Macro Readings, for Reference

Macro Readings, Self-Referential Edition – NYTimes.com.

Paul wants to remember these, so I do too.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Macro Readings, for Reference

In defense of Canadian health care

In defense of Canada | The Incidental Economist.

 

 

And much more.  Debunking of several myths about Canadian health care relative to U.S. health care.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on In defense of Canadian health care

Canadian use of US health care is very small

Phantoms In The Snow: Canadians’ Use Of Health Care Services In The United States.

Abstract

To examine the extent to which Canadian residents seek medical care across the border, we collected data about Canadians’ use of services from ambulatory care facilities and hospitals located in Michigan, New York State, and Washington State during 1994–1998. We also collected information from several Canadian sources, including the 1996 National Population Health Survey, the provincial Ministries of Health, and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Results from these sources do not support the widespread perception that Canadian residents seek care extensively in the United States. Indeed, the numbers found are so small as to be barely detectible relative to the use of care by Canadians at home.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Canadian use of US health care is very small

For the Virtual Green Room: May 31, 2011 – Grasping Reality with Both Hands

For the Virtual Green Room: May 31, 2011 – Grasping Reality with Both Hands.

 

Answers/rebuttals to conservative misinformation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on For the Virtual Green Room: May 31, 2011 – Grasping Reality with Both Hands

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? – NYTimes.com

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? – NYTimes.com.

 

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, 2010

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? – NYTimes.com

Fiscal Facts: How we went from a projected surplus to trillion-dollar deficits

Fiscal Facts: The Great Debt Shift – The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Paul Krugman’s lonely crusade

What’s Left of the Left.

Good profile.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Paul Krugman’s lonely crusade

Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent – NYTimes.com

Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent – NYTimes.com.

The best display of the proposed budget I have ever seen (well, they had one last year, too).

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent – NYTimes.com

Economist’s View: “Top Ten Tax Charts”

Economist’s View: “Top Ten Tax Charts”.

From Mark Thoma, some very enlightening tax charts.  For example, the US is a low-tax country:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They don’t really need any more explanation, do they?  Check out the rest of the charts.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Economist’s View: “Top Ten Tax Charts”

Macroadvisers: The Economic Effects of the Ryan Plan: Assuming the Answer?

Macroadvisers: The Economic Effects of the Ryan Plan: Assuming the Answer?.

A thorough analysis, using real arithmetic, of Paul Ryan’s Budget Resolution.   It actually looks at whether the starting assumptions and modeling approach are reasonable.  The bottom line is that the Heritage Foundation analysis, on which Ryan’s conclusions are based,  is so severely flawed it’s almost fraudulent.  This makes Ryan’s conclusions worthless.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Macroadvisers: The Economic Effects of the Ryan Plan: Assuming the Answer?