Tax Cuts Do NOT Pay for Themselves.

No credible economist believes tax cuts generate so much economic growth that tax revenues rise above what they would have been in the absence of the tax cut. Even conservative Republican economists understand this. Greg Mankiw, the Chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, ridicules people who make such claims. In his best-selling textbook, Principles of Economics, Mankiw refers to people who say tax cuts increase revenues as "charlatans and cranks."

"Fad diets are popular because they promise amazing results wit minimal effort. Many people want to lose weight but are not eager to pay the price of eating fewer calories and exercising more regularly. These people are convinced all too easily by the reassuring words of some self-proclaimed expert selling a miraculous product. The want to believe that this new, easy-to-follow diet really will work.

"Fad economics is also popular, for much the same reason. Anyone can adopt the title 'economist' and claim discovery of some easy fix to the economy's troubles. These fads often tempt politicians, who are eager to find easy and novel solutions to hard and persistent problems. Some fads come from charlatans who use crazy theories to gain the limelight and promote their own interets. Others come from cranks who believe that their theories really are true.

"An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group of economists advised presidential candidate Ronald Reagan that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would rise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenue would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan's proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as far too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder, and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent. But there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to cause tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates. George Bush, also a presidential candidate in 1980, agreed with most of the professional economists: He called this idea 'voodoo economics.' Nonetheless, the argument was appealing to Reagan, and it shaped the 1980 presidential campaign and the economic policies of the 1980s.

"People on fad diets put their health at risk but rarely achieve the permanent weight loss they desire. Similarly, when politicians rely on the advice of charlatans and cranks, they rarely get the desirable results they anticipate. After Reagan's election, Congress passed the cut in tax rates that Reagan advocated, but the tax cut did not cause tax revenue to rise. Instead, tax revenue fell, as most economists predicted it would, and the U.S. federal government began a long period of deficit spending, leading to the largest peacetime increase in the government debt in history.

"Fads can make the experts seem less united than they actually are. It would be wrong to conclude that professional nutritionists are in disarray simply because fad diets are so popular. In fact, nutritionists have agreed on the basics of weight loss - exercise and a balanced low-fat diet - for many years. Similarly, when the economics profession appears in disarray, you should ask whether the disagreement is real or manufactured. It may be that some snake-oil salesman is trying to sell a miracle cure for what ails the economy."

-- N. Gregory Mankiw. Principles of Economics. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press, 1997, pp. 29-30.

Mankiw served as the chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005.

Mankiws also has a July 2, 2007 blog entry entitled On Charlatans and Cranks.

U.S. Federal Budget - Fiscal Year 2008

The U.S. Federal Budget for fiscal year 2008.

The U.S. Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2009

The U.S. Federal Budget for fiscal year 2009, which runs from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009.

Fiscal Policy - Taxation and Government Spending

Fiscal Policy – Taxation and Government Spending

Fiscal policy is the use of taxation and government spending to manage the macroeconomy by either increasing or decreasing overall spending on newly produced goods and services (i.e., aggregate demand). 

Aggregate demand (AD) for domestically produced goods and services is comprised of consumption spending (C), investment spending (I), government purchases of newly produced goods and services (G), and exports of domestically produced goods and services to foreign buyers (X) minus the items in consumption (C), investment (I), and government purchases (G) that are imported from foreign producers (M).  Thus,

AD = C + I + G + X – M

Expansionary fiscal policy seeks to increase overall spending (i.e., aggregate demand) by either: (a) increasing government purchases of newly produced goods and services (G), which is a direct effect, or (b) decreasing taxes to encourage more consumption (C) or investment (I) spending, which is an indirect effect because tax cuts might not result in new spending (e.g., if an individual uses the tax benefit to pay down credit card debt).  It is appropriate to use expansionary fiscal policy to reduce unemployment and attempt to slow or reverse economic downturns (recessions and depressions).

Contractionary fiscal policy seeks to decrease overall spending (i.e., aggregate demand) by either: (a) decreasing government purchases of newly produced goods and services (G), which is a direct effect, or (b) increasing taxes to discourage consumption (C) or investment (I) spending, which is an indirect effect because tax increases might not result in less spending (e.g., if an individual uses a credit card to maintain consumption).  It is appropriate to use contractionary fiscal policy to reduce inflation.

Fiscal policy has a political bias.  Citizens like expansionary fiscal policy, but dislike contractionary fiscal policy.  Because of this bias, society tends to rely more on monetary policy to manage the economy.

 

Taxation Principles

Efficiency – How much of a burden is imposed on society by the tax?  Example:  A poll tax (head tax) causes no distortions to behavior.  By contrast, an income tax may reduce the incentive to work.

Equity – How fair is the tax?

 

Who should pay taxes?

Benefits principle – Whoever receives the benefit of the government service should pay the tax to pay for it.  (e.g., fuel taxes to pay for roads and highways)

Ability-to-pay principle – People with a greater ability to pay tax should indeed pay more tax.  (But how much more?)

 

Taxes in Relation to Income

	Income	Tax Paid	% of Income	Tax Paid	% of Income	Tax Paid	% of Income
Lee	$25,000	$5,000	20%	$6,250	25%	$7,500	30%
Sandy	$50,000	$12,500	25%	$12,500	25%	$12,500	25%
Tracy	$100,000	$30,000	30%	$25,000	25%	$20,000	20%
		Progressive – the tax is a higher percentage of income for richer people.  Example:  individual income taxes (usually – but tax reforms, such as the reduction in the capital gains tax, make the tax proportional or regressive for some people).		Proportional – the tax is the same percentage of income for everyone. Example:  property taxes to the extent that assessments reflect differences in income.		Regressive – the tax is a higher percentage of income for poorer people.  Examples:  Social Security taxes, sales taxes, most fee (driver´s license, car registration, park admission fees, sewer and water assessments.)

Fiscal Policy - Questions for Further Study

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

1. Is it fair for one generation to pass trillions of dollars in public debt to future generations? Under what circumstances might this be justified?

2. Is it theoretically possible for public debts to be passed on to each succeeding generation without ever having to be paid? What conditions would be necessary for this to work?

3. Are there any government services you benefit from that you would be willing to forego if it meant you would pay lower taxes?

4. Are there any new government services you would like to receive for which you would be willing to pay higher taxes?



ENDNOTES

[1] http://www.concordcoalition.org

[2] Fiscal years are not the same for all governments. For example, some might begin the fiscal year on July 1st, while others might begin on September 1st.

[3] These data do not include revenues of publicly owned utilities, liquor stores, or insurance-trust activities. They also exclude intergovernmental receipts and payments between state and local governments.

[4] Fiscal years are not the same for all governments. For example, some might begin the fiscal year on July 1st, while others might begin on September 1st.

[5] These data do not include expenditures of publicly owned utilities, liquor stores, or insurance-trust activities. They also exclude intergovernmental receipts and payments between state and local governments.

[6] This category includes expenditures for libraries, hospitals, health, employment security administration, veterans’ services, air transportation, water transport and terminals, parking facilities, transit subsidies, police protection, fire protection, correction, protective inspection and regulation, sewerage, natural resources, parks and recreation, housing and community development, solid waste management, financial administration, judicial and legal, general public buildings, other government administration, interest on general debt, and other general expenditures not elsewhere classified.

[7]http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

[8] With a progressive tax, people with higher incomes pay a higher percentage of their income than people with lower incomes. The structure of the U.S. individual income tax system is progressive because high-income people face a higher marginal tax rate than those with lower incomes. This is often referred to as being in a higher tax bracket.

