Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Alan Reynolds :: Townhall.com Columnist
What Supply-Side Economics Means
by Alan Reynolds
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


In "The Seven Fat Years," Robert Bartley, the legendary former editor of The Wall Street Journal, wrote: "On March 26, 1976 Herb Stein coined a label, the 'supply-side fiscalists,' telling a conference at the Homestead Resort in Virginia that it consisted of 'maybe two' economists. Alan Reynolds passed this along to Jude (Wanniski), who promptly appropriated the label, though dropping 'fiscalists' as awkward and misleading." The label was new, but the basic concepts had been explained in Wanniski's Journal article of Dec. 11, 1974, "It's Time to Cut Taxes."

In 1977, Bruce Bartlett went to work for Jack Kemp, the congressional quarterback for what eventually became President Reagan's first round of tax rate reductions.

In a recent New York Times article, Bruce wrote: "I think it is long past time that the phrase (supply-side economics) be put to rest. ... It has become a frequently misleading and meaningless buzzword that gets in the way of good economic policy. Today, supply-side economics has become associated with an obsession for cutting taxes under any and all circumstances. No longer do its advocates in Congress and elsewhere confine themselves to cutting marginal tax rates -- the tax on each additional dollar earned -- as the original supply-siders did. Rather, they support even the most gimmicky, economically dubious tax cuts with the same intensity. ... Today, it is common to hear tax cutters claim, implausibly, that all tax cuts raise revenue."

Labels aside, those remarks are nothing new. In a July 2004 column, Bartlett correctly remarked that, "The vast bulk of tax cuts since 2001, in revenue terms, have gone for tax rebates, kiddy credits and other measures having no impact on marginal incentives."

Of course such "gimmicky tax cuts" lose tax revenue. But Wall Street Journal columnist Robert Frank, writing on economist Greg Mankiw's blog, recently imagined he had witnessed "the supply-sider Bruce Bartlett now conceding that tax cuts for top earners don't boost total tax revenues." Bartlett conceded no such thing. Revenues have risen impressively since the 2003 reduction of tax rates, and nearly all of the gains are from top earners, including profits, capital gains and dividends.

In 2004, Bartlett wrote that "with federal revenues at just 15.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) -- well below their historical level of 18 percent -- I don't think our economy is overtaxed." The Congressional Budget Office now estimates federal revenues of 18.6 percent of GDP this year and 19 percent next year.

Phrases intended to describe complex ideas in a word or two, such as Keynesian or monetarist, invariably become misused or hijacked after three decades. But such semantic abuses can't be halted by Bartlett's white flag. Like it or not, the phrase "supply-side economics" will doubtless continue to be used and abused. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Be the first to read Alan Reynolds' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Old Man - last answers

"However, since the people reporting this are biased, B.S. probably won't accept it."

Without citations, I accept nothing, regardless of the bias of the reporter. The origin of your citation is well-sourced. But it's not really pertinent. I said the tax code ain't 67,000 pages, which it ain't.

"Quote: 'In my economics classes at Columbia University, I demonstrate the long-term value of gold by holding up a $20 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle gold coin. Prior to 1933, our grandparents carried this coin in their pockets as money. Back then, they could buy a tailor-made suit for one double eagle, or $20. Today, the Saint Gaudens coin, which is worth between $600 and $1,000, depending on its rarity and condition, can buy the same tailor-made suit.'
http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2005/20051212.html"

This appears to fail because the coin is a collectible. It weighs about 33 grams. At a bit under $11 per gram, the gold value of this coin is about $350. The rest of the value lies in its collectibility, which is obviously not a characteristic of circulating money. Try buying a tailer-made suit for $350.

It appears from this poor example that the real price of gold (as measured in tailor-made suits) has fallen by about 2/3 since 1930.

