry is in the hands of the US government. But so is the fate of the free market. My fear now is that the pendulum will swing too far to the left in America’s state of panic over the ill-fated downfall of the financial markets, rooted in the irrational exuberance and over-leveraging of big financial institutions. The failure of the financial markets, however, is an entirely different story from that of a dinosaur industry like automobiles. The Big Three have had decades to reform themselves, lower their costs, improve their products, and remain competitive. THEY have failed, NOT the market. Government intervention is necessary in instances of market failure, but NOT IN CASES OF FIRMS’ FAILURE TO COMPETE IN A WELL FUNCTIONING MARKET like the global auto industry.
8. Inflexible labor markets: I saw the president of the UAW on the news today giving 101 reasons why the government should approve a bailout deal for the Big Three. In fact, the unions that supposedly represent American Auto Workers are a big part of the problem the industry is facing. For decades the UAW has fought against wage and benefit cuts for auto workers, lobbying instead for higher tariffs and other barriers aimed at keeping foreign cars out of the country. This anti-competitive behavior is a major reason the Big Three cannot compete with European and Asian car makers today. Wage inflexibility leads to higher unemployment. Unions keep wages from going down, leaving the Big Three with one of two choices: Drastically downsize your workforce and employ fewer high paid auto workers, or beg the government for a multi-billion dollar subsidy to that the unions can be placated and you can survive for a couple more years until you’re in the same situation all over again. The unions helped cause the problem, now they should pay the price by experiencing the downsizing their demands inevitably foretold.

The US government should allow the free market to function and let the dinosaurs go extinct. Cars will still be made in America, they’ll just be made by the better, more efficient firms that emerge from bankruptcy when this is all over, as well as the numerous foreign firms already making cars in the US. Survival of the most efficient, that’s what markets are all about. Allowing the market to work will strengthen the US auto industry far more than a “short-term low-interest bridge loan” ever will, it will free up labor and capital resources to be employed by industries the country is better at, and make sure household income is NOT reallocated to inefficient firms to be squandered on the manufacture of a product for which demand has steadily declined for the last decade plus.

Switzerland “could become a feudal state” claims an economist. – swissinfo

One Zurich economist thinks so:

In Switzerland 71 per cent of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of just ten per cent of the population – a figure that economist Hans Kissling finds alarming.

Kissling tells swissinfo that the gap between the rich and everyone else is growing and that this could threaten traditional Swiss democracy and the economy. He makes a call for an inheritance tax for the wealthy.

Statistics show that the 300 richest people have become 40 per cent wealthier in the past eight years, whereas most of the population has a lower income than at the beginning of the 1990s

Kissling has nothing against wealth, he just thinks that if someone did not earn their wealth but inherited it instead, they should have to share a bit with the rest of society.

I call for a tax on very high inheritances, from SFr1 million ($900.000) upwards, and only on the excess value of that. I certainly don’t want people to think that they can’t pass on their family home to the next generation.

I’m only interested in trying to stop any creeping feudalisation, to avoid having huge clans like in South America, which threaten the economy and the political world

He’s most concerned that if the gap between rich and middle class continues to widen and the middle class of Switzerland don’t start benefiting from the country’s growing wealth, there could be a dangerous backlash against the free market system.

…the richest one tenth of a percent in Zurich – there are no full Swiss statistics – had 677 times more wealth than an average citizen in 1991. By 2003, 12 years later, the richest one tenth of a percent had 1,027 times more wealth. So the gap has really grown.

The middle classes, unlike the lower classes, have not benefited from any concessions, such as health insurance or childcare allowances. Here they have to use up all their assets before they receive any support. The lower classes have help from the beginning. This is why the middle classes are threatened

Discussion Questions:

1. Why does a growing gap between rich and middle class threaten social stability in Switzerland?
2. What would advocates of socialism propose in order to avoid future struggles between the rich and the middle class?
3. What kind of tax system would help re-distribute the wealth of Switzerland and narrow the enormous gap that exists here?