[9] Market failures occur when the market system fails to provide the socially desirable outcome. If the market system is left completely alone, it creates too much of some things (e.g., pollution, poverty, and market power) and not enough of other things (e.g., national defense, education, and basic research).

[10] The ability-to-pay principle states that taxes should be paid by those who are best able to pay them. A contrasting idea, the benefits principle, states that taxes should be paid by those who receive the benefits from the services provided by the government. Both principles are used in the U.S. tax structure. Fuel taxes are designed to generate revenue for the construction and maintenance of highways and roads. Since the people who use the highways and roads the most also buy the most fuel, fuel taxes are based on the benefits principle. Since welfare programs redistribute income, they cannot be based on the benefits principle. The people who receive the transfers of income cannot also pay for them.

[11] With a regressive tax, people with lower incomes pay a higher percentage of their income than people with higher incomes. Payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, often referred to as social insurance taxes, are regressive because high-income people pay these taxes on only a portion of their income while low-income people pay these taxes on all of their income. Sales taxes are also regressive because they are a represent a higher percentage of income for the poor than for the rich.

[12] Individual income taxes provide about 50% of the federal government’s revenues. Payroll taxes provide about 35% of the federal government’s revenues.

[13] Wishful thinking is probably part of it, too.

[14] Workers tend to earn the most income, and thus pay the most tax revenue, in the years just prior to retirement.

[15] Baby-boomers will add significantly to the Social Security and Medicare expenses of the federal government.

Definitions - Fiscal Policy

IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS FROM CHAPTER 10


Fiscal policy refers to taxing and spending by the government.

Aggregate demand (AD) is overall spending on newly produced goods and services. It is composed of consumption (C), investment (I), government purchases (G), and net exports (X-M).

Expansionary fiscal policy attempts to stimulate the economy by increasing overall spending on newly produced goods and services through (1) increased government purchases (G), or (2) decreased taxes to encourage more consumption (C) and investment (I) spending. Expansionary fiscal policy can be used to fight unemployment. It also promotes economic growth if it generates investment in physical capital, human capital, and technology, which tend to increase productivity.

Contractionary fiscal policy attempts to slow the economy by decreasing overall spending on newly produced goods and services through (1) decreased government purchases, or (2) increased taxes to discourage consumption and investment spending. Contractionary fiscal policy can be used to fight inflation.

Fiscal policy’s political bias is that politicians are reluctant to conduct contractionary fiscal policy because increasing taxes and reducing government spending on constituents are politically unpopular.

The efficiency of a tax system refers to the relative costs it imposes on taxpayers beyond the monetary payments from taxpayers to the government. These costs include the effect on incentives and behavior and the administrative burden of complying with the tax laws.

The marginal tax rate is the tax paid on an additional dollar of income.

The opportunity cost is what is sacrificed or foregone when a choice is made.

Standard of living measures the amount of goods and services consumed by an average person.

Quality of life attempts to measure the fulfillment people receive.

The equity of a tax system concerns whether the tax burden is distributed fairly among the population.

Vertical equity is the idea that taxpayers with a greater ability to pay taxes should pay larger amounts.

Horizontal equity is the idea that taxpayers with similar abilities to pay taxes should pay the same amount.

The benefits principle states it is fair for people to pay taxes based on the benefits they receive from the government.

The ability-to-pay-principle states it is fair for people to pay taxes based on their capability to handle the financial burden.

A progressive tax is a tax for which high-income taxpayers pay a larger percentage of their income than do low-income taxpayers.

A proportional tax is a tax for which high-income and low-income taxpayers pay the same percentage of income.

A regressive tax is a tax for which high-income taxpayers pay a smaller percentage of their income than do low-income taxpayers.

The average tax rate is the total taxes paid divided by total income.

The marginal tax rate is the tax paid on an additional dollar of income.

A lump-sum tax is a tax that is the same monetary amount for every person.

A flat tax is a tax in which every taxpayer is subject to the same marginal tax rate.

Vertical equity is the principle that taxpayers with a greater ability to pay taxes should pay larger amounts.

Social Security is a government program that imposes taxes on wage earners and employers, and provides old-age, survivors’, disability, and medical benefits to workers covered under the Social Security Act.

A transfer payment is a government payment not made in exchange for a good or service.

National defense includes both the salaries of military personnel and the purchases of military equipment, such as guns, fighter jets, and warships.

Income security includes transfer payments to poor families.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a government social program that transfers income from taxpayers to poor families.

The food stamp program is a government social program that gives poor families vouchers that they can use to buy food.

Net interest is the amount the government pays on loans from the public.

Medicare is the federal government’s social program that provides health care benefits to the elderly.

Medicaid is the federal government’s social program that provides health care benefits to the poor.

The U.S. federal budget balance is the difference between U.S. government revenues and U.S. government expenditures.

A budget surplus is an excess of government receipts over government spending.

A budget deficit is an excess of government spending over government receipts.

The public debt is the accumulation of deficits and surpluses over time.

(Not) Paying for Government

(Not) Paying For Government
October 27, 2004

Americans are metaphorically drunk. We are living under the delusion that we do not need to pay for government. We love politicians who cut our taxes while increasing government services. We’ve had too much to drink at the party, but the host is talking us into just one more. The hangover is coming. And the party host won’t be around to deal with it. The politicians who get us all liquored up will be long gone when the country is huddled over the toilet.

The public debt is close to $7.5 trillion. This is the net amount of money borrowed by the U.S. government since its inception. In the first 200 years of U.S. history, the federal government accumulated less than $1 trillion of debt. In the last 25 years, we’ve added $6.5 trillion. So the baby boom generation has enjoyed trillions of dollars worth of government services it has not paid for. In the midst of a war and increasing concerns about homeland security, you might think Americans would be willing to contribute more to financially support the government. Yet, we insist on further tax cuts. Americans are incredible hypocrites. We profess to support the spread of freedom and democracy around the world, but are unwilling to pay the costs of doing so.

The American political system is biased toward fiscal irresponsibility. We don’t like politicians who tell us it’s good for us to pay our bills. It’s like your mother telling you to eat your vegetables. We much prefer the babysitter who lets us eat cake and ice cream for dinner. But gorging ourselves on sweets leads to an upset stomach.

Some astute members of Congress found a way to control the political bias in public finance. The 1990 Budget Enforcement Act initiated a pay-as-you go rule (commonly referred to as pay-go). Under pay-go, any increased spending on entitlement programs (such as Social Security or Medicare) or tax cuts must be offset by reductions is government spending or tax increases. Prior to pay-go, it was too easy for Congress to spend money or cut taxes without concern for its effect on the federal budget. And the program was extremely effective in enforcing fiscal discipline. Most analysts think the pay-go rule deserves much of the credit for the federal budget surpluses of late 1990s that began to pay down the huge public debt.

Some politicians don’t like to eat their vegetables, however. They want to enjoy government services and not pay for them. So the House of Representatives recently abandoned the pay-go provisions applied to tax cuts. And the result has been a return to massive budget deficits. This year alone we’ll add half a trillion dollars to the public debt.

A contributing factor to this fiscally irresponsible behavior has been declining interest rates, which have reached their lowest levels in forty years. When it’s cheap to borrow money, it’s easy to ignore the costs. But the only direction left for interest rates to move is up. Higher interest rates will require larger government expenditures just to pay the interest on the borrowed money and significant increases in taxes or reductions in government services to reduce the public debt. Future generations, including today’s college students, will bear the costs of this behavior. So have another drink or piece of cake and enjoy the party. But the pain is coming. Pass the Pepto-Bismol.