In reality, since the price of gold was controlled until 1968(?), this kind of comparison doesn't really work. Much better for you would be to point out how much more valuable gold is now than it was in 1967. Prices have risen about six-fold since then; gold has increased much more - from $35.50 to about $670 - about 19 times. Unfortunately, this is also not apt, since the artificial control of gold's price means that it was undervalued when the controls came off. Also, if you don't cherry-pick the start date, the scenario is not so rosy. Since 1975, gold's appreciated has trended very similarly to that of prices in general. What that means is that for 30 years, gold's value has been stagnant in real terms.

.

B.S. Detector writes
Tax code 10,000 - 15,000
=====================
The tax code comprises well over 55,000 pages [2] of laws, regulations and rulings.
http://www.fairtax.net/4.htm
==========================

However, if you want to throw out all the rulings, letters, instructions, and other things involved, then you can get close to your number
quote:
17,000 PAGES of tax regulations

* 5.5 MILLION words, many inconsistent with each other

* 569 DIFFERENT income tax forms requirements

* BILLIONS of dollars spent on tax lawyers and accountants to understand tax regulations

* The presumption of GUILT until innocence is proven

* GROWN like mad. Federal income tax code and regulations grew over eight-fold from 744,000 words in 1955 to 6,929,000 by 2000.
http://www.scrapthecode.org/
=======================

However, since the tax lawyers and accountants use all letters and rulings and forms and anything else that pertains to taxes as a basis for their computations, exemptions, loopholes, etc. why wouldn't you want to use all of them?

Granted, things like
Quote:
250 = The number of pages needed to explain just one paragraph in the Internal Revenue Code. A simple national retail sales tax will eliminate IRS regulation.

261 = The number of pages of regulations needed to clarify the tax code's "arms-length standard" for international intercompany transactions.
-------------------------------
rapidly increase the 17,000 pages we start with and when you figure some court cases are "book length" with all the testimony, and final opinion, 10's of thousands of pages more isn't hard to believe and all of those pages have to be read if you are a tax lawyer looking for a way to get out of paying taxes "legally."

Even the IRS can't keep track of it.

quote:
20 = The percentage error rate at the IRS for processing paper returns.

22 = The percentage of times reporters for Money magazine received inaccurate or incomplete information in 1997 when calling the IRS's toll-free hot line.

40 = The percentage of times Money magazine reporters received wrong answers in 1997 in face-to-face visits at IRS customer service offices.

8,500,000 = The number of times the IRS gave the wrong answer to taxpayers seeking help to comply with the tax code in 1993 (taxpayers still are held responsible for errors that result from bad advice from the IRS).
http://www.scrapthecode.com/educating/taxfacts.html
---------------------

However, since the people reporting this are biased, B.S. probably won't accept it.

B.S. also said
In the long run, gold is a lousy investment, period.
----------------------

Yup, totally agree and that was the point. Gold is "real money" and "real money" doesn't rise like "fiat money." The point was "buying power." Just like a $2,000 car now costs $20,000 or whatever the amount currently is, the car in "real money" doesn't really cost that much more.

Look at the inflation chart, a current dollar is worth about a nickel compared to 1913.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Long_Term_Inflation.asp

1,929% inflation. Gold in buying power is worth about what it was per ounce, a good suit, shirt, shoes, tie, vest, etc. (not an expensive "luxury" one).
Quote:
n my economics classes at Columbia University, I demonstrate the long-term value of gold by holding up a $20 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle gold coin. Prior to 1933, our grandparents carried this coin in their pockets as money. Back then, they could buy a tailor-made suit for one double eagle, or $20. Today, the Saint Gaudens coin, which is worth between $600 and $1,000, depending on its rarity and condition, can buy the same tailor-made suit.
http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2005/20051212.html
------------------------
I have made a lot of money in gold. However, I waited for it to start rising as the dollar began its slide to the euro and other currencies and got out when the dollar started to rally and back in when it started to decline again. Gold isn't an investment. It is a hedge against inflation and only does well when the dollar is dropping in value.

Also, tax cuts now, are less and less significant because A)the world economy and world economic boom continues, it is becoming harder and harder to compete. We are losing manufacturing jobs too much in to many manufacturing sectors and the companies feed on each other. Many want to be close to their suppliers and their supplies have moved.