Thanks to my friend Jerry from Shanghai for posting this cartoon to his Facebook profile!

How timely, just as my year 2 IB Economics class is studying the pitfalls of expansionary fiscal policy in times of economic slowdowns. Now, many critics would say that Clinton was the luckiest president of recent decades as he happened to ride a wave of technological innovation fueled by the internet that led to unprecedented grown in income and tax revenue during the 1990s. Sustained 5% growth combined with a period of relative peace on the foreign fronts in between the two Gulf Wars allowed Clinton to balance the budget and begin putting a dent in the country’s $3 trillion deficit during his final years in office.

Along come the “fiscally conservative” Republicans and their faithful leader GWB, just in time to evaporate our budget surplus and add $6 trillion to our national debt over the next eight years. Today, after a long period of “fiscal conservatism” the debt stands at $9.3 trillion, and last year’s budget deficit of $400+ billion broke a record for the largest gap between tax revenue and government spending in US history.

Yeah, you can blame it one the times: a War on Terror costing the US roughly a billion bucks a day, a slowdown in new technology creation, diminishing returns on internet investments, out-sourcing of American industry and jobs, yada yada… but the cartoon does hold some truth. The Democratic Party, long labeled as the “tax and spend liberals”, managed to do what few other administrations have done since the ’60s in balancing the budget, proving that the old stereotype is simply wrong.

Some now consider the Democrats the fiscally conservative party, based only on the simple observation that they tend to spend closer to what they collect in taxes. The Republicans, on the other hand, have had no qualms about spending what they DON’T collect in taxes, in other words, running up huge budget deficits through borrowing from the public and abroad. Are the Republicans the an even worse incarnation of the “tax and spend liberals”? Are they the “DON’T tax and STILL spend Conservatives”?

Discussion questions:

1. How did the Bush administration’s $160 billion “fiscal stimulus package” that sent $600 checks to every American worker demonstrate the Republican party’s willingness to deficit spend.
2. What effect will deficit spending by the government have on interest rates and private investment in the economy? What is this effect known as?
3. In times of weak aggregate demand, as in the US earlier this year, what sort of approach would a “supply-sider” recommend as an alternative to Bush’s deficit-financed expansionary fiscal policy?

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.

Clinton thinks suspending the gas tax for the summer is good for Americans. She says that any revenue lost can be made up for by taxing the profits of oil companies.

Obama thinks it will cause more harm than good to the economy. He says the $9 billion of government revenue foregone could have done more good for the economy through job creation and road maintenance than the $25 each American driver will save with a suspension of the gas tax.

They’re both using their positions on the gas tax to garner more support among Democratic voters in Indiana and North Carolina, where next week’s key primaries will be held.

Greg Mankiw, Harvard economist, has this to say about Hillary’s plan:

I don’t know any prominent economist who favors this McCain-Clinton proposal. More common is the reaction of a friend of mine (a veteran of the Clinton administration) who calls the idea “ludicrous.”

Sometimes a candidate’s position on one particular issue, even a relatively minor one like a federal gas tax that most Americans probably didn’t even know they were paying when they filled up their tanks, draws clear lines around a candidate’s values.

Clinton’s ‘Trouble’ ad

Obama Takes On Clinton and McCain on Gas Tax Holiday

It should be noted that while Obama is probably right that a gas tax suspension will only save drivers a pittance, his economics is slightly flawed. Here’s Tim Haab of Environmental Economics blog responding to Obama’s claim that a gas tax holiday could actually increase demand for gas thus raise gas prices:

Wrong, wrong, wrong: A lower gas price causes quantity demanded to increase as consumers move down the demand curve. The only things that cause gas demand to change are changes in income, prices of substitutes and complements, tastes and preferences and expectations… I demand a retraction.

Who are these “some economists” that Obama is talking about? Did they get their degrees from an SEC school or something? Name names so that we can have an econoblogosphere beatdown! Out these blasphemers!

Note: I think Obama got the $25 to $30 number correct.