I.O.U.S.A. - the movie

I.O.U.S.A. is a non-partisan documentary movie that explains the U.S. federal debt and why fiscal responsibility should be an increasing concern.

A 30-minute version of the film can be watched online at the movie's web site or on YouTube.

The Economics of Conservatives and Liberals

The Economics of Conservatives and Liberals

Traditional conservatives believe government, and thus taxes, should be relatively small. They also tend to think it is fair for the tax burden to be distributed more broadly across people of various incomes than liberals do. They justify this belief by focusing on the progressivity[8] of individual income tax rates. Conservatives tend to believe either that market failures[9] are relatively small or that the government is ineffective at correcting them. Both are justifications for small government. Conservatives favor smaller government welfare programs and less redistribution of income. Thus, critics of traditional conservatives claim they are less concerned with issues of equity or fairness than liberals. Conservatives respond that people already have relatively equal opportunities (e.g., everyone has access to public education) or that it is not the government’s role to provide such opportunities. Conservatives point out that the waste and abuse of the welfare system is both inefficient and unfair. Conservatives are sometimes accused of being selfish and inconsiderate of others in society. However, wealthy Americans engage in a myriad of charitable activities and donate vast amounts of wealth to agencies that benefit others. They argue that private organizations tend to be more efficient at providing assistance to those in need than the government.

Traditional liberals believe government, and thus taxes, should be relatively large. Most liberals think it is fair for the tax burden to be borne primarily by the rich. They justify this belief using a philosophy known as the ability-to-pay principle.[10] Liberals claim conservatives ignore the regressivity[11] of social insurance and sales taxes and that tax breaks and shelters provide the most benefits to the wealthy. They also point out that middle and lower-income families already pay a larger share of taxes than they are given credit for[12] and argue the total tax burden is already relatively proportional. Liberals tend to believe that market failures are relatively large, that the government is fairly effective at correcting them, or that issues of fairness are more important than economic efficiency. Liberals are accused of being selfish when they want government benefits to be paid by other taxpayers. Critics of traditional liberals claim they lack sufficient concern for economic efficiency and have an exaggerated sense of fairness. Liberals are often accused of recklessly and wastefully spending other people’s money and promoting handouts that undermine the incentive to work. Liberals tend to think Americans do not have equal opportunities or that some citizens suffer from past inequities. Thus, they are more likely than conservatives to favor affirmative action programs or similar projects.

Compassionate conservatism is the phrase used by President George W. Bush to describe his belief in bigger government and lower taxes. Compassionate conservatives argue either that lower taxes will lead to such dramatic economic growth that future tax revenues will be sufficient to pay for today’s government spending and future government expenses, or they argue that deficits and government debt do not matter and debts can be passed to future generations without the need to ever be paid. Traditional conservatives and most economists think compassionate conservatives use flawed logic.[13] Budget deficits and increasing public debt place higher demands on government revenues in the form of interest payments to those who have loaned money to the government. While these may be tolerable in the short-run, they have the potential to be crippling to the U.S. economy when interest rates rise and the baby-boom generation progresses from being a significant source of revenue for the government[14] to being a significant expense[15].

U.S. Public Debt as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

U.S. Public Debt as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Whenever a person applies for a loan, the bank (or other lending institution) requires the borrower to provide vast amounts of information on employment history, income, expenses, and other debts. The loan officer is trying to determine the likelihood that the borrower will pay back the loan. Loan officers acknowledge that the acceptable level of debt for an individual depends on that person´s wealth and income. A $10,000 credit card bill for Bill Gates (one of the wealthiest people in the world) is of much less concern than the same bill for an unemployed college student of modest means.

The same argument can be made for countries. As a country´s wealth increases, it is able to increase its debt and maintain the same perceived ability to pay it back. Thus, many analysts argue that the correct way to look at public debt is in relation to a country´s gross domestic product (GDP). Even by this measure, the U.S. public debt has increased dramatically since 1981.

See also the "U.S. Public Debt Since 1940" and the "U.S. Public Debt Since 1940 - Adjusted for Inflation".

Deficits & the Debt

Part 3: Deficits & the Debt

The following table contains estimates of U.S. government revenues and expenditures since 1948.

PRESIDENT
HOUSE
SENATE
Year
U.S. Government Revenues
(billions of dollars)
U.S. Government Expenses
(billions of dollars)
Budget Balance
(billions of dollars)
Federal Debt
(billions of dollars)
Truman (D)
Rep
Rep
1948
41.6
29.8
11.8
252.0
Truman (D)
Dem
Dem
1949
39.4
38.8
0.6
252.6
Truman (D)
Dem
Dem
1950
39.4
42.6
-3.1
256.9
Truman (D)
Dem
Dem
1951
51.6
45.5
6.1
255.3
Truman (D)
Dem
Dem
1952
66.2
67.7
-1.5
259.1
Eisenhower (R)
Rep
Rep
1953
69.6
76.1
-6.5
266.0
Eisenhower (R)
Rep
Rep
1954
69.7
70.9
-1.2
270.8
Eisenhower (R)
Dem
Dem
1955
65.5
68.4
-3.0
274.4
Eisenhower (R)
Dem
Dem
1956
74.6
70.6
3.9
272.7
Eisenhower (R)
Dem
Dem
1957
80.0
76.6
3.4
272.3
Eisenhower (R)
Dem
Dem
1958
79.6
82.4
-2.8
279.7
Eisenhower (R)
Dem
Dem
1959
79.2
92.1
-12.8
287.5
Eisenhower (R)
Dem
Dem
1960
92.5
92.2
0.3
290.5
Kennedy (D)
Dem
Dem
1961
94.4
97.7
-3.3
292.6
Kennedy (D)
Dem
Dem
1962
99.7
106.8
-7.1
302.9
Kennedy (D)
Dem
Dem
1963
106.6
111.3
-4.8
310.3
Johnson (D)
Dem
Dem
1964
112.6
118.5
-5.9
316.1
Johnson (D)
Dem
Dem
1965
116.8
118.2
-1.4
322.3
Johnson (D)
Dem
Dem
1966
130.8
134.5
-3.7
328.5
Johnson (D)
Dem
Dem
1967
148.8
157.5
-8.6
340.4
Johnson (D)
Dem
Dem
1968
153.0
178.1
-25.2
368.7

PRESIDENT
HOUSE
SENATE
Year
U.S. Government Revenues
(billions of dollars)
U.S. Government Expenses
(billions of dollars)
Budget Balance
(billions of dollars)
Federal Debt
(billions of dollars)
Nixon (R)
Dem
Dem
1969
186.9
183.6
3.2
365.8
Nixon (R)
Dem
Dem
1970
192.8
195.6
-2.8
380.9
Nixon (R)
Dem
Dem
1971
187.1
210.2
-23.0
408.2
Nixon (R)
Dem
Dem
1972
207.3
230.7
-23.4
435.9
Nixon (R)
Dem
Dem
1973
230.8
245.7
-14.9
466.3
Nixon/Ford (R)
Dem
Dem
1974
263.2
269.4
-6.1
483.9
Ford (R)
Dem
Dem
1975
279.1
332.3
-53.2
541.9
Ford (R)
Dem
Dem
1976
298.1
371.8
-73.7
629.0
transition quarter
Dem
Dem

