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
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Bruce Bartlett :: Townhall.com Columnist
Tax cut anniversary
by Bruce Bartlett
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?


August 13 marks an important anniversary in American economic history. Twenty-five years ago that day, Ronald Reagan signed into law the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which cut income tax rates by about 30 percent across the board. It marked an end to stagflation and the beginning of an economic renaissance that we all benefit from to this day.

After the economic boom of the 1960s, the 1970s were a period of economic distress, marked by simultaneous inflation and stagnation -- dubbed stagflation. Most economists had no clue about how to deal with this problem because the dominant economic theory of the day said that high inflation and high unemployment could not exist simultaneously.

This theory also said that inflation was largely a fiscal problem resulting from the federal budget deficit, and that there was an inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment: The higher one was, the lower the other would be. Believing this, there was virtually nothing policymakers could do. They couldn't increase spending or cut taxes to reduce unemployment because that would be inflationary. But if they fought inflation by cutting spending and raising taxes, that would raise unemployment.

Clearly, a new theory was needed to get the country out of this dilemma. It came from two economists at the University of Chicago. The first was Milton Friedman, who argued that the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, which had been largely ignored by economic theorists, was the principal cause of inflation; the budget deficit had no effect. The cure for inflation, he said, was to severely restrict growth of the money supply.

The second economist was Robert Mundell. He agreed with Friedman that tight money was needed to stop inflation. But Mundell argued that measures were also needed to stimulate production at the same time. After all, if inflation resulted from too much money chasing too few goods, then increasing the supply of goods and services would be anti-inflationary.

Mundell thought the tax system was the major impediment to economic growth at that time. He reasoned that inflation had severely distorted it by pushing workers up into higher tax brackets when they received cost-of-living pay raises; by forcing investors to pay taxes on capital gains that represented nothing but inflation; and by taxing businesses on illusory inventory profits while eroding the value of depreciation allowances.

Another University of Chicago economist named Arthur Laffer brought the idea of tight money plus tax cuts as the cure for stagflation to Washington, where he served as chief economist for the Office of Management and Budget during the Nixon administration. A key convert to this idea was the late Jude Wanniski, an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal, who began writing about it. Wanniski, in turn, convinced a young Republican congressman from Buffalo, N.Y., named Jack Kemp to make tax cuts a political issue that would help revive the Republican Party, which was in danger of extinction after big losses in the 1974 and 1976 elections.

Wanniski explained that tax cuts were key to two of the most prosperous eras in American history: the 1920s and 1960s. He urged Kemp to emulate President John F. Kennedy, who proposed an across the board tax-rate reduction in 1963 that was enacted by Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Together with the late Sen. William Roth, Kemp introduced a bill in 1977 to replicate the Kennedy tax cut by reducing the top income-tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent and the bottom rate from 14 percent to 10 percent. (Kennedy and Johnson had dropped the top rate from 91 percent to 70 percent and the bottom rate from 20 percent to 14 percent.)

Reagan adopted the Kemp-Roth-Mundell-Laffer-Wanniski idea, which came to be called supply-side economics, and made a big tax-rate reduction the centerpiece of his economic program. Although mainstream economists all said it would be massively inflationary, voters no longer had much faith in their pronouncements because the economy had reached a crisis situation by 1980. There was a sharp recession that year, but inflation and interest rates continued to rise to unprecedented levels.

Immediately after taking office, Reagan began pushing his tax plan through Congress. It finally came to fruition in early August 1981, and he signed it into law on the 13th. Contrary to the predictions of establishment economists, it was not inflationary. On the contrary, inflation virtually collapsed, just as the supply-side economists expected. It fell from 13.5 percent in 1980 to 1.9 percent by 1985. Beforehand, virtually every economist in the United States would have said this was impossible.

Mundell and Friedman were both awarded the Nobel Prize in economics and Reagan was re-elected handily in 1984 as rewards for their insight and leadership. Their achievement should not be forgotten.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bruce Bartlett is a former senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis of Dallas, Texas. Bartlett is a prolific author, having published over 900 articles in national publications, and prominent magazines and published four books, including Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action.