Mr. Haab is technically correct when it comes to basic economic theory. Repealing the gas tax should shift supply out, not demand, as taxes are a determinant of supply. Rather than demand changing, quantity demanded by drivers will increase, in response to the increased supply and lower prices.

What I do think could happen, however, is that expectations of future price increases might incentivize drivers to increase their demand for gas over the summer. This Mr. Haab seems to oversee. When August roles around and drivers know that come Labor day the gas tax will kick in again, they may chose to take a family road trip that they otherwise would have postponed, shifting overall demand for gas out, driving prices up.

In the case of a temporary suspension of an excise tax on any good, there is always the expectation that the price will increase again in the future. This could lead to hoarding or stockpiling of the good, increasing overall demand and driving the price up before the tax has even returned.

As Clinton Seeks Gas Tax Break for Summer, Obama Says No – New York Times

Times are tough for American consumers. Rising food and fuel prices have increased the proportion of household incomes that must be allocated towards these two necessities, both for which demand is highly inelastic, meaning that as their prices rise, the quantity demanded by consumers remains relatively high.

In response to the pinching of Americans’ pocketbooks, two presidential candidates are advocating action at the federal level.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton lined up with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, in endorsing a plan to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for the summer travel season.

Sounds like a good idea, right? If Americans are finding it burdensome to pay more at the pump, and the government can do something to relieve that burden, why shouldn’t they do it?

Let’s do a little calculation here: At 18.4 cents per gallon, how much per fill-up will Americans save?

I drive a ‘94 Toyota pick-up, has a 15 gallon tank and gets notoriously poor mileage. I’ll save $2.76 per tank of gas I buy. I usually fill up my truck about once a week during the summer, meaning I’ll save that much each week. McCain wants to suspend the gas tax from Memorial Day until Labor Day, or for a total of about 12 weeks. If Clinton and McCain get their way, I could very well save as much as $33.12 this year! ASTOUNDING!! What a deal for Americans!

Clearly, repealing the gas tax will have only a minor impact on disposable incomes in America. Obama seems to understand this better than the other candidates:

Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic rival, spoke out firmly against the proposal, saying it would save consumers little and do nothing to curtail oil consumption and imports…

Mr. Obama derided the McCain-Clinton idea of a federal tax holiday as a “short-term, quick-fix” proposal that would do more harm than good, and said the money, which is earmarked for the federal highway trust fund, is badly needed to maintain the nation’s roads and bridges.

The decision to suspend or not suspend federal gas taxes is essentially a cost-benefit decision. The benefit? Well, apparently around $30 per driver, or about half a tank of gas, compliments of the US government. The cost? Read on…

The highway trust fund that the gas tax finances provides money to states and local governments to pay for road and bridge construction, repair and maintenance. Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton propose to suspend the tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the peak driving season, which would lower tax receipts by roughly $9 billion and potentially cost 300,000 highway construction jobs, according to state highway officials.

There you have it; $9 billion dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs that won’t be created in order to put half a tank of gas in each American’s car, which if you think about it, will only lead to Americans driving more this summer. Repealing the gas tax may actually induce Americans who weren’t planning road trips to go ahead and take one, increasing the overall demand for gas and driving the price up to the level it would have been with the tax.

And what about the much needed government revenue the tax creates? Hillary has another plan for recouping that loss:

Mrs. Clinton would replace that money with the new tax on oil company profits, an idea that has been kicking around Congress for several years but has not been enacted into law. Mr. McCain would divert tax revenue from other sources to make the highway trust fund whole.

Clearly, Mrs. Clinton needs a refresher course in basic microeconomics. If she had paid attention in AP Economics (did she even take AP Econ?), Clinton would know that a tax on producers of a highly inelastic good such as oil can be passed almost entirely onto the consumers. In this case, the oil companies, when faced with additional federal taxes on profits, will respond by restricting output, which reduces overall supply in oil market, raising the price of the main input for gasoline. Higher input costs for gasoline refineries will reduce overall supply of gasoline, increasing the price paid by consumers at the pump, negating any price-reduction induced by the suspension of the gas tax.

