The $20+ Trillion Question

Now that the government shutdown and debt-ceiling brinksmanship has been averted (for now), the $20+ TRILLION question remains:  what are we going to do about the national debt?  Especially now that it is set to skyrocket even further into the stratosphere due to both massive tax cuts (mainly for the rich and mega-corporations) and spending increases, including on our already over-bloated and over-extended military.  It is now mathematically impossible to pay it off at this point.  So what is the solution, then?

Obviously, if we find ourselves in a hole (especially one as deep as this), the first thing we should do is stop digging.   That is known as the First Law of Holes.  That means no more deficit spending for the foreseeable future, period. But unfortunately, that's a lot easier said than done. Taxes will have to go up and spending will have to go down--dramatically.   And that would do more harm than good at the levels it would need to be done.  There is really no way around that.

However, there actually is a painless (albeit unconventional) method of paying off the debt in one fell swoop.  Not just this year's deficit, but ALL of the cumulative $20 trillion of the debt. It's called the Noble Solution (named after its creator, Richard E. Noble) and does not involve any significant tax hikes or spending cuts. So what is it? It's something we never would have advocated just a few years ago:  printing (electronically creating) money out of thin air to pay it off all at once.  Alas, the genie is out of the bottle now, as the Feral Reserve has been creating money out of thin air for decades (including that recent whopping $16 trillion secret bailout of the banks, which eventually rose to nearly $30 trillion) so we might as well put this practice to productive use.  Money is really nothing more than an accounting entry nowadays, so let's make the entry and be done with it for good.

But wouldn't that lead to hyperinflation? Not if it is properly done with due diligence.  Noble points out that while creating money is undoubtedly inflationary, using it to pay off the debt (which is in Treasury bonds and is thus already part of the money supply) would be deflationary in that it would shrink the money supply by an equal amount. Thus, the two effects would cancel each other out, as paper (electronic data) would be exchanged for paper (data). Of course, we would have to bypass the Feral Reserve to avoid creating more debt in the process, such as #MintTheCoin. Or better yet, abolish or nationalize the Feral Reserve entirely and return the power of money creation to its rightful owners, our elected representatives in Congress and the Department of the Treasury.  America would then be free and clear for the first time in history since Thomas Jefferson.

Of course, while doing it once may not be harmful, doing it regularly can be.  To make sure we never have to do this again, we must make sure the debt never, ever, reaches such stratospheric levels again, period.  In addition to nationalizing the Feral Reserve to make it a public national bank that creates interest-free currency, fiscal policy must be tightened after the Noble Solution is implemented and the debt is paid off.  We have already outlined in previous posts what must be done as far as taxes and spending are concerned.  We should also have a Balanced Budget Amendment added to the Constitution as well, albeit with a "safety valve" allowing deficit spending during legitimately declared wars of necessity, national emergencies, recessions, or any time the U3 unemployment rate exceeds 6% and/or the U6 rate exceeds 12%.  Without that safety valve, such an amendment can easily do more harm than good.  Alternatively, or in addition to the above, there is also the legendary Warren Buffett's clever idea:  make a law that anytime the budget deficit exceeds 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election, period.  Problem solved.

Of course, the longer-term drivers of future debt obligations are the programs that make up so-called "entitlement" spending, mainly Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.   But even here, there is less than meets the eye.  For Social Security, that can be resolved by 1) scrapping the wage cap on FICA taxes (or raising it to an arbitrarily high level like $1 million or $10 million), 2) indexing initial benefits to prices or median wages instead of average wages, and 3) very gradually raising the full retirement age to 70 for those born after 1980 or so.  In fact, if we did all those things plus a very slight 0.2% hike in the FICA tax, we could even expand Social Security (and perhaps briefly lower the retirement age a bit in the short term) while still keeping it solvent for the foreseeable future.  For Medicare and Medicaid, the only real long-term solution to their burgeoning fiscal woes is a truly universal single-payer healthcare system that can bend the cost curve downward by taking the profit out of healthcare and especially tackling the price-gouging of Big Pharma.  And other proposed solutions are mere window-dressing at best.