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

©Creators Syndicate
Fair or not, we have to compete
Kali writes: Tuesday, August, 08, 2006 4:12 PM What Bartlett does not tell us is.... .....Reagan did make tax increases in response to the huge budget deficit, and I DO remember the awful recession during the first two years of Reagan's reign of error. It is easy to sugercoat the growing pains of the early 80's, although, I do have to admit, Reagan did a hell of a job of pulling this country together and digging ourselves out of the doldrums.
===========
Since Fletch covered the “lag factor” of about 2 years, I will only add some things take longer and some shorter. A Fed interest rate adjustment takes about 6 to 9 months to show up in the economy which is why they usually overshoot. For example, the job growth in virtually every sector peaked in 1998 and was in a freefall by late 1999 and 2000 while the campaign for Bush was just beginning for his first term. That is why he said we were headed into a recession. His tax cuts, took about two years to kick in after he got in.

Now, I think we are ripe for a recession because the tax cuts and the low interest rates spurred spending (on Chinese goods at Walmart and new homes) but didn't grow manufacturing and exports. That isn't Bush's fault because our Congress never would pass what we really needed and the voters wouldn't have supported what was really needed.

The problem is that most politicians don’t know how economic policies work because they focus on the effects they think the voters will focus on in the short term. Thus, we rarely get the right information. However, it is out there.

Every policy we have or propose is in use somewhere in he world. Ireland used, by their own definition, “Reaganomics” to rise from welfare nation in the EU to the 2nd wealthiest per capita nation in Europe. They cut taxes on the wealthy, the businesses and investment. The kept the tax rate on the worker at 20% and it starts lower than ours if I recall correctly. Yet, even the worker’s Labor party signed on to the cuts. The results?

Unemployment dropped from 15% to 4.3%. Export grew dramatically, the national debt dropped from 120% of GDP to 27% the last I checked. Yet, what about the worker. With the wealthy and business getting all those breaks you would think the Labor party and workers would be screaming even with the low unemployment.

Well, their wages went from ½ our ave. mfg. wage to $1.30 higher than ours during that same period. So while they have a higher tax burden they were rewarded with rapid wage increases and a much stronger nation that could afford the social programs they have. We are going the other way.

We are going the same way as France.
Quote:
France slides into fear and depression
Some say the country's social security blankets are crippling France's integration into a new world economy
Molly Moore / The Washington Post
March 27, 2006
Snip==========
French millionaires moving across the border due to high tax rates,
http://www.hbcprotocols.com/france.html
===================
It may not seem fair, but trying to tax the wealthy only hurts the workers because A) like Kerry announced in the last election, he paid 12% tax because he put his money in tax free securities and all wealthy can do that. B)They can protect their money in trusts and foundations like Gates and Buffet have done. C) they can do like the French and just move to another country or move their wealth to another country.

All taxes are paid by us that are levied on business. That is why about 35% of the prices we pay for U.S. goods are hidden taxes. (higher on some things). Businesses don’t pay taxes or the compliance costs which often run 400% to 700% higher than the actual tax.
Quote:
According to a 2001 U.S. government report entitled "The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms," companies spent roughly $800 billion annually on federal compliance issues before Sarbanes-Oxley was even drafted.
http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1540,1846782,00.asp
========================
That is over $2,650 for every man woman and child hidden in prices just for the compliance cost and that doesn’t include other compliance costs. For a family of four that is $10,600.

Yes we have to have compliance and thus the cost of compliance. And yes, some business tax makes since on exports since then foreign consumers pay tax for us. But, since the 1950’s manufacturing has dropped every decade from 30.4% of GDP to about 13% currently and that means less and less tax is paid by foreign consumers and more and more paid by us plus a lot of unnecessary compliance costs.

The “Laffer Curve” is a good starting point to understand how tax rates can affect tax revenues but it isn’t a simple bell curve. The peak rests closer to zero than 50% because all costs, including taxes have to be included in the price. We are already higher in healthcare costs, social security tax, labor, and compliance costs so any added tax can put the price higher than competitors in other nations.

Recently I read an article where an MRI or some other type of test like that, I forget which, can be digitally sent to Australia, read and the results sent back in less time and cost here in the U.S. In short, the technological advances have made life better for us but have also forced us to compete in areas we used to consider “safe.”