81.2
96.0
-14.7
643.6
Carter (D)
Dem
Dem
1977
355.6
409.2
-53.7
706.4
Carter (D)
Dem
Dem
1978
399.6
458.7
-59.2
776.6
Carter (D)
Dem
Dem
1979
463.3
504.0
-40.7
829.5
Carter (D)
Dem
Dem
1980
517.1
590.9
-73.8
909.0
Reagan (R)
Dem
Rep
1981
599.3
678.2
-79.0
994.8
Reagan (R)
Dem
Rep
1982
617.8
745.7
-128.0
1,137.3
Reagan (R)
Dem
Rep
1983
600.6
808.4
-207.8
1,371.7
Reagan (R)
Dem
Rep
1984
666.5
851.9
-185.4
1,564.6
Reagan (R)
Dem
Rep
1985
734.1
946.4
-212.3
1,817.4
Reagan (R)
Dem
Rep
1986
769.2
990.4
-221.2
2,120.5
Reagan (R)
Dem
Dem
1987
854.4
1,004.1
-149.7
2,346.0
Reagan (R)
Dem
Dem
1988
909.3
1,064.5
-155.2
2,601.1
Bush (R)
Dem
Dem
1989
991.2
1,143.6
-152.5
2,753.6
Bush (R)
Dem
Dem
1990
1,032.0
1,253.2
-221.2
2,974.8
Bush (R)
Dem
Dem
1991
1,055.0
1,324.4
-269.3
3,244.1
Bush (R)
Dem
Dem
1992
1,091.3
1,381.7
-290.4
3,534.5
Clinton (D)
Dem
Dem
1993
1,154.4
1,409.5
-255.1
4,351.0
Clinton (D)
Dem
Dem
1994
1,258.6
1,461.9
-203.3
4,643.3
Clinton (D)
Rep
Rep
1995
1,351.8
1,515.8
-164.0
4,920.6
Clinton (D)
Rep
Rep
1996
1,453.1
1,560.5
-107.5
5,181.5
Clinton (D)
Rep
Rep
1997
1,579.3
1,601.3
-22.0
5,369.2
Clinton (D)
Rep
Rep
1998
1,721.8
1,652.6
69.2
5,478.2
Clinton (D)
Rep
Rep
1999
1,827.5
1,701.9
125.6
5,605.5
Clinton (D)
Rep
Rep
2000
2,025.2
1,788.8
236.4
5,628.7
Bush (R)
Rep
Dem
2001
1,991.2
1,863.9
127.3
5,769.9
Bush (R)
Rep
Dem
2002
1,853.2
2,011.0
-157.8
6,198.4
Bush (R)
Rep
Rep
2003
1,782.3
2,157.6
-375.3
6,573.7
Bush (R)
Rep
Rep
2004 estimates
1,798.1
2,318.8
-520.7
7,094.4
Bush (R)
Rep
Rep
2005 estimates
2,036.3
2,399.8
-363.6
7,458.0
Source - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/sheets/b80.xls

The U.S. federal budget balance is the difference between U.S. government revenues and U.S. government expenditures.

U.S. federal budget balance =
U.S. government revenues – U.S. government expenditures

If the budget balance is positive, it is called a budget surplus. Thus, a budget surplus is an excess of government receipts over government spending.

If the budget balance is negative, it is called a budget deficit. Thus, a budget deficit is an excess of government spending over government receipts.

The public debt is the accumulation of deficits and surpluses over time. It includes all Federal debt held by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments, and other entities outside of the United States Government less Federal Financing Bank securities. Types of securities held by the public include, but are not limited to, Treasury Bills, Treasury Notes, Treasury Bonds, United States Savings Bonds, State and Local Government Series, Foreign Series, and Domestic Series.

An estimate of the current value of the U.S. public debt is available from the U.S. Treasury.[7] As of November 24, 2004, the U.S. public debt was $7,517,849,423,608.38.

Having a large public debt increases the obligations of the federal government. The federal government must pay interest on the money it borrows. One way to reduce overall government expenditures would be to pay down the public debt.

U.S. Public Debt Since 1940 - Adjusted for Inflation

Here is the U.S. public debt since 1940 adjusted for inflation:

Adjusting the public debt for inflation provides a good account of federal government borrowing. The public debt increased in the 1940s to finance World War II. The public debt remained fairly constant from the late 1940s through 1981. This means the U.S. was reasonably responsible with its finances, collecting sufficient revenues to pay for government services. There is a slight increase in the 1970s. With the exception of a few years in the late 1990s, the U.S. government has increased its debt every year since 1981. Revenues have been insufficient to cover expenditures because government revenues have been reduced by tax cuts, but government spending has continued to increase. Most analysts attribute the reduction in the public debt in the late 1990s to the Congressional adoption of pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules. PAYGO required increases in discretionary spending to be accompanied by either tax increases or equivalent reductions in other government spending. After the election of President George W. Bush in 2000, the PAYGO rules were allowed to lapse in the House of Representatives and watered down in the Senate to facilitate the passage of tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug plan, which former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker called "...probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s... because we promise way more than we can afford to keep." There was a subsequent dramatic increase in the U.S. public debt.

See also the "U.S. Public Debt Since 1940" and "U.S. Public Debt as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)".

U.S. Public Debt Since 1940

Here is the U.S. public debt since 1940:
In the first 200 years of U.S. history, the total net amount of money borrowed by the government was less than $1 trillion.
In the subsequent 33 years, government borrowing increased the debt by more than $10 trillion. There was relatively little debt prior to 1940. Government borrowing increased significantly in the 1940s to finance U.S. expenses related to World War II.

See also the "U.S. Public Debt Since 1940 - Adjusted for Inflation" and "U.S. Public Debt as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)".

Florida Amendment One (2008) - "Portability of Save Our Homes"

According to Ballotpedia:

Florida Amendment One, also known as the "Portability of Save Our Homes", was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure passed with 64.4% in favor and 35.6% opposed in a special election January 29, 2008—timed to coincide with Florida's presidential primary.

Due to a 2006 change in Florida's initiative laws, the measure needed 60% approval in order to pass.

Floridians passed the original Save Our Homes Amendment in 1992, which took effect in 1995. That measure put an annual cap of 3 percent on increases in assessed home values for property taxes. However, a loophole in the Save Our Homes Amendment lost the property tax cap for Floridians who move to a new home. This new measure allows Floridians to take their property tax cap with them when they move.

The amendment is retroactively effective to January 1, 2008.

Details of the Amendment

Florida Amendment One amends the current Save Our Homes property tax cap by allowing the difference between market value assessments to be transfered to new homesteads. The objective of the amendment, according to its supporters, is to promote more movement in the housing market.

Currently, snowbirds and first time home buyers face staggering tax liabilities because they are not protected by the Save Our Homes amendment. Business owners, whose taxable property often outweighs their voting power, are also given little tax relief under the status quo.

The amendment will also:
*Double the amount of each home's value exempt from property tax, from $25,000 to $50,000, on all but the least expensive homes
*Provide a $25,000 exemption on tangible personal property (TPP)
*Create a 10% annual cap on non-homesteaded property

Background

The supporters of Florida Amendment One originally sought to place it on the Florida ballot through the initiative and referendum process. They had collected about 15,000 signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot, when the Florida state legislature made their efforts irrelevant by voting to place the proposed amendment on the ballot through the legislative referral process.

Supporters

Save Our Homes Portability, Inc. is the group sponsoring Florida Amendment One.
Florida Governor Charlie Crist believes that this amendment will stop residents from the "locked-in" effect which prevents homeowners or empty nesters from moving into smaller homes as their needs or lifestyles change.

Florida State House Speaker Marco Rubio also backs the measure, saying that the state legislature has not done enough to cut down on property taxes after Gov. Crist promised during the most recent election campaign that property taxes would "drop like a rock." He is currently plugging the Florida Cut Property Taxes Now (2008) initiative saying it will bring real relief to Florida.