But the bottom line is that the debt must be defeated, and soon.  We simply cannot afford to continue kicking this can further down the road.  Otherwise we may very well go the way of the Romans.

How to Prepare for the Next Big Crash

As we have noted in the previous article, the risk of the next big economic crash continues to loom large, and it may be too late to actually prevent it from occurring entirely.  That's not to say that there aren't things that should be done to prepare for it to make it less catastrophic, though.  Back in 2014, the TSAP had predicted that a crash would occur within a few short years, and we had written an article then discussing how to prevent it before it occurs or at least take the edge off of it, while ending the previous economic "stagpression" for good.   And we should note that these things would indeed help take the edge off of the next looming financial crisis as well.

Two things come to mind right away:  1) a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all, an idea that is LONG overdue, and 2) Quantitiative Easing for We the People in general (as opposed to the banks, which only benefits the ultra-rich) by injecting newly-created money into everyone's bank accounts.  Additionally, we need to better regulate the Wall Street casino so such a crisis could never happen again, and also JAIL the banksters who caused the crisis (instead of bailing them out) like Iceland did.  A debt jubilee would be even better still, but even the things we just mentioned are a fairly tall order for a government who is bought and paid for by the banksters/oligarchs.  While other things need to be done as well in the long run, such as critical investments in infrastructure and education, the aforementioned measures would go a long way towards fixing our ailing economy.

Those are the things that should be done at the government level, of course.  At the individual level, there is really not much one can do except get OUT of the stock market while you still can, and take at least most of your money OUT of the big banks (before the "bail-ins" begin) and put it into smaller banks, credit unions, or even under your mattress.  Or even in a big, brown bag inside a zoo.

Deal or No Deal?

Looks like Congress finally passed a budget deal to get us through the next two years, just in time for the holidays.  The deal was made between Paul Ryan (R) and Patty Murray (D), and the compromise not only avoids another government shutdown in January, but it also alleviates some of the worst fears about austerity in the future.  Both sides grudgingly gave up a little bit of what they held dear in order to avoid larger sacrifices on their part, and even Bonehead himself went along with it.  As a result, the three most popular programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) and Obamacare are no longer on the chopping block for now, and the most damaging sequester cuts are reversed (or at least made more flexible) for the 2014 fiscal year.  So, cue the music once again, Maestro:

HALLELUJAH!  HALLELUJAH!  HALLELUJAH, HALL.......err, wait a minute.  Seriously?  There is really nothing to be rejoicing about, since Congress merely did what they are normally supposed to do every year--pass a freaking budget on time to prevent a shutdown.  Furthermore, it's not like it's a particularly good deal either.  The budget includes cuts to military pensions, no extension of unemployment benefits, no reversal of November's food stamp cuts, and many remaining parts of the sequester--all to protect massive tax loopholes for the rich and mega-corporations, which remained untouched despite the need for new revenues.  And the looming debt ceiling showdown in February remains unaddressed, which the Repugnicans will most likely try to exploit once again when the time comes.  But all this is the logical consequence of negotiating a compromise between a right-wing extremist like Ryan and a moderate centrist Democrat like Murray--we end up splitting the difference and getting a deal that is, on balance, actually even further to the right of the status quo just to keep the ax away from our most crucial and popular social progams.  Long story short, Congress is still broken, and is clearly FAR from being fixed anytime soon.  So one more time, we will say it again to them:

"YOU'RE FIRED!!!"

Except for a very few of you (Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Tammy Baldwin, and Alan Grayson), we will send ALL of you packing in 2014.  Goodbye, and good riddance!  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Simpson and Bowles Have Been Debunked

It's official.  The questionable study that was used to justify draconian austerity measures in several nations (including our own) and repeatedly cited as gospel by fiscal hawks like Simpson and Bowles has been debunked.   The shoddy Reinhart and Rogoff study was exposed by 28 year old grad student Thomas Herndon, who found that the authors had made a coding error in their Excel spreadsheet that they didn't bother to correct.  Correcting this error changed the results entirely, in a way that does NOT support the original specious claim that austerity is good for the economy.

