Topic: Economics
Taxes and their Effects on the Economy by Jeff Peters
(conservative)
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
I have to start off with this lame introduction: tax policy is one of the most highly politicized tools of local and national government. Everyone thinks the solution to the nation's biggest problems are cutting or raising taxes on the privileged cohort of American society. Fiscal conservatives believe that cutting taxes can actually lead to more revenues and liberals think that raising taxes will lead to greater government funds. You can actually take some of the words in the previous sentence, mix them up, and create more fallacious statements.
The art of tax policy is actually much more delicate than some may believe. Hopefully the following economics tutorial on taxes will help us understand why this tool of fiscal policy may or may not assist political goals.
The Laffer Curve
Firstly, economic fundamentals are a must when discussing taxes. Suppose we have a supply and demand model and the government wishes to impose a revenue maximizing tax. Here is our market situation:
What the government really wants to do is impose a tax with the biggest square area which represents larger government revenues. If you look at the picture carefully, the area of the box can go from small, big, and small again along the demand curve. This is a fundamental concept behind the main economic tool right wingers wrongly appreciate - the Laffer Curve. Here is what the infamous curve looks like in picture:
So what's the Trick?
So why do right-wingers wrongly appreciate this tool: because it creates a greater incentive for government spending and intervention. If lefties want to make government grow at its quickest, they need to understand the theory behind maximizing revenues - not fiscal conservatives. Right wingers need to talk about pushing taxation to the left side of that revenue maximizing tax rate. People have an incentive to be more productive with a smaller government siege on their potential human capital.
It seems that the politically motivated religiously espouse ideas that accommodate, yup, just ideas - rather than reality. That's why fiscal conservatives get caught up in "lower taxation" and liberals the opposite, without realizing the true potential effects. My conspiracy theory is that Arthur Laffer knew this all along and secretly wants the US to emulate Europe as soon as possible. Just kidding, but it's important that people really know their science before using it to embellish their political debates.
Oh, we aren't finished with tax policy just yet. There's more!
Yes, People aren't that Stupid!
Remember that Permanent Income Hypothesis and Rational Expectations stuff? That applies to tax policy as well, which leads me a conclusion contradictory to the advice I just gave fiscal conservatives.
I will start off by saying that people assess their economic situation in the long run, as said by the PIH, and people also intuit activities that may disrupt their long run plans as said by RE.
Let's think of some things going on that everyday Americans feel will disrupt their future: borrowing trillions from overseas to fund huge projects as the War in Iraq and an increase in unbalanced budgets.
Just as people can rationally expect inflation from liquidity going out of control at the Fed, they will rationally expect a point in time when the US government will have to pay its bills - or the IOU's given to foreigners on interest.
Since people know that McCain will want to remain in Iraq and the Middle East for quite some time, they know that John McCain will continue to borrow beyond government revenues and further expand our unbalanced budgets. This means that a fiscal stimulus by cutting taxes will have very little to no effect on the economy in the long run - people will put their tax cuts in their bank accounts to prepare for future tax increases aimed at balancing budgets. In other words, there may be no significant increase in consumption, and thus no shift in Aggregate Demand. Ronald Reagan's trick will not work this time. However, if people save their money it certainly improves the investment side of GDP - and probably the future productivity of the economy.
My point is the efficiency of a tax cut depends on government activity and it's relation to the magnitude of unbalanced budgets. The tax cut will create an incentive to limit government size as it will decrease revenues (assuming we are already on the left side of the revenue maximizing tax rate as Martin Feldstein suggests), but it will not help the economy in terms of a demand stimulus - which is usually the initial purpose.
I wonder if a tax increase can help stimulate demand if it will make the American consumer gain confidence in the future of our economy?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jeff Peters only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jeff Peters is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The only correct income tax policy is no income tax policy. I remember being delighted (and I mean jumping up and down DELIGHTED) to hear a senior mainstream politician, on live television (you know who), advocate the abolition of the IRS and replacing it with nothing. I still play that clip occasionally to remind myself that I do not yet have a monopoly on sane government policy. The point of government is not to maximize taxes or fiddle with the tax code to bilk the populace out of as much as it can. The point of government is to defend our individual rights and freedoms and secure our borders. There is absolutely nothing constitutional, or indeed legal, in government running retirement funds, providing healthcare, financing a HUMONGOUS standing army, entangling us in foreign alliances (and open-ended wars), bailing out irresponsible lenders, legalizing paper (fiat) money or the cartel that generates it, signing or enforcing trade agreements (interstate or international), regulating commerce, declaring war on poverty, drugs, tobacco or any other substance or social evil, providing education, regulating food, declaring wildlife preserves, banning oil or mineral exploration, tapping private conversations, reading people's mail, running offshore torture centers, legislating morality, taking 'bribes' from 'lobbyists', shall I continue?
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-09-05 10:44:03
Larry, you don't need to continue. I partially agree, in theory. However, today's situation has revealed something quite different - everyone wants to tinker with the economy in many different ways. Perhaps they have nothing else better to do than figure out ways to "improve" and "finetune" everything.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