A $200,000 heart operation here costs $10,000 in India in a private hospital with a lower mortality rate than our hospitals. While our malpractice rate for our doctor is $200,000-250,000 theirs is $4,000. Fair or not, the cost of healthcare is included in the price of any company that competes with India and has healthcare coverage. With an average combined State and Fed corp tax rate of 42% and Ireland and China at 12.5% and 11% we have a 30 pt. Disadvantage added to all our other higher costs.

Again, fair or not, the consumer is boss and the consumer says, “I don’t care if it is made in China or not. I will buy the lower price good and if you try to “protect” American jobs I will vote you out for costing me more.” Yet, we could have lower priced goods here if we eliminated the bulk of the tax code, had a competitive tax rate, and reduced compliance costs.

Social Security:
Several nations are using some form of personal accounts. Most of them are old socialist nations that have switched to capitalism to turn their nations around and rise out of poverty. 4% of a poverty level wage earner’s pay, invested in safe government bonds, would give him about what social security does and the whole 12.4% a lot more than he will get and higher. A low to middle-class wage earner gets a lot more than what social security would provide because while the poverty level worker gets to count 90% of his wages up to $606, the middleclass wage earner only gets 32% of his above that $606 and a high wage earner only 15% of all above $3.653 per month.

Healthcare:
A $200,000 heart operation here costs $10,000 in a private Indian Hospital which has a lower mortality rate than most of our hospitals. Part of the reason is the $200,000 to $250,000 malpractice insurance premium that costs the doctor in India, $4,000. Fair or not, a U.S. Company competing with a company in India, has a huge healthcare premium to include in the price of his product that give India an advantage to start with and then add our 60,000 page tax code and rulings, and you see how hard it is to compete.

Fair or not, we have to compete. If we don’t want lower wages, want healthcare, want social security, and all the other things, what is left to cut to compete? Taxes. If lower taxes done in the right way, like in Ireland boost workers wages, lower debt, and increase exports (remember exports mean foreigners are paying taxes for us) then we need to at least examine what they did and tweak them for our nation.

As long as politicians try to convince us that wealthy and business pay our taxes or can pay them we will lose in the world market to nations who no longer believe that.

You may say what about that 50% the top 15% or 25% or whatever it is they say, pays of the taxes collected? Well, what about it.

Let’s say it was collected on sole proprietorships, and dividends and capital gains and stock sales, etc. Who paid ALL of the money that those sources of income came from? You and I did. Look at it like this. It takes about $50,000 income after tax to convince someone to start a business.

Thus a widget company here and one in Ireland both want to make $50,000. The Irish company has to mark their price up above cost $57,000 ($57,000 less 12.5% to end up with $50,000 after tax. The U.S. widget company has to mark the same widgets up $87,000 ($87,000 less 42% tax to get $50,000). Now, whose widget do you think the U.S. Consumer will buy?

Fair? No. In fact, France filed a compliant with the EU to get Ireland to raise its taxes because business for leaving France for Ireland. In the last decade, 25% of all U.S. investment money (wealthy can put their wealth in other nations, remember) that was bound for Europe, went to Ireland.

Subsidies? How about New Zealand. Cut theirs among threats it would cause a 10% failure rate among farmers and ranchers. Result? 1% failure and a 40% increase in productivity. The politicians won’t tell you these things because, quite frankly, most of them don’t know these things or have hidden agendas. But the information is out there. You just have to dig a little.

Remember, neither party is currently looking out for the worker. The tax cuts we got instead of the wealthy? Where did that money go? It went to Walmart to buy more Chinese imports and help fund China’s growth. 42% of the job growth was tied to housing, not manufacturing. The job report before this last one with 175,000 jobs added? Well, what they didn’t say much about was that another 48,000 jobs in manufacturing were lost and that only rapid gains in dishwasher, hotel maids, bus boys, etc. were keeping the growth so high. In that same report, another 10,000 high tech jobs had disappeared.

Both India and China are raising education standards. Both are graduating 350,000 engineers a year. Both are doing all they can to attract businesses. So, if we want to survive, we have to compete, fair or not.

Hey Fletch
I love your economic post. You seem very intelligent regarding economics. You should create a blog here for some of these excellent posts. Check out Brian R's blog as an example.
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.