But that did not stop Simpson and Bowles from continuing to promote ruthless austerity policies.  How ruthless you ask?  Well, there's a reason their commission was nicknamed the Catfood Commission, since that is what the most vulnerable Americans would end up having to eat if such policies come to fruition.   This time around, they are focusing even less on new revenues and more still on spending cuts, including raising the eligibility age for Medicare.  Note also how even in their first two plans they conspicuously took off the table the option of raising the top marginal tax rate even by a little.  Basically, everyone's ox gets gored except the ultra-rich of course.  Because apparently growth for the sake of growth is good no matter what the cost (not), and the Simpson-Bowles plan promotes growth (not).

The TSAP plan does indeed call for spending cuts along with new revenues, but we are careful to distinguish between wasteful and useful spending, and we are well aware that cutting too much too soon will seriously hurt the still-too-weak economy (as we have noted about the sequester).   We are also aware that raising taxes on the rich (even by a lot) will not significantly hurt the economy, while raising taxes on the bottom 90% (even by a little) can and will hurt the economy if it is done while the economy is still weak.  And we recognize that the jobs deficit is a much more urgent problem than the budget deficit, though both problems eventually need to be solved.

We must remember that the draconian, sequester-on-steroids cuts that Simpson and Bowles are calling for will inevitably lead to a massive number of workers losing their jobs, period.  So before we even think about going down that road, let's start by firing the now-discredited Simpson and Bowles before their policies send the rest of us packing.

UPDATE:  Looks like Europe is finally starting to abandon austerity, now that the damage it has done is crystal clear.   Also, in the USA the February jobs number was higher than originally thought, implying that it is actually the sequester, not the tax hikes that began in January, that is hurting us right now.  Congress really needs to answer the "clue phone," as it is ringing louder than ever.

The Sequester, Part Deux

The sequester has now been in place for over a month, and it is already beginning to do damage to our still fragile economy.  As we have noted in a previous post, the sequester is a bad idea overall and must be repealed or replaced ASAP.  Both its direct effects as well as the fear it has created is hampering what little recovery our economy has experienced, and the worst is yet to come.

President Obama has now unveiled his new budget for 2014, and there is good news and bad news.  The good news is that, if approved, the budget would stop the sequester, implement alternative spending cuts, raise taxes on the rich by closing loopholes, increase much-needed infrastructure spending, and still shrink the deficit.  The bad news is that, as a concession to Republicans, it would change the inflation indexing formula for Social Security and other programs in a way that would understate inflation, which would hurt the most vulnerable Americans unless other measures are taken specifically to protect them from such benefit cuts.  Although Obama says that he will find ways to protect the vulnerable, this change in indexing (the so-called "chained-CPI") would make him the first Democratic president to even consider making any significant cuts to Social Security in the entire program's 78-year history.  Unsurprisingly, the budget has angered many Democrats in Congress along with Republicans.

While it is good that Obama is serious about entitlement reform, there are far better ways to do it, which include raising or eliminating the wage cap on FICA taxes, indexing initial benefits to prices rather than wages, limiting benefits for the wealthiest retirees, and very gradually raising the full retirement age from 67 to 70 for future retirees born after 1960.  Even better still would be replacing FICA entirely with an alternative funding source, such as the Universal Exchange Tax, along with the other tweaks listed above.  As for Medicare and Medicaid, which are in far worse shape than Social Security, the best way (if not the only way) to effectively reform them would be to create a single-payer healthcare system similar to Canada and most of the rest of the civilized world.  But as long as we keep electing spineless Democrats and greedy Republicans, it is unlikely that any of these better alternatives will come to pass in the foreseeable future, and we will be left with a false choice between screwing "merely" one or two generations versus screwing several future generations.

