Jeffrey Sachs doesn’t lie, does he?
Jeff Sachs, the famous economist and university professor (Columbia U.) appeared recently (Oct. 2011) on a Charlie Rose on PBS program discussing, what else, the economy. Specifically, the depression or at least recession (at this point the “recession” has been the longest and slowest recovery in the history of the USA, which pretty much makes it discretionary as to whether it is called one term or the other, IMNSHO.) and how to climb out of it. He was adamant that he did not regret having voted for President Barack Obama, but he was not reluctant to criticize President Obama’s shortcomings, disappointments, and downright failures.

In particular, Professor Sachs made a very interesting comparison that I had not thought about. It is commonly said, and rarely said with any reference to the source of such statistics, that the upper 50% of Americans pay 90% of the taxes, and occasionally people mention that the top earning 1% (who make most of their income from their money [i.e. investments] not their labors) pay 50% of the total tax revenue collected by the USA. What Jeffrey Sacks brought to light was that the federal government takes in as taxes, about 17% of the national GDP (Gross Domestic Product) which is general estimated at about US$14.5 TRILLION at this point (remarkable close to the figure for the National Debt even though the two are not directly connected i.e. GDP and Govt. Debt have to do with productivity of the work force in the case of GDP, while national debt has to do with over-spending of the revenue received by the IRS on the expenses approved by Congress). The individual states (even though some states charge no personal income tax) collect about 10% of the GDP in taxes, so that approximately 27% of the GDP goes into the various governments to pay for the things that governments provide. Everything from social services like health care (e.g. Medicare and MedicAid), to free postage for congressmen, to the Army, Air Force, Marines salaries and weapons, to roads and bridges (remember we are talking about both federal and state governments here), police and education.
The point that was new information to me, and as usual I don’t know the source of Mr. Sachs’ information, but according to him, the top earning 1% of the population has annual income of … are you ready … that top 1% of the people earn 25% of the GDP as income in any given year. That seems about right because another source reported, back in 2009 that the people who had more than US$398,000 income took in 23.5% of GDP, after a minor step toward recovery from the financial crisis of September 2008 (during which the number of persons with net worth of US$1,000,000, excluding the value of their principal residence, dropped from 9.2 million in 2007 to just 7.8 million in 2009 according to this Huffington Post item by Grace Kiser and Ryan McCarthy (posted in September of 2010).
Considering the ever-widening gulf between the very rich and the middle class, it seems reasonable that over the last couple of years the upper crust may have gained a point and a half against the total of GDP. That may be obvious to most people who see the sizes of bonuses on Wall Street, and although they have not coalesced around a single theme or issue, may be a spark for the protesters occupying a portion of Wall Street at this time. But that is not what struck me about the figures Jeffrey Sacks mentioned. It was something else.
What took me by surprise was the fact that the government operates the whole country (and interest, including a couple of wars, overseas) on what just 1% of the population takes home as income. Now, admittedly, it is the most affluent 1% of the country, but still, the private income of some 2.2 million people (because there are reportedly approximately 217,000,000 taxpayers in the country) is equal to the entire revenue of the US Government and the 50 state governments combined. Think about that for a moment.
There are no shortage of voices bemoaning the awful, terrible, disastrous potential of the Buffet Rule, increasing the marginal tax rate on those earning more than US$1 million per year. Remember, however, that during the era of President Eisenhower the highest marginal tax rate was 95% (that was after stepping up the various rates that applied to sums of income less than the threshold of the 95% bracket, so the 95% rate only applied to “the next dollar” of income above that minimum limit). Okay, raising anyone’s taxes to 95% for any income bracket would be political suicide today, so let’s not even suggest that we could afford to go there. But consider a more modest proposal.
What if we made the first million dollars of income exempt from income taxes (not for everyone, just for those earning more than US$1 million per year) but then imposed an “honest-to-goodness,” every-penny-counts, tax rate of 50% on everything else above that first million. Are there people out there who would suffer from only taking home US$1 million in a year? It would be hard to maintain both the yacht in France and the other one just for cruising the Caribbean, admittedly, but you could hardly call giving up one of your yachts a “hardship” could you? How much would that help?
We have to go back and calculate some base numbers. Governments (plural, state and federal) take in about 27% of GDP, or which 10% goes to states directly. Ultra high earners take in 25%, but we are exempting the first million for each of them, so that subtracts 2,200,000 times US$1,000,000 which comes to US$2.2 TRILLION of person income set aside from taxable amounts. However that leaves about (remember all these figures are “rounded” and only approximations in the first place) US$1.45 TRILLION to be taxed at 50% which would be increased income tax revenue of US$725,000,000,000.
The Obama Administration’s budget for 2012 looks to be roughly the same as for 2011, with a total budget deficit of US$1.3 TRILLION. In light of that shortfall, even US$725 BILLION isn’t going to solve the problem, nor is a 1.5% reduction in an overall budget of something North of US$3 TRILLION. Here is a table from Wikipedia outlining the not yet passed Obama Administration’s budget of 2012.
The President’s budget for 2012 totals $3.729 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2011. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:
Mandatory spending: $2.109 trillion (-3.2%)
$761 billion (+4.6%) – Social Security
$468 billion (-4.1%) – Medicare
$269 billion (-2.5%) – Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$598 billion (-16.2%) – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$240 billion (+17.1%) – Interest on National Debt
Discretionary spending: $1.344 trillion (-3.1%)
$553.0 billion (+0.7%) – Department of Defense
$126.3 billion (-23.3%) – Overseas Contingency Operations
$79.9 billion (-1.8%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$77.4 billion (+6.2%) – Department of Education
$58.8 billion (+3.1%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$49.8 billion (+0.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$50.1 billion (-0.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$43.2 billion (-0.9%) – Department of Homeland Security
$29.6 billion (+4.2%) – Department of Energy
$28.2 billion (-7.2%) – Department of Justice
$23.8 billion (-7.1%) – Department of Agriculture
$18.2 billion (-6.7%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.4 billion (-4.1%) – Department of Transportation
$14.0 billion (+0.8%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.1 billion (+0.3%) – Department of the Interior
$12.8 billion (-8.3%) – Department of Labor
$13.0 billion (-53.6%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program
$6.0 billion (+200%) – Disaster costs
$44.9 billion (-3.9%) – Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
The Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not included in the Department of Defense regular budget, but are included in Overseas Contingency Operations.
The WHOLE BUDGET ABOVE is “Clickable” to take you to the Wikipedia article.
It is enough to give a tax accountant a headache. And it often does.
Sincerely,
Stafford “Doc” Williamson
http://weightloss.psyrk.us
Getting LUCKY?
P.S. Oh, yes, and interesting coincidence came up in my calculator as I was crunching the numbers for this article. I said US$2.2 TRILLION tax exempt income for the 2.2 million millionaires so they won’t feel pinched, so out of the US$3.65 TRILLION they take home in income one way or another, that leaves US$1.45 TRILLION to be “taxable” at the highest marginal rate (according to my suggestion of a “real” 50% tax above US$1 MILLION income). But the budget deficit is way above that US$725 BILLION which even a 50% marginal tax rate would generate. That amount is in the lofty heights of US$1.3 TRILLION budget deficit. However, I discovered, that by the strangest of coincidences (???) a 95% tax rate on US$1.45 TRILLION comes out to be exactly US$1,353,750,000,000 (which is, of course, US$1.3 TRILLION) in additional tax revenue. Now isn’t that interesting?
P.P.S. Professor Sachs is, like me, a strong advocate for economic development in Africa. He calls attention to the fact that most of rural Africa does not even have access to electric power. See his comments here.





