Bruce Bartlett has served as an economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress.
Historically, the term "tax rate" has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.
By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan's administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.
In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.
Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again. Just last week, House Republicans released a new plan to reduce unemployment. Its principal provision would reduce the top statutory income tax rate on businesses and individuals to 25 percent from 35 percent. No evidence was offered for the Republican argument that cutting taxes for the well-to-do and big corporations would reduce unemployment; it was simply asserted as self-evident.
One would not know from the Republican document that corporate taxes are expected to raise just 1.3 percent of G.D.P. in revenue this year, about a third of what it was in the 1950s.
The G.O.P. says global competitiveness requires the United States to reduce its corporate tax rate. But the United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Revenue Statistics of O.E.C.D. Member Countries, 2010If taxes are low historically and in comparison with our global competitors, how are Republicans able to maintain that taxes are excessively high? They do so by ignoring the effective tax rate and concentrating solely on the statutory tax rate, which is often manipulated to make it appear that rates are much higher than they really are.
For example, Stephen Moore of The Wall Street Journal recently asserted that Democrats were trying to raise the top income tax rate to 62 percent from 35 percent. But most of the difference between these two rates is the payroll tax and state taxes that are already in existence. The rest consists largely of assuming tax increases that no one has formally proposed and that would be politically impossible to enact at the present time.
Ryan Chittum, in Columbia Journalism Review, responded with a commentary that called the Moore analysis "deeply disingenuous."
Nevertheless, one routinely hears variations of the Moore argument from conservative commentators. By contrast, one almost never hears that total revenues are at their lowest level in two or three generations as a share of G.D.P. or that corporate tax revenues as a share of G.D.P. are the lowest among all major countries. One hears only that the statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is high compared with other countries, which is true but not necessarily relevant.
The economic importance of statutory tax rates is blown far out of proportion by Republicans looking for ways to make taxes look high when they are quite low. And they almost never note that the statutory tax rate applies only to the last dollar earned or that the effective tax rate is substantially lower even for the richest taxpayers and largest corporations because of tax exclusions, deductions, credits and the 15 percent top rate on dividends and capital gains.
The many adjustments to income permitted by the tax code, plus alternative tax rates on the largest sources of income of the wealthy, explain why the average federal income tax rate on the 400 richest people in America was 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the Internal Revenue Service, down from 26.38 percent when these data were first calculated in 1992. Among the top 400, 7.5 percent had an average tax rate of less than 10 percent, 25 percent paid between 10 and 15 percent, and 28 percent paid between 15 and 20 percent.
The truth of the matter is that federal taxes in the United States are very low. There is no reason to believe that reducing them further will do anything to raise growth or reduce unemployment.
E-mail This Print Share Close Linkedin Digg Facebook Mixx My Space Permalink Bruce Bartlett, capital gains, Corporate Taxes, Daily Economist, Income Tax, politics, Republicans, tax cuts, Taxation Related Posts From Economix The Case for Higher Taxes Is the Fair Tax Herman Cain’s Ace in the Hole?Taxes and Economic Growth Shared Capitalism Why People Pay Income Taxes Previous Post Shared Capitalism NYTD.CRNR.userContent.getUserContent(25,'default'); Search This Blog Search Previous Post Shared Capitalism Follow This Blog Twitter RSS Featured Economix Posts Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? //Bruce Bartlett has served as an economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress.
Historically, the term "tax rate" has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.
By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan's administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.
In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.
Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again. Just last week, House Republicans released a new plan to reduce unemployment. Its principal provision would reduce the top statutory income tax rate on businesses and individuals to 25 percent from 35 percent. No evidence was offered for the Republican argument that cutting taxes for the well-to-do and big corporations would reduce unemployment; it was simply asserted as self-evident.
One would not know from the Republican document that corporate taxes are expected to raise just 1.3 percent of G.D.P. in revenue this year, about a third of what it was in the 1950s.
The G.O.P. says global competitiveness requires the United States to reduce its corporate tax rate. But the United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
If taxes are low historically and in comparison with our global competitors, how are Republicans able to maintain that taxes are excessively high? They do so by ignoring the effective tax rate and concentrating solely on the statutory tax rate, which is often manipulated to make it appear that rates are much higher than they really are.
