Are Low Taxes Exacerbating the Recession?
Friday 09 July 2010
by: David Sirota, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
As the planet's economy keeps stumbling, the phrase "worst recession since the Great Depression" has become the new "global war on terror" -- a term whose overuse has rendered it both meaningless and acronym-worthy. And just like that previously ubiquitous phrase, references to the WRSTGD are almost always followed by flimsy and contradictory explanations.
Republicans who ran up massive deficits say the recession comes from overspending. Democrats who gutted the job market with free trade policies nonetheless insist it's all George W. Bush's fault. Meanwhile, pundits who cheered both sides now offer non-sequiturs, blaming excessive partisanship for our problems.
But as history (and Freakonomics) teaches, such oversimplified memes tend to obscure the counterintuitive notions that often hold the most profound truths. And in the case of the WRSTGD, the most important of these is the idea that we are in economic dire straits because tax rates are too low.
This is the provocative argument first floated by former New York governor Eliot Spitzer in a Slate magazine article evaluating 80 years of economic data.
"During the period 1951-63, when marginal rates were at their peak -- 91 percent or 92 percent -- the American economy boomed, growing at an average annual rate of 3.71 percent," he wrote in February. "The fact that the marginal rates were what would today be viewed as essentially confiscatory did not cause economic cataclysm -- just the opposite. And during the past seven years, during which we reduced the top marginal rate to 35 percent, average growth was a more meager 1.71 percent."
Months later, with USA Today reporting that tax rates are at a 60-year nadir, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a Brookings Institution audience that "the rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing (major) employment issues...whether it is individual, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are."
A prime example is Greece. While conservatives say the debt-ridden nation is a victim of welfare-state profligacy, a Center for American Progress analysis shows that "Greece has consistently spent less" than Europe's other social democracies -- most of which have avoided Greece's plight.
"The real problem facing the Greeks is not how to reduce spending but how to increase revenue collections," the report concludes, fingering Greece's comparatively "anemic tax collections" as its economic problem.
On the other hand, the opposite is also true -- as Clinton noted, some high-tax, high-revenue nations are excelling.
"Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western hemisphere," she pointed out. "And guess what? It's growing like crazy. The rich are getting richer, but they are pulling people out of poverty."
This makes perfect sense. Though the Reagan zeitgeist created the illusion that taxes stunt economic growth, the numbers prove that higher marginal tax rates generate more resources for the job-creating, wage-generating public investments (roads, bridges, broadband, etc.) that sustain an economy. They also create economic incentives for economy-sustaining capital investment. Indeed, the easiest way wealthy business owners can avoid high-bracket tax rates is by plowing their profits back into their businesses and taking the corresponding write-off rather than simply pocketing the excess cash and paying an IRS levy.
In summing up her remarks, Clinton said that this higher-tax/higher-revenue formula "used to work for us until we abandoned it."
Though she felt compelled to insist, "I'm not speaking for the (Obama) administration," it was nonetheless a politically bold statement -- so bold, in fact, that like all of the other corroborating tax facts, it was summarily ignored by politicians and the Washington media. They had their cliches to promote -- and unfortunately, until they let substantive-though-uncomfortable ideas displace conventional wisdom, it's a good bet that the WRSTGD will continue unabated.
David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books "Hostile Takeover" and "The Uprising." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.
Copyright 2010 Creators.com
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!




Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Thank you for saying this
Fri, 07/09/2010 - 22:28 β Anonymous (not verified)Thank you for saying this out loud. I have been saying it for years but this is the first article I have read that makes the point that high tax rates stimulate investment and business spending. It has the same effect on high income individuals.
The high progressive tax brackets and high business taxes should be called 'use it or lose it' (to taxation) taxes.
"Are Low Taxes Exacerbating
Fri, 07/09/2010 - 22:39 β DeepBlue (not verified)"Are Low Taxes Exacerbating the Recession?"
Yes.