Look at the last Job Report from today

[quote]--------------------------------March-----Apr.

Nonfarm employment----------|p137,596|p137,684| +88,000
Goods-producing (1-----------| p22,501| p22,473| -28,000
Construction -----------------| p7,691| p7,680| -11,000
Manufacturing ----------------| p14,095| p14,076| -19,000
Service-providing -------------|p115,095|p115,211| +116,000
Retail trade ------------------| p15,397| p15,371| -26,000
Professional and bus.serv.-----| p17,846| p17,870| +24,000
Education and health serv.----| p18,187| p18,240| +53,000
Leisure hospitality ------------| p13,445| p13,467| +22,000
Government ------------------| p22,194| p22,219| +25,000

Snip-----------------
Health care employment continued to grow in April (+37,000), with gains throughout the component industries. Over the year, health care has added 362,000 jobs. Employment in social assistance was up by 10,000 in April and has grown by 63,000 over the year.[/quote]

[url]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm[/url]

Another bad job report even though the number is “plus 88,000.” Break it down and we have losses in Construction and Manufacturing again and large increases in government (direct government spending) and Health Services (53,000 and much is indirect government spending like in Medicare and Medicaid and the Prescription drug plan, etc.)

Leisure and Financial services are up and that is good and less indirect spending related to government.

However, the point is, if we were to carry this to an extreme, government related jobs drawing from tax revenues would outnumber the tax revenue from jobs that have to pay for government and government spending related jobs. At that point, we are in bankruptcy because we can no longer fund the government.

Socialism, the Democrats blocking this President and reforms is going to cause some serious problems. As the GAO (Gov. Accounting Office) says, we are on an "unsustainable" course and each worker now owes $400,000 as his part of the unfunded liability we face, according to them.

Tax cuts aren't going to change this trend much because we have 78 million workers retiring and that will be drawing social security and Medicare which is why the Social Security Admin says raise taxes 16% on Social Security and 121% on Medicare or cut benefits 13% and 75% respectively.

Tax revenues, that are currently rising and reducing the deficit (according to the public reports) are nothing significant in the long run. They could even get to a zero deficit and it won't help significantly without complete reform of taxes and entitlements. As the GAO state in this last report, the course is "unsustainable."

quote:
the federal government’s current fiscal policy is unsustainable. Continuing on this imprudent and unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our domestic tranquility and national security.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07362sp.pdf
======================

It states in that report that the amount each worker has to contribute to keep the system funded is $400,000 over the next couple of decades. I defy the government to raise taxes enough to get workers to pay that and if they put it on business, which workers pay anyway, they will drive more business out of the U.S. If they try to put it on the wealthy, they will use the foundations, trusts, overseas accounts, tax free securities, or move as they are from France due to their tax rates.

Only reform of entitlements can stop the train wreck. Tax cuts and tax increases will no longer help either fund the programs or stimulate the economy enough to stop the collapse of the currency when nations stop loaning and move their wealth to other currencies or assets.

It is too late for either party to do much without a complete change of attitude of voters and that isn't going to happen until we hit bottom. One party just wants to get us to the bottom faster than the other and currently, it may be a toss-up as to which party that is.

The GOP can stimulate and get short term market gains and increase tax revenues but only by increasing spending that rises faster than revenues can keep up with in the long run. We have to control spending and the GOP isn't doing that. The DNC will lower spending some in some areas but not entitlements. The tax increases will drive more business and investments out of the U.S. as will the cost of doing business in a socialist nation competing against low tax capitalist nations with lower costs. If they put trade protections on, they will sanction and fine us through the WTO or cut down on loans to fund our debt.

There is no way we will get needed reforms in time to stop from having a very serious recession regardless of which party is in power once the "boomers" start retiring in mass and we start bringing in 67 to 100 million immigrants to replace them.

And yes, I certainly hope I am wrong that we have to and will hit bottom before we get the reforms we need and new leadership in both parties.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.