For example, Stephen Moore of The Wall Street Journal recently asserted that Democrats were trying to raise the top income tax rate to 62 percent from 35 percent. But most of the difference between these two rates is the payroll tax and state taxes that are already in existence. The rest consists largely of assuming tax increases that no one has formally proposed and that would be politically impossible to enact at the present time.
Ryan Chittum, in Columbia Journalism Review, responded with a commentary that called the Moore analysis "deeply disingenuous."
Nevertheless, one routinely hears variations of the Moore argument from conservative commentators. By contrast, one almost never hears that total revenues are at their lowest level in two or three generations as a share of G.D.P. or that corporate tax revenues as a share of G.D.P. are the lowest among all major countries. One hears only that the statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is high compared with other countries, which is true but not necessarily relevant.
The economic importance of statutory tax rates is blown far out of proportion by Republicans looking for ways to make taxes look high when they are quite low. And they almost never note that the statutory tax rate applies only to the last dollar earned or that the effective tax rate is substantially lower even for the richest taxpayers and largest corporations because of tax exclusions, deductions, credits and the 15 percent top rate on dividends and capital gains.
The many adjustments to income permitted by the tax code, plus alternative tax rates on the largest sources of income of the wealthy, explain why the average federal income tax rate on the 400 richest people in America was 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the Internal Revenue Service, down from 26.38 percent when these data were first calculated in 1992. Among the top 400, 7.5 percent had an average tax rate of less than 10 percent, 25 percent paid between 10 and 15 percent, and 28 percent paid between 15 and 20 percent.
The truth of the matter is that federal taxes in the United States are very low. There is no reason to believe that reducing them further will do anything to raise growth or reduce unemployment.
Contrary to many Republican assertions, tax rates in the United States are low, both historically and in comparison with other developed nations, an economist writes.
Strengthening company incentives for profit-sharing would help both owners and workers, an economist writes.
Eventually voters will have to choose between tax increases or steep cuts to spending programs that they embrace, an economist writes.
France’s finance minister may be the front-runner to head the International Monetary Fund, but there are good reasons to challenge her, an economist writes.
The divide between liberal and conservative views on egalitarianism applies to more than just attitudes about the role of government. It appears to make a difference in academic grading, too, a new study finds.
Banks used lobbying and political influence to gain larger assistance for their mortgage-lending problems, an economist writes.
Those who would like to institute a national sales tax, eliminate all existing federal taxes and shut down the Internal Revenue Service have a kindred spirit in the Republican presidential field, an economist writes.
An economist explores the debate over a proposal for a minimum wage of $10 an hour on all large projects that receive public subsidies.
Despite their poor employment prospects, recent graduates say “yes.”
More students are taking longer to earn a bachelor’s degree, and colleges have no incentive to speed them up, an economist writes.
Catherine Rampell is an economics reporter for The New York Times.
David Leonhardt writes the Economic Scene column, which appears in The Times on Wednesdays.
Motoko Rich is an economics reporter for The New York Times.
Steven Greenhouse writes about labor and workplace issues for The New York Times.
Liz Alderman writes about European economics, finance and business from Paris.
Jack Ewing writes about European economics and business from Frankfurt.
Economists offer readers insights about the dismal science.
Economics doesn't have to be complicated. It is the study of our lives "” our jobs, our homes, our families and the little decisions we face every day. Here at Economix, Catherine Rampell, David Leonhardt and other contributors will analyze the news and use economics as a framework for thinking about the world. We welcome feedback, at economix@nytimes.com.
Apture allows readers to dig deeper into a subject without ever leaving the blog post. When you click on any link marked by the icons , , or , you will be able to view video, reference materials, images and other related media. Please e-mail your feedback and thoughts on this feature to apture@nyt.com.
An accounting of the government’s rescue package.
Three economists explain what worked and what didn't.
A map of unemployment rates across the United States, now through January.
Faces, numbers and stories from behind the downturn.
A series about the surge in consumer debt and the lenders who made it possible.
A series exploring the origins of the financial crisis, from Washington to Wall Street.
Read Full Article »