Thanks for pointing this
Fri, 07/09/2010 - 23:58 β mike samu (not verified)Thanks for pointing this out, once again, David. The trickle-down policies of Ronald Reagan were really trickle-up poverty. The neo-cons are now loosing out to their own faulty prescription.
Re-investment is key; outsourcing is devastating and low and uncollected taxes have destroyed our financial stability.
How about Mexico? If the
Sat, 07/10/2010 - 01:21 β Byronator (not verified)How about Mexico? If the oligarchy that rules this resource-rich country was required to take care of its impoverished masses through increased taxation, they would be able to feed their families without darting across the border and risking their lives to earn income, most of which is sent out of American communities, to their homeland.
Although I'm all f'r
Sat, 07/10/2010 - 02:51 β Anonymous (not verified)Although I'm all f'r increasing tax rates on the wealthy, Sirota's evidentiary, "'During the period 1951-63, when marginal rates were at their peak -- 91 percent or 92 percent -- the American economy boomed, growing at an average annual rate of 3.71 percent,'" is flawed. While his claim is true, overlooked is during this period the United States effectively had no economic competitors. Europe and Japan had still to recover from the devastation of the Second World War. Thus, "the American economy boomed," not because "marginal rates were at their peak--91 percent," but because the United States physically could produce and others could not. Beware of bare statistics, they lie.
Lies, damn lies, and
Sat, 07/10/2010 - 06:44 β gooba-gooba-gooba (not verified)Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Nonetheless, voodoo economics has worked its magic and increasingly separated the workers from the office dwellers. Japan grew incredibly from the 50s, not because they had the materials we had, but because they worked with what they had and marketed it very astutely.
Our leaders have variously championed and warned against the implementation of NAFTA and GATT. They go with the flow of air from the highest bidders.
It's as if our government is the front for big business. Which of these is too big to fail?
I'd like to see a
Sat, 07/10/2010 - 06:58 β Herbert Browne (not verified)I'd like to see a transaction tax on all securities transfers. Additionally, "capital gains" should be taxed in a graduated fashion... with lower taxes for those holdings that have remained in possession for a certain number of years. When the hedge fund managers are moving blocks of cash & stocks around- a bear this time & a bull the next- and often holding a position for a few moments or hours, that's not "investing." That's "playing roulette"... and should be taxed, accordingly. ^..^
In reply to Herbert Browne,
Sat, 07/10/2010 - 14:14 β Anonymous (not verified)In reply to Herbert Browne, "a transaction tax on all securities transfers" is difficult because such transactions occurring in fractions of a second in computerized sales, an "investment" exchange can turn over many times in a short amount of time. Additionally, an investment can be divided and/or combined with other investments into a "complex instrument," such that tracing exchanges is practically nearly impossible. Better, in my judgment, is a court decision occurring a few months ago. A family was granted deed to their home because the financial institution claiming to be the mortgage holder could not prove it was the mortgage holder. Investors hand divided and turned over the mortgage so many times, it was impossible to determine who owned it. All investment firms should be held to the same standard of ownership, this provision probably phasing out investment in "complex instruments" faster than any tax. Since no tax law can be complete, lawyers always can find a way around tax laws. Rapid exchanges in "complex instruments," however, being the heart and soul of current investments, proving ownership is an inescapable problem. Hoist investment houses on their own "clever" technological petard, I say, it is their just desert (with apology for mixing metaphors).
All of this under taxed
Sun, 07/11/2010 - 18:54 β Michael Bugg (not verified)All of this under taxed income of the top 5% hurts in other ways. This surplus income looked for a quick score like derivatives and mortgage backed securities and "investment" in commodities futures that needlessly ran up the price of oil, food, and lots of other commodities in 2008. Two, the undertaxed rich bid up the price of real estate and building materials for their McMansions and spec houses that priced the bottom 50% of income earners out of home repairs as well as building a new home! And last but not least, being under taxed allows the top 5% to feel free to use a little of their surplus cash to buy politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle to ensure that nothing changes!!!