Although Obama's budget clearly leaves much to be desired, it is still far better than the sequester, and it may be the only way for our incompetent Congress to be willing and able to stop it before it's too late.  The budget's flaws can be (hopefully) solved at some point in the not-too-distant future, while the sequester is already doing real damage right now and must be jettisoned at once. 

The Sequester: A Small, Dull Meat Cleaver

It looks like the sequester will go through, at least for a while, before Congress gets their act together (if they ever do).   Republicans refuse to budge on the issue of tax giveaways for the rich (which makes them responsible for any fallout the sequester may bring to the economy), and Democrats are simply not bold enough to do what really needs to be done.  But what exactly is the sequester, and why is it so bad for the economy?

First of all, the sequester consists of across-the-board, inflexible, automatic budget cuts as far as discretionary spending is concerned.  Half of the cuts will come from defense spending, and the other half from non-defense spending.  The size of the cuts (5% overall across the board each year for the next 10 years, 8.2% for defense) may not seem large, but the indiscriminate nature of these cuts won't just cut out the fat, but also bone and muscle as well.  If the doctor tells you that you need to lose weight, you wouldn't chop off one of your hands.  But that's exactly the kind of effect the sequester would have, and it won't be pretty.

Secondly, our economy is still very weak, and cutting too much too soon would likely push our economy back into recession.  The direct effect of these cuts would mean at least 750,000 public sector jobs would be lost this year alone, and the multiplier effect would mean that many private sector jobs would be eliminated as a result, making the total of jobs lost well over 1 million in 2013.  And we need that like we need a hole in the head.

Thirdly, many of the so-called "cuts" are not really cuts at all, but reductions in the growth of spending over time.  Thus, even if the sequester remains in effect for a whole decade, the net effect is that federal spending (and the national debt) will continue to grow significantly over the next decade.  But it would still do significant damage to the economy since these "cuts" are indiscriminate and inflexible.

Finally, although Congress clearly has a problem with spending like drunken sailors (regardless of who is in power), there are better alternatives to the sequester that would not only reduce but eliminate the deficit rather quickly.   The TSAP has repeatedly proposed better ways of balancing the budget and dealing with our massive national debt.  Right now, the deficit is really not our biggest problem, but it still must be dealt with.  And while our ideas will probably not come to fruition in today's Congress, the sequester is still one of the worst possible ways to deal with the deficit and any alternative must be put in place very soon.   For example, simply modifying the sequester to allow the heads of various agencies the flexibility to decide how to make their cuts (as long as the overall amount cut remains the same) would achieve the exact same effect on the deficit, but with far less collateral damage.  And Obama's plan to combine spending cuts with increased revenues (from removing various tax loopholes for the rich and corporations) is better still, though not quite as good as the TSAP's plan.

But it looks like the sequester will go through nonetheless, much to our chagrin.  The Republicans have rejected Obama's last offer for an alternative deficit-reduction plan, and in doing so they have revealed (yet again) that they really only care about the ultra-rich and mega-corporations.   Hopefully Congress will wise up before too much damage is done.

UPDATE:  The sequester has already begun as of noon on March 1.  While most of the impact will not be immediate (it will take at least several weeks to feel it), the pain will be real for those affected.  And millions of Americans will be affected in one way or another eventually.  But the silver lining is that Obama and the Democrats now have the upper hand should a belated deal be made in the days to come.  And the Republicans would get blamed for any fallout should a deal not be made in the near future.

If no deal is possible in the near future, the least-worst choice of all would be for Congress to simply repeal the sequester entirely with no strings attached.  Yes, they can do it if they want to, and at this point it is clearly in America's best interest to do so.  But they probably won't unless a critical mass of Americans credibly threatens to vote every single one of them out of office in 2014.