Ultimately, all taxes are borne by the consumers of an inelastic product: gasoline in this case. Whether the tax is levied on drivers directly, or the oil companies “upstream” in the production process, the outcome is the same: supply is restricted and price is higher.

The suspension of a gas tax that only costs Americans $30 over 3 months appears to impose a much greater cost to society than benefit. At least Obama seems to understand the basic economic reasoning behind this fact.

Obama on State Gas Tax Suspension

Shanghai American School Economics Student Blog » You Hate Taxes, I Hate Taxes… Let’s Hug- by Alice Su

I’m repeatedly amazed at the intelligence and maturity of the young economists here at Shanghai American School. After only nine months of econ instruction, these students already know more about sound economic policy than politicians of 40 years! Case in point: SAS senior Alice Su offers an stinging critique of John McCain’s proposed tax plan over at the SAS Economists Blog. Read below…

It’s easy to see how politics and sound economic policy may not mix very well; in fact, trying to put the two together usually ends up in contradiction and confusion that puts economically concerned voters in great distress. (Example: Remember that one econ class when Welker was talking about taxes, trying to decide if he was more liberal or conservative, and then got so agitated that Jeff said “You’re having a midlife crisis” and Welker threw a smartboard marker at him yelling “I’M 29!!”? Case in point. )

In this case, McCain’s speech about his economic policies on Tuesday contains so many contradictions, both with classroom economic theory and various parts of his own policy platform, that I find myself questioning whether he is taking a solid stance on the economy at all, or is simply trying to say whatever will appeal to his audience the most.

First, McCain’s economic plan, dripping with supply-side sentiment, is centered around a series of tax cuts. In addition to making Bush’s tax cuts permanent, he also calls for cutting corporate taxes, phasing out the alternative minimum tax, doubling the value of exemptions for each dependent to $7,000 from $3,500, and giving people the option of using a simpler, shorter tax form. As a finishing tax-cut touch,

One of Mr. McCain’s tax proposals would take effect even before the Republican Convention: he called on Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent a gallon federal gas tax from Memorial Day until Labor Day. Mr. McCain said that doing so would provide “an immediate economic stimulus,” but some environmentalists said that the change might encourage more people to use their cars, while Mr. McCain has made combating global warming central to his campaign.

Hmm. Here’s where the first hints of contradiction kick in. Besides the conflict between wanting to end global warming and yet encouraging more cars on the road, we’ve all studied the Laffer Curve, and I think I can speak for all the SAS Economists when I say that the U.S. Economy is not at a place where further tax cuts will lead to an increase in tax revenue or benefit the economy. Furthermore, what about the enormous budget deficit that Mr. Bush has so graciously left us with? As the author of this article discreetly points out, McCain seems to have forgotten that he previously promised to balance the budget by the end of the first term; rather than offer the economic stimulus that McCain is claiming it will, the tax cuts would probably just plunge the nation deeper into debt.

What answers do McCain’s economic policy have to offer these questions? Well, he also proposes a one-year freeze on most “increases in discretionary spending” while he reviews every federal program, department, and agency… with the exception of spending on the military. Supposedly, the money saved from eliminating earmarks as well as getting rid of unnecessary “discretionary spending” will add up to $100 billion annually, and that is how McCain says he will pay for the lowered business taxes. However, he neglected to address the issue of all the money being spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and whether any of that might be categorized as unnecessary “discretionary spending”, or whether we should be spending anything over there in the first place.

An analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal think tank, estimated that the overall cost of Mr. McCain’s tax cuts would be three times as much as the $100 billion he estimates that he can save. And they questioned whether his programs would really save $100 billion a year.

While I’m not saying anything in support of Obama or Clinton’s economic policies, McCain’s plan seems so shaky that I would think twice before buying into how he’s going to save our country. Personally- especially since this tax-cut-focused speech was given on the day of the deadline for filing taxes- it looks to me like another plan designed for the purpose of politics, and not with sound economic policy in mind.