Opposition

Teachers and unions have generally opposed the measure. The League of Women Voters and Florida Tax Watch opposed the first amendment for Save Our Homes on the grounds that it creates inequities in how properties were taxed. Florida Tax Watch also believes that the measure is "probably unconstitutional" and will certainly meet litigation on those grounds if the voters approve it.

Ballot title called confusing

While the proposed amendment itself comes to 15 pages of text, a 498-word summary or ballot title is what voters will see when they go to the polls on January 28. Both proponents and opponents are concerned that voters will be unsure about what they are voting on. Dominic Calabro of Florida Tax Watch said:
Since we only vote on the ballot title and summary, it's absolutely essential that it is clear, in layman's language, so you have a comfort level and really understand it because you're changing your basic rights and freedoms under the constitution. We don't think it's very clear.

Pre-emptive lawsuit filed against Florida Amendment One

Three new Florida residents filed a class action lawsuit in Leon County on November 21, 2007 asking a judge to invalidate both the original Florida Save Our Homes property tax cap, and also to invalidate 2008's Florida Amendment One—if it passes—on the grounds that the new amendment worsens the inequities built into the original property tax cap.

Walter Hellerstein, a professor from the University of Georgia, has argued that the portability provision of the proposed amendment discriminates against those who do not currently own homes in Florida—whether because they have yet to own a home or because they currently live outside the state. The tax advantages only belong to those who sell a house in Florida.
Hellerstein believes that the fact that Amendment One provides benefits to current Florida homeowners, and no one else, could be interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to be an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce and the right of people to travel between states.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist disagrees with the claims in the class action lawsuit and also with Hellerstein's legal analysis. Crist has remarked, "We're changing the constitution. How can it be more constitutional?"

Florida newspapers give their editorial opinions:

The Miami Herald urges a "no" vote, saying that while property tax relief matters, this amendment leaves Florida's "creaky, inefficient and archaic tax system" in place.

The Fernando Beach News Leader says that while the current property tax system has flaws, the amendment is better than nothing and urges a "yes" vote.

The local NBC news took a different take on the recommendation to point out that if it was a simple majority the legislators wouldn't be sweating about their initiative, but instead because of their own recommendation to increase it to a super majority their initiative is likely not to pass.

State & Local Government Spending

State & Local Government Spending

Over half of all state and local government spending is devoted to education, public welfare, and highways.

U.S. State and Local Government Receipts by Category
(Billions of dollars)
Fiscal Year[4]
Total
General Expenditures[5]
Education
Highways
Public Welfare
All Other Expenditures[6]
2001-2002
1,735
595
115
284
741
2000-2001
1,626
564
107
262
694
1999-2000
1,507
522
101
237
647
1998-1999
1,402
483
93
219
607
1997-1998
1,318
450
87
208
572
1996-1997
1,250
418
82
204
546
1995-1996
1,193
399
79
197
518
Source: Economic Report of the President, Feb. 2005

2009 U.S. Federal Budget - by category of spending

Click on the image above to enlarge it.

The Budget of the United States Government provides a breakdown of federal government spending by category.

The President's budget for 2009 totals $3.1 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2008. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)
$644 billion - Social Security
$408 billion - Medicare
$224 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$260 billion - Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%)
$515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion(2008*) - Global War on Terror
$70.4 billion - United States Department of Health and Human Services
$45.4 billion - United States Department of Education
$44.8 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$38.5 billion - United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
$38.3 billion - State and Other International Programs
$37.6 billion - United States Department of Homeland Security
$25.0 billion - United States Department of Energy
$20.8 billion - United States Department of Agriculture
$20.3 billion - United States Department of Justice
$17.6 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.5 billion - United States Department of the Treasury
$11.5 billion - United States Department of Transportation
$10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion - United States Department of Labor
$8.4 billion - Social Security Administration
$7.1 billion - United States Environmental Protection Agency
$6.9 billion - National Science Foundation
$6.3 billion - Judicial branch (United States federal courts)
$4.7 billion - Legislative branch (United States Congress)
$4.7 billion - United States Army Corps of Engineers
$0.4 billion - Executive Office of the President
$0.7 billion - Small Business Administration
$7.2 billion - Other agencies
$39.0 billion(2008*) - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending

The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.

SIX CATEGORIES OF SPENDING COMPRISE MORE THAN 75% OF THE U.S. FEDERAL BUDGET:

$644 billion - Social Security
$408 billion - Medicare
$224 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$260 billion - Interest on National Debt
$515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense

SERIOUS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT REDUCING THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING MUST ADDRESS THESE CATEGORIES.

Federal Government Spending

.
2010 U.S. Federal Budget - by category of spending

2009 U.S. Federal Budget - by category of spending

Click the links above.

THIS TABLE NEEDS TO BE FORMATTED AND UPDATED.

U.S. Federal Government Expenditures by Category
(Billions of dollars)
Fiscal Year
Total Expend-itures
National Defense
Inter-national Affairs
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Net Interest
Other
2006
estimates
2,567.6
447.4
38.4
268.4
345.7
359.5
544.8
211.1
352.2
2005
estimates
2,479.4
465.9
32.0
257.5
295.4
350.9
519.7
177.9
380.1
2004
2,292.2
455.9
26.9
240.1
269.4
332.8
495.5
160.2
311.3
2003
2,159.9
404.9
21.2
219.6
249.4
334.4
474.7
153.1
302.6
2002
2,011.0
348.6
22.4
196.5
230.9
312.5
456.0
170.9
273.2
2001
1,863.0
304.9
16.5
172.3
217.4
269.6
433.0
206.2
243.3
2000
1,789.1
294.5
17.2
154.5
197.1
253.6
409.4
222.9
239.8
1999
1,701.9
274.9
15.2
141.1
190.4
242.4
390.0
229.8
218.1
1998
1,652.6
268.5
13.1
131.4
192.8
237.7
379.2
241.1
188.8
1997
1,601.2
270.5
15.2
123.8
190.0
235.0
365.3
244.0
157.4
1996
1,560.5
265.8
13.5
119.4
174.2
229.7
349.7
241.1
167.3
1995
1,515.8
272.1
16.4
115.4
159.9
223.7
335.8
232.1
160.3
Source: Economic Report of the President, Feb. 2005

The largest category of federal government expenditure is Social Security. Social Security is the government program that imposes taxes on wage earners and employers, and provides old-age, survivors’, disability, and medical benefits to workers covered under the Social Security Act. It is an example of a transfer payment. A transfer payment is a government payment not made in exchange for a good or service.

The second largest expense for the federal government is national defense. National defense includes both the salaries of military personnel and the purchases of military equipment, such as guns, fighter jets, and warships.

Another large category of federal government expenditure is income security, which includes most entitlement programs. Income security includes transfer payments to poor families. One program is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), often simply called “welfare.” Another is the Food Stamp program, which gives poor families vouchers that they can use to buy food. The federal government pays some of this money to state and local governments, which administer the programs under federal guidelines.

The federal government also spends billions of dollars each year for interest payments on borrowed funds. If the government fails to collect enough revenues to cover annual expenditures, it borrows funds to pay its bills. Funds are borrowed from American and foreign citizens, foreign governments, and U.S. government agencies. For example, the Social Security system is designed to collect more in Social Security taxes now than it needs to pay current benefits. The additional Social Security funds are collected now to help pay for the huge increase in Social Security benefits that is expected in the future. The federal government borrows some of these Social Security funds to pay current general expenses. Unless these funds are repaid, however, they will not be available to pay future Social Security benefits. Net interest is the amount the government pays on loans from the public. It does not represent the gross interest due on the entire public debt.