UPDATE II:  Looks like the sequester is already starting to kill jobs as of the first week of April, one month after the sequester began.  And the much-anticipated furloughs have officially begun.  But remember, the worst is yet to come if the sequester remains in effect.

The Only Way to Defeat the Debt

Our national debt is approaching $16 TRILLION dollars, and our deficit remains well over a trillion, meaning that the debt is still growing rapidly. It is now mathematically impossible to pay off the national debt by conventional (fiscal) means--even the Donald Trump Tax would raise "only" about a trillion or so based on our back-of-the-envelope calculations. So what should we do?

Obviously, if we find ourselves in a hole (especially one as deep as this), the first thing we should do is stop digging. That means no more deficit spending for the foreseeable future, period. But unfortunately, that's a lot easier said than done. Taxes will have to go up and spending will have to go down--dramatically. There is really no way around that.

However there is a relatively painless (albeit unconventional) method of paying off the debt. Not just this year's deficit, but all of the cumulative $16 trillion of the debt. It's called the Noble Solution (named after its creator, Richard E. Noble) and does not involve any significant tax hikes or spending cuts. So what is it? It's something we never would have advocated in the past: printing (electronically creating) money out of thin air to pay it off all at once.  Alas, the genie is out of the bottle now, as the Feral Reserve has been creating money out of thin air for decades (including a recent whopping $16 trillion secret bailout of the banks) so we might as well put this practice to productive use.  Call it QE4 if you'd like.  Money is really nothing more than an accounting entry nowadays, so let's make the entry and be done with it. 

But wouldn't that lead to hyperinflation? Not if it is properly done with due diligence.  Noble points out that while creating money is undoubtedly inflationary, using it to pay off the debt (which is in Treasury bonds and is thus already part of the money supply) would be deflationary in that it would shrink the money supply by an equal amount. Thus, the two effects would cancel each other out, as paper (electronic data) would be exchanged for paper (data). Of course, we would have to bypass the Feral Reserve to avoid creating more debt in the process. Or better yet, abolish the Feral Reserve entirely and return the power of money creation to its rightful owners, our elected representatives in Congress.  America would then be free and clear for the first time in history since Thomas Jefferson.

Of course, while doing it once may not be harmful, doing it regularly can be.  To make sure we never have to do this again, we must make sure the debt never, ever, reaches such stratospheric levels again, period.  In addition to abolishing the Fed, fiscal policy must be tightened after the Noble Solution is implemented and the debt is paid off.  We have already outlined in previous posts what must be done as far as taxes and spending are concerned.  We will need to have a Balanced Budget Amendment added to the Constitution as well, with deficit spending permitted only in severe fiscal emergencies.  Fortunately, the latest news suggests that the deficit may already be shrinking as we speak as the economy improves (albeit very slowly).  After all, a significant portion of the fiscal gap is due to reduced revenues resulting from the Second Great Depression (because that's what it really is) as well as the several fiscal stimulus measures made necessary by the crisis.  (Nearly all of the rest can be chalked up to the wars and the Bush-Obama tax cuts, as well as various loopholes and tax-shelters.)

But the bottom line is that the debt must be defeated, and soon.  We simply cannot afford to continue kicking this can further down the road.  Otherwise we may very well go the way of the Romans.

The Laffer Curve Revisited (Part Deux)

In our previous post, we essentially debunked the right-wing talking points about the Laffer Curve.  We showed that, generally speaking, the peak of the curve for the top marginal tax rate is most likely 70% or perhaps even a bit higher.  That is, tax cuts (particularly at the top) can nearly always reasonably be expected to decrease revenue rather than increase it, and vice-versa. We also showed that there is another curve called the Kimel Curve, which illustrates that a top marginal rate of 60-70% maximizes economic growth based on empirical data.