Medicare is the government’s health plan for the elderly. Spending in this category has risen substantially over time for two reasons. First, the elderly population has grown more quickly than the overall population. Second, the cost of health care has risen more rapidly than the cost of other goods and services.

Health spending includes Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor. It also includes spending on medical research, such as through the National Institutes of Health.

If Medicare and health expenses are added together, however, they would make up the second largest federal government expense.

The “other” category includes the federal court system, the space program, farm-support programs, and the salaries of Congress and the president.

Attempts to reduce spending on most of these categories face stiff opposition from some constituents. Of the major expenditure categories, decreased spending on net interest probably faces the least opposition. A reduction in net interest spending can be achieved by a reduction in the public debt. The public debt can be reduced if the federal government collects more in revenues than it spends.

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)

Citizens Against Government Waste is :

"a private, non-partisan, non-profit organization representing more than one million members and supporters nationwide. CAGW's mission is to eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government. Founded in 1984 by the late industrialist J. Peter Grace and syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, CAGW is the legacy of the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, also known as the Grace Commission."

Government Spending

Part 2: Government Spending

The U.S. government expenditures in fiscal year 2002 were $2.011 trillion. This compares to U.S. GDP in 2002 of $10.4 trillion and World GDP in 2002 of $49 trillion.

Since the primary function of taxation is to provide revenue for the government, many people argue one way to reduce the tax burden in the United States is to reduce government spending. Even if most people agree to decrease government spending, it is difficult to reach a consensus on which spending to cut. Most people favor the reduction of government spending that reduces the benefits to other people. For example, wealthy people may support reductions in welfare payments to poor people. Poor people, by contrast, would be more likely to support the reduction of government spending that primarily benefits the rich.

For many years, World News Tonight with Peter Jennings did a weekly feature entitled “Your Money” which showcased wasteful government spending. For example, the federal government spent $1 million to build a single bathroom building at a national park. If the government eliminated all the potentially wasteful spending highlighted by ABC News, however, it would hardly make a dent in the federal budget. If one is serious about reducing expenditures, one must consider the larger categories of federal government spending.





“There's only one kind of tax that would please everybody – one that nobody but the other guy has to pay.”

– Earl Wilson

State & Local Government Taxation

State & Local Government Taxation

The two most important taxes for state and local governments are sales taxes and property taxes. Sales taxes are the primary source of income for state governments. Property taxes are the primary source of income for local governments. State and local governments also receive a significant amount of revenue from the federal government.

U.S. State and Local Government Receipts by Category
(Billions of dollars)
Fiscal Year[2]
Total
General Revenues[3]
Property Taxes
Sales & Gross Receipts Taxes
Individual Income Taxes
Corporation Net Income Taxes
Revenue from the Federal Government
All Other Revenues
2001-2002
1,685
279
324
203
28
361
490
2000-2001
1,647
264
320
226
35
324
478
1999-2000
1,541
249
309
212
36
292
443
1998-1999
1,434
240
291
189
34
271
410
1997-1998
1,366
230
275
176
34
255
396
1996-1997
1,289
219
261
159
34
245
371
1995-1996
1,223
209
249
147
32
235
351
Source: Economic Report of the President, Feb. 2005





When federal, state, and local government taxes are added together, the overall tax structure in the U.S. is almost proportional.

Supply-Side Economics

Supply-side economics refers to theories that suggest the best way to promote economic growth and prosperity is to cut taxes.

Federal Government Taxation

Federal Government Taxation

The overwhelming majority of the federal government’s revenue is collected as payroll taxes. Payroll taxes, which are collected by employers through deductions from workers’ paychecks, include individual income taxes and social insurance (i.e., Social Security) taxes. The largest source of revenue for the federal government is the individual income tax. Individual income taxes comprise almost half of all revenue for the federal government. Social insurance taxes are more than a third of all revenue for the federal government. Corporate income taxes provide about a tenth of all revenue for the federal government. The “other taxes” category includes excise taxes, tariffs and customs duties, and other fees collected by the federal government.

U.S. Federal Government Revenues by Category
(Billions of dollars)
Fiscal Year
Total Receipts
Individual Income Taxes
Corporation Income Taxes
Social Insurance Receipts
Other Receipts
2006
estimates
2,177.6
966.9
220.3
818.8
171.6
2005
estimates
2,052.8
893.7
226.5
773.7
158.9
2004
1,880.1
809.0
189.4
733.4
148.3
2003
1,782.3
793.7
131.8
713.0
143.9
2002
1,853.2
858.3
148.0
700.8
146.0
2001
1,991.2
994.3
151.1
694.0
151.8
2000
2,025.2
1,004.5
207.3
652.9
160.6
1999
1,827.5
879.5
184.7
611.8
151.5
1998
1,721.8
828.6
188.7
571.8
132.7
1997
1,579.3
737.5
182.3
539.4
120.2
1996
1,453.1
656.4
171.8
509.4
115.4
1995
1,351.8
590.2
157.0
484.5
120.1
Source: Economic Report of the President, Feb. 2005

Tax Revenue as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Tax Revenue as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from Wikipedia

Central Government Tax Revenue as Percentage of GDP, 1990 and 1997.

To compare the tax burden in various countries, examine the data for Central Government Tax Revenue as Percentage of GDP in 1990 and 1997 from the United Nations Public Administration Network.

Tax Burden in the U.S.

Tax Burden in the U.S.

Although many Americans complain about how much they pay in taxes, the tax burden in the U.S. is low compared to European countries. The U.S. tax burden is high, however, when compared to other areas of the world.

Country
Central Government Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP
France
38.8%
United Kingdom
33.7%
Germany
29.4%
Brazil
19.7%
United States
19.3%
Canada
18.5%
Russia
17.4%
Pakistan
15.3%
Indonesia
14.7%
Mexico
12.8%
India
10.3%
Source: World Development Report, 1998/99.





“Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”

– Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
from 1902 to 1932.

Consumption Taxes

Consumption Taxes

Some people advocate replacing income taxes with taxes on consumption. These might include a national sales tax, additional excise taxes on particular products, a value-added tax (VAT), or customs duties on imports or exports. Proponents of consumption taxes claim income taxes reduce people’s incentive to work, but consumption taxes do not. Instead, consumption taxes discourage consumption and thus encourage saving. Increased savings provide more financial resources that can be used for economic investment by businesses or the government. Increased economic investment generally leads to higher economic growth. Thus, consumption taxes do not distort incentives for the economy to save and invest. This should lead to greater economic growth.

Prior to the creation of the current income tax system in 1913, the U.S. relied heavily on import duties and excise taxes to finance federal government expenditures. Taxation of imports and exports reduces the volume and benefits of trade and may reduce a country’s welfare. Consequently, many consumption tax proponents favor value-added taxes. A value-added tax (VAT) is a type of consumption tax that is based on the additional value of a product added at each stage of the production process. The VAT differs from traditional sales taxes because it is collected from producers rather than retailers. It is collected from the factory that makes the product, not the stores that sell it. And unlike sales taxes, the VAT is included in the prices of products instead of being added onto the sales price at the time of purchase. The U.S. is the only major industrialized country without a value-added tax. A VAT has been proposed numerous times in the U.S. Congress, but has never received any significant support.

A national sales tax is another type of consumption tax. Sales taxes are quite common in the U.S. at the state and local level. Some people advocate creating a national sales tax to replace some or all or the federal income tax. If the U.S. relied on a national sales tax as a primary source of revenue for the federal government, the tax rate might need to be 25%. This means that every time a consumer made a purchase, 25% of the price would be added to support the federal government. Critics of a national sales tax complain about the regressive structure of such a tax. The imposition of a national sales tax would shift much of the tax burden away from the wealthy to middle and low income Americans.

The Flat Tax

The Flat Tax

An alternative to the current individual income tax structure is the flat tax. The flat tax has been proposed since 1983 by various people, including Congressman Richard K. Armey, who was a Republican representative from Texas from 1985 to 2003 and Malcolm S. "Steve" Forbes, Jr., a billionaire candidate for the Republican nomination for the U.S. presidency in 1996 and 2000.

Under most flat tax proposals, the current individual and corporate income tax structures would be replaced by a system in which every taxpayer is subject to the same marginal tax rate.

Proponents of a flat tax system argue that it would simplify the income tax structure because most deductions would be eliminated. A simpler tax system would have a smaller administrative burden and thus would be more efficient.

Opponents of a flat tax argue that it would shift a significant amount of the tax burden from the wealthy to middle class Americans. Thus, they think a flat tax system does not have enough vertical equity. Vertical equity is the principle that taxpayers with a greater ability to pay taxes should pay larger amounts. Vertical equity is a justification for wealthy people to pay more in taxes than poor people.

Under "H.R.1040", the Armey-Shelby Flat Tax proposal of 1997, every worker would pay 17% of what is left of their total annual income from all wages, salaries, and pensions after subtracting a personal allowance. The only four allowances would be:
- $23,200 for a married couple filing jointly- $14,850 for a single person who is the head of a household- $11,600 for a single person who is not the head of a household, - $5,300 for each dependent child
No other tax credits or deductions would be used. The entire tax return form would be simple enough to fit on a postcard.
Source: U.S. Rep. Dick Armey's flat tax summary web site.
Because of the personal allowances, taxpayers would not pay the same percentage of their income in tax. For example, Rep. Armey suggested that given the exemptions shown above, a family of four earning $25,000 would owe no tax. A family of four earning $50,000 would owe 6%, and a family of four earning $200,000 would owe14% in tax.

The flat tax proposal would also eliminate the marriage penalty, almost double the deduction for dependent children, and end multiple taxation of savings.

Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes would not be affected under the flat tax proposal. Social Security benefits would not be taxed.

Businesses would take their total income, subtract total expenses and if the result is a positive amount (profit), pay tax on that amount at a rate of 17%. Expenses would include purchases of goods and services, capital equipment, structures, land, wages and contributions to retirement plans.

Critics of the Armey-Shelby Flat Tax proposal note that much of the complexity of the current system would remain. Businesses would still need to withhold taxes from workers’ wages and record keeping for businesses would not be significantly reduced. Some people would still have an incentive to cheat on their taxes.

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the Armey-Shelby Flat Tax proposal would have added $138 billion to the annual budget deficit (in 1996 dollars). Even at the break even rate of 20.82%, Rep. Armey’s plan would increase taxes sharply on all income groups except those earning more than $200,000 a year. (Others believe that the break-even rate would have to be considerably higher than the Treasury’s estimate.)

The flat tax proposal of Malcolm S. Forbes, Jr., was similar to Rep. Armey’s. Mr. Forbes suggested larger exemptions from the wage tax: $13,000 per taxpayer plus $5,000 per child. Forbes also considered retaining the earned-income tax credit. Based on the U.S. Treasury's analysis, the Forbes's proposal would have resulted in a revenue shortfall of between $180 and $210 billion a year (in 1996 dollars). Others believed the revenue losses would be much larger.



A flat tax is a type of income tax in which every taxpayer is subject to the same marginal tax rate.

The Chinese head tax imposed by Canada

According to Wikipedia:

Head tax (Canada)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2008)
The Chinese head tax was a fixed fee charged for each Chinese person entering Canada. The head tax was first levied after the Canadian Government passed the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885. It was meant to discourage Chinese from entering Canada after the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The head tax was ended by the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, which stopped Chinese immigration except for business people, clergy, educators, students and other categories.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Raising the Tax
3 Impact of the head tax
4 End of the head tax
5 Movement for redress
5.1 Liberal Government's proposed foundation
5.2 Conservative Government Apology
6 Today
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
[edit]History

Main article: History of Chinese immigration to Canada
The first major wave of Chinese Immigration into Canada was during 1877 and 1928, consisting of mostly young, literate men who worked in timber or fishing. However, in the early 1880s, some 15,000 labourers were brought from China to do construction work on the Canadian Pacific Railway. They were leaving crushing poverty in China, for heavy work that included dangerous tasks like carrying explosives, for a wage established by the Chinese labour brokers hiring them, that was a third or a half less than their coworkers.[2]
This immigration was large enough — some 3,000 Chinese, when the 1871 census counted only 33,586 in the province — to arouse concern. The province of British Columbia passed a strict law to virtually prevent Chinese immigration in 1878. However, this was immediately struck down by the courts as ultra vires [beyond the powers of] the provincial legislature, because they impinged upon federal jurisdiction over immigration.[3]
As a dominion of the British Empire, Canada tried to discourage, but could not, by its international obligations, completely eliminate, Chinese immigration at its borders.
Canada's federal Chinese Immigration Act of 1885[4] stipulated that all Chinese entering Canada pay a $50 fee, later referred to as a head tax. This was amended in 1887,[5] 1892,[6] and 1900.[7]
Not all Chinese arrivals had to pay the head tax. Some were presumed to return to China after "sojourning" to Canada because of their transitory occupation, or background (students, teachers, missionaries, merchants, members of the diplomatic corps) and were, therefore, exempt from paying this fee.[8][4]
[edit]Raising the Tax

The Government of Canada, under subsequent administrations, increased the tax to $100 and, then, $500, under the Chinese Immigration Act, 1900[7] and the Chinese Immigration Act, 1903, respectively.[8]
In the early 1900s, the value of $500 was two years' salary,[9] or enough to purchase two homes in Montreal,[citation needed] or a 1/4 section of land in many provinces.[citation needed] These taxes went into a Consolidated Revenue Fund and were spent by a government in which the payers had no representation (Chinese were not permitted to vote at the time).[2]
These acts were regarded as examples of anti-Chinese legislation in Canada that were part of general institutional racism against the Chinese in Canada.[9]
The Chinese were the only ethnic group that had to pay a Head Tax to enter Canada, although efforts to impose one on Americans during the colonial period were overruled by the Colonial Office in London. Other Asians, such as the East Indians and the Japanese, were not subject to a Head Tax. There were, however, formal and informal limits to how many Japanese people could immigrate to Canada.[2]
Before the Statute of Westminster 1931, the Government of the United Kingdom controlled Canada's international affairs. Canada could not deter citizens from India, which was still a British crown colony, or Japan, which agreed to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902. Yet, the Government of Canada made efforts to require citizens of Japan and other British Far Eastern colonies to have to travel by direct voyage only.
[edit]Impact of the head tax

The Government of Canada collected about $23 million in face value[2] from about 810,000 head tax payers, some of the money being used to support Canada's war effort in World War II. The total head tax collected by 1923 has been estimated as equivalent to over $1.5 billion in 1988 dollars.[citation needed]
The head tax system had the effect of constraining Chinese immigration: making labour available for the railroads, and putting limits on the lives of the immigrants. This was in contrast to the goal of exclusion of Chinese immigration altogether, as articulated by contemporary politicions and labour leaders.[8] The system was effective in discouraging Chinese women and children from joining their men, so the Chinese community in Canada became a "bachelor society".[2]
[edit]End of the head tax

The head tax was ended by the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, which stopped Chinese immigration entirely, though certain exemptions such as those for business owners and others permitted some continued immigration[10] It is sometimes referred to by opponents as the Chinese Exclusion Act, a term also used for its American counterpart.[9]
[edit]Movement for redress