But what about Hauser's Law?  For those who don't know, Hauser's Law (a supposed corollary to the Laffer Curve) postulates that federal tax revenue cannot exceed 19.5% of GDP for long regardless of what the marginal tax rates are.  Indeed, at first glance the empirical data from 1945 to the present do appear to agree, but it really doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny.  Part of it comes from lying with statistics to obscure significant swings in revenues, and part of it comes from omitting key facts about less obvious changes in the tax code over the years that confound the apparent (non)correlation.  Thus anyone who cites Hauser's Law (which it turns out is not really a law at all) is either ignorant or disingenuous at best.  Consider it debunked.

Another important question is whether the Laffer Curve differs depending on the type of income being taxed.  Conservatives frequently argue that the tax rate on long-term capital gains should be significantly lower than the rate on ordinary income, as is currently the case.  For example, they claim that the Laffer Curve peaks at a much lower rate due to the so-called "lock-in" effect (when investors hold onto their underperforming assets longer to avoid taxation) induced by higher tax rates, an effect that allegedly hurts the economy.  However, this appears to be primarily a short-term phenomenon that occurs when investors either anticipate the change in tax rate in advance and/or believe that the rate hike or cut will only be temporary.  Effects on economic growth do not appear to be large in the short or long term, and may even be perverse in the short term.  In fact, rather than encourage investment, one experimental study finds that taxing capital gains at too low a rate may, at least in some circumstances, encourage too much divestment (consumption) of capital at the expense of further investment.  This might be one reason why overall private investment was actually lower on average in the lower-tax 1980s than it was in the higher-tax 1970s.  Also, a lower rate on capital gains is a key part of many tax shelters, and adds unnecessary complexity to the tax code. Thus, taxing long-term capital gains at a lower rate does not appear to be justified.  And to avoid taxing illusory gains due to inflation, it would make more sense to simply allow taxpayers to index the basis for inflation (which is not currently the case) while taxing all forms of income at the same rate. 

In addition, one should also observe how nearly every single time the capital gains tax was cut, an asset bubble of some sort eventually followed.  These include the notorious 1920s stock market bubble (tax cut was in 1922-1925), the late 1970s commodities bubble (cut in 1978), the late 1990s NASDAQ/tech bubble (cut in 1997), and the 2000s housing bubble (cuts in 1997 and 2003).  The one exception was the 1982 tax cut, which occurred during a deliberately-induced (i.e. by the Feral Reserve) recession and was followed by an equally large hike in the capital gains tax five years later that restored the rate back to its 1981 value before another bubble had a chance to form.  (The relatively small stock market correction in 1987 represented only a minor bubble in the market.)  While correlation does not necessarily equal causation, it is uncannily suggestive to say the least.  Though a low tax rate may appear be investor-friendly on the surface, one should keep in mind all of those hapless investors that lost their shirts when the bubbles inevitably burst, and all the damage the fallout did to the general economy.

How about corporations?  It appears that the Laffer Curve for the corporate income tax peaks somewhere between 20-30%, which is significantly lower than is the case for individuals.  However, the current corporate income tax rate of 35% in the USA (supposedly one of the highest in the world) is largely a fraud--due to loopholes, most companies pay nowhere close to that, and two-thirds of them effectively paid zero (or even negative) rates in 2008-2010.  And most estimates of the Laffer Curve simply don't take that into account.  While cutting the rate to 20-25% may very well make America more competitive in the global economy, the loopholes absolutely must be closed, period.

We recently came across a website called EquityScore, which claims that cutting the corporate income tax to zero would actually increase revenue to the point that all other income taxes could also be eliminated except for the capital gains tax.  That is, they claim that taxing corporate profits suppresses market values, and the massive gain in market values would yield enough capital gains tax revenue (when the stocks are sold) from individual shareholders to more than offset the foregone revenue from eliminating the corporate income tax.  While there may be some truth to that, their calculations ignore the fact that the majority of corporations already pay an effective rate of zero (or close to zero) due to loopholes, and that typical corporations used to pay much more in the not-too-distant past than they do now.  A better idea to maximize revenue (and growth) would be to cut the corporate tax rate to 20-25%, close all of the loopholes, tax only the amount of profit left after dividends are paid out, and tax dividends (and capital gains) as ordinary income for individuals.  Not only would that raise more revenue directly, it would also allow companies to pay bigger dividends and attract more investors, thus increasing market values and indirectly raise even more revenue.  It would also make the "double taxation" argument moot as well.

In summary, we have shown that the supply-siders' conception of the Laffer Curve is largely a canard.  And for those who continue to eschew the notion of shared prosperity and still insist on the richest Americans and mega-corporations paying historically low (if any) taxes, we shall leave the reader with the following inspirational quote from a very wealthy businessman of many decades past.  This was the man who founded the famous Filene's department store and also founded the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them."

---Edward Albert Filene (1869-1937)

The Laffer Curve Revisited

Most people (at least those who took Econ 101) have heard of the Laffer Curve.  This idea is often attributed to economist Arthur Laffer in 1974, but similar ideas were put forth much earlier by John Maynard Keynes and Ibn Khaldun.  In a nutshell, it states that both a 0% tax rate and a 100% tax rate would both yield zero revenue, for obvious reasons, and that the level that would produce the maximum amount of revenue thus lies somwhere in between.  To wit:

However, this is a rather crude representation and the curve need not be symmetric or even single-peaked.  So where exactly is the (highest) peak of this curve?  That is the million-dollar question that has been nagging numerous economists ever since Arthur Laffer himself initially proposed it.  Different sources have given very different answers, and the true answer may very well vary from year to year and country to country.  Probably one of the most reliable estimates of the peak is the midpoint of the results of various studies, which according to the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics is about 70% as of 2008.  Thus, the real curve would probably look something like this:

Of course, one source of variation of estimates has to do with whether or not you are talking about average rates or top marginal rates (i.e. the rate on the last dollar earned by those in the highest tax bracket), as well as where the threshold of the top bracket lies.  Most studies (and politicians) are more concerned with the top marginal rate, and both those rates and the thresholds for the top bracket have varied a great deal throughout history and from place to place.  The most recent study on the matter puts the peak for the federal top marginal rate at a whopping 76%, assuming no loopholes and all else being equal.  Thus, with a top marginal rate of 35% as of 2012, we clearly have plenty of room to raise it (even double it), close the loopholes, and still significantly increase revenue.  Policymakers should take note next time the issue of budget deficits comes up.

Of course, this is downright heresy to wealthy Republicans and their Tea Party lackeys, so when they aren't trying to deny it directly (which they often do) they at least try to argue that a higher top marginal rate will hurt economic growth and thus hurt all of us in the long run, even if it does raise more revenue in the short run.  But history doesn't really bear this out.  Recall that the top marginal rate hovered around 90% in the 1950s and early 1960s, and hovered around 70% from 1964 to 1981.  Some of the greatest economic growth we have ever had occured during top marginal rates north of 70%.  Which leads us to another, less well-known curve--the Kimel Curve.  Discovered by economics blogger Mike Kimel, this curve plots historical real GDP growth versus the top marginal tax rate and controls for several potential confounders.  And the peak of that curve turns out to be somewhere between 60-70% depending on how the model is specified.  Thus, a top marginal rate of 60-70% actually appears to maximize economic growth rather than hurt it! 

While this may seem counterintuitive to those who took Econ 101, it is entirely plausible that hoarding of wealth by the ultra-rich as well as excessive executive compensation has an adverse effect on GDP growth.  Inequality beyond a certain point appears to harm the economy--just look at the levels of inequality (and tax rates) immediately before both the first Great Depression and the current one.  And a top marginal rate north of 50% most likely discourages such hoarding and excessive executive salaries and bonuses, and encourages businesses to reinvest their profits in more productive ways.  This is similar to the rationale nicely summarized by Kimel himself:

At 70% tax rates, there is more of an incentive to reinvest in the business, creating more growth in the business in subsequent years, and more economic growth thereafter. 70% tax rates are more likely to generate faster economic growth than 25% tax rates precisely because people are self-interested and the higher tax rates induce people to continue investing in things they do well.

Indeed, another study of the 1920s and 1930s found high top marginal rates (even pushing 80%) did not appear to hurt business investments one iota, but possibly even slightly increased the formation of new businesses.  This was a time period in which the income tax was levied pretty much only on the wealthy (with the top rate applying only to the top 0.1%), the top rate varied a lot from year to year, and the tax code was a lot simpler with fewer opportunities for cheating and tax-sheltering.

In addition, there is always the fact that, contrary to popular opinion, sometimes the government actually spends and invests money in better ways than the ultra-rich and mega-corporations would.  Just think of public infrastructure, which enables the private sector to generate most of its wealth in the first place.  And the money for that comes from--you guessed it--taxes.

Thus, advocates of a more progressive tax system (as well as the more intelligent deficit hawks) should feel vindicated and motivated by the results of these studies.  And we can just hear the greediest members of society whining right now.  But taxes are the price we pay for civilization, and the alternative to civilization is far worse.

How to Balance the Budget in Five Easy Steps

As we approach our debt ceiling, we need to realize the unsustainability of our current fiscal policies.  Our national debt is a whopping $14.3 TRILLION dollars.  Even the interest alone is hundreds of billions of dollars. We have been mired in two wars for the past eight years, one of which for nearly ten.  And in we face over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities in the long run, for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.   As a rule, the Republicans refuse to raise taxes or cut "defense" (read: war) spending, the Democrats refuse to cut spending on anything else, both preferring to kick the can further and further down the road and dump the burden on future generations.

The truth is that we need to both raise taxes AND cut spending.  Otherwise it will only get worse.  While there are many ways to do this, the least painful (to the general public) of which involves the following:

1)  Repeal the Bush tax cuts, at least for those who make over $200,000, create a new tax bracket at $1 million and up, and make the top marginal rate at least 50% (if not 70%) on all income above that amount, with no loopholes.  No deductions other than state and local income taxes, and very limited charitable donations.

2)  Reduce the corporate income tax rate to 25%, with the first million tax-free, but remove ALL loopholes, and charge a higher rate on companies that outsource/offshore jobs overseas.

3)  Remove the cap on Social Security taxes, limit benefits to wealthier retirees, index initial benefits to prices rather than wages, and invest at least some of the trust funds in the stock and (non-government) bond markets.

4)  End the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, remove all troops by December, and cut our defense budget in half over the next year or two. 

5)  Enact a single-payer healthcare system that would finally bring costs under control.  Fund it by the same revenue that is currently used for Medicare, Medicaid, and similar programs, plus a modest payroll tax and increased excise taxes (such as alcohol and cigarettes).

These things would quickly close the budget gap, with little pain for the general population, but the ultra-rich would hate all five of these steps.  Other things that could be done include:

6)  Pass a "financial transactions tax" of 0.25%, just high enough to discourage speculation and raise revenue but not enough to cause significant disruptions.

7)  Create a value-added tax (VAT) like most other countries have, possibly offset by eliminating income tax on those who make less than $50,000 or $100,000 and giving a modest "prebate" to everyone regardless of income.

8)  End the War on Drugs, at least for cannabis, and tax the hell out of all newly legalized substances.  Consider doing the same for other victimless crimes as well.

9)  Raise our tariffs on anything made with cheap Third World labor, and use at least some of that revenue to create jobs over here. 

10)  Cut wasteful subsidies to Big Oil, Big Agro, Big Tobacco, and Big Anything for that matter.

11)  Raise the gas tax by a penny each week until it is a dollar higher than it is now, and use the revenue to fund much-needed public infrastructure improvements.  Call it "a penny for progress".

Regardless of how it's done, we cannot afford to kick this can any further down the road.  And the steps we recommend are the least damaging ways to do it.