In the 1980s, many Chinese and groups lobbied for a refund of the head tax, and an apology, or formal acknowledgment, from the Government of Canada. The modern era redress movement may be traced back to 1984, when Vancouver Member of Parliament Margaret Mitchell raised in the House of Commons the issue of repaying the racist Chinese Head Tax for two of her constituents. [11]After that, thousands of Head Tax payers and their family members approached the Chinese Canadian National Council (CCNC) and its member organizations across Canada to register their Head Tax certificates and ask CCNC to represent them to lobby the government for redress.[12]
Since 1984, the CCNC has been seeking redress on behalf of the surviving Head Tax payers and their families who have suffered from decades of discrimination as a result of these racist laws passed by the Canadian Government. Over 4,000 Head Tax payers, spouses and descendants entrusted CCNC with representing them in seeking an apology and financial redress.[13] The redress campaign included holding numerous community meetings, gathering support from other groups and prominent people, increasing the media profile, conducting research and published materials, making presentations at schools, etc. CCNC continued to meet with various Multiculturalism Ministers. In 1993, months before a federal election, then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney made an offer of individual medallions, a museum wing and other collective measures involving several other redress-seeking communities. This was rejected outright by the Chinese, Italian and Ukrainian Canadian national groups.
After Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was elected in 1993, his Government openly refused to provide an apology or redress. [12]The following few years saw little major activity although no one gave up on redress, and CCNC and its supporters continued to raise the issue whenever they could, including a submission to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
Another phase of the redress campaign started in 1999 with the planning and implementation of the court action against the Government. The CCNC argued that the federal government should not be profiting from racism, and that it had a responsibility under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and under international human rights law. In addition, the 1988 official apology and compensation (supported by CCNC) for the internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II set a precedent for redressing racially motivated policies. The Ontario court declared in 2001 that the Government of Canada had no obligation to redress the head tax levied on Chinese immigrants because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had no retroactive application, and that the case of internment of Japanese Canadians was not a legal precedent for compensating past racist policies. Two appeals in 2002 and 2003 were unsuccessful, [14]but the judge’s supportive words in the original 2001 decision helped to raise awareness and keep up the pressure.
As Prime Minister Paul Martin entered the scene in 2003, there was renewed hope amongst both long-time redress activists and new supporters. The urgency of the situation became the overriding factor as it became clear that there were perhaps only a few dozen surviving Head Tax payers left and maybe a few hundred spouses or widows.
In the years from 2003 to 2006, there were several national events that helped to revitalize the redress campaign. The highlights were the 2003 Last Spike Redress Campaign with the symbolic “last spike” of the Canadian Pacific Railway donated by Pierre Berton to CCNC.[15] In 2004, in response to a submission by the Chinese Canadian Redress Alliance in Montreal, a timely Report by Doudou Diène, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, concluded that Canada should redress the head tax to Chinese Canadians
In the summer of 2005, Gim Wong – an 80-year-old son of a Head Tax payer and a World War II veteran – started his cross-country Ride for Redress on his Harley Davidson motorcycle. [16]The year 2005 also saw the creation of the Ontario Coalition of Chinese Head Tax Payers and Families, which worked closely with CCNC and the B.C. Coalition that was so successful in the early 1990s.
[edit]Liberal Government's proposed foundation
To the surprise of many, on November 17, 2005, a group calling itself the National Congress of Chinese Canadians announced an "agreement" with the out-going Liberal administration to pay $12.5 million for the creation of a new non-profit foundation to educate Canadians about anti-Chinese discrimination. The payments (of the, now, failed, agreement) would have gone to a foundation, not to individuals who had paid the tax, with a specific, pre-condition of "no apology" by the government.
This proposal was instantly met by controversy.
Among other things, the deal had been negotiated without the participation of a number of the most active groups across Canada, including the CCNC.
Accordingly, when the Department of Heritage announced its preliminary agreement on November 24, 2005, funding was suddenly reduced to $2.5 million--most likely the result of fierce and obvious opposition in the broader community. It was also later, revealed that Raymond Chan, the government official claiming to have negotiated with community groups who held no family ties to the issue, purposely misled the government and public that the Chinese community was willing to accept "no apology, [and] no [individual or collective] compensation."
The authors of the unpopular proposal also claimed support of 11 Chinese-Canadian groups. Yet, upon further examination, some of the named groups stated publicly that their names had been used without permission; several other groups listed, did not even exist. The out-going Liberal Government tabled bill C-333 (as a private member's bill) to implement the deal in November 2004, but this bill died when the Government fell on November 28, 2005.
Opposition grew louder in the Chinese Canadian community and, in response, major redress-seeking alliances and coalitions were formed. This marked a major turning point for the Head Tax Campaign across Canada. The public lobby took prominence during and after, the 2006 federal election. In addition, significant, individual efforts in private, would lead to future negotiations with the Conservative Party.
In prior election campaigns in 2004 and 2006, opposition parties, including the New Democratic Party and Bloc Québécois had already stated their support for an apology and redress for the head tax.
On December 8, 2005, Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper released a press statement expressing his support for an apology for the head tax. As a part of his 2006 election platform, Mr. Harper promised to work with the Chinese community on redress should the Conservatives form the next government.[17]
Before ultimately losing the federal election, the out-going Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Paul Martin issued a half-hearted personal apology on a Chinese language radio program. However, he was quickly criticized by the Chinese Canadian community for not issuing the apology in Parliament and, then, trying to dismiss it completely in the English-speaking media on the very same day.[citation needed] Several Liberal candidates with significant Chinese-Canadian populations in their ridings, including Vancouver-Kingsway MP David Emerson, and the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) and Richmond MP Raymond Chan, also made futile attempts to change their positions in the midst of the 2006 election campaign.
[edit]Conservative Government Apology
The Conservative Party won the election with a minority government, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterating his position on the Head Tax issue in a news conference on January 26, 2006:
"Chinese Canadians are making an extraordinary impact on the building of our country. They've also made a significant historical contribution despite many obstacles. That's why, as I said during the election campaign, the Chinese Canadian community deserves an apology for the head tax and appropriate acknowledgement and redress."[18]
Formal discussions on the form of apology and redress began on March 24, 2006 with a preliminary meeting with Chinese Canadians representing various groups (including some head tax payers), Heritage Minister Bev Oda, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Jason Kenney, resulting in the "distinct possibility" of a formal government apology before July 1, 2006 to commemorate the anniversary of the enacting of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923.[19]
The meeting was followed by the Conservative government's acknowledgement on April 4, 2006 in its Speech from the Throne that an apology would be given along with proper redress.[20]
From April 21 to April 30, 2006, the Conservative government hosted public, national consultations across Canada in cities most actively involved in the campaign, since it first began: Halifax, Vancouver, Toronto, Edmonton, Montreal, and Winnipeg. They included the personal testimony of elders and representatives from a number of groups, among them, the Halifax Redress Committee; the BC Coalition of Head Tax Payers, Spouses & Descendants; ACCESS; the Ontario Coalition of Head Tax Payers & Families; the CCNC; the Edmonton Redress Committee of the Chinese Canadian Historical Association of Alberta; and, the National Redress Alliance headquartered in Montreal.
On June 22, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered an apology and compensation only for the head tax once paid by Chinese immigrants.[21] Survivors or their spouses will be paid approximately $20,000 CAD in compensation. There are only an estimated 20 Chinese Canadians who paid the tax still alive in 2006.[22]
[edit]Today

Currently, the major issues revolve around the content of any future settlement, with the leading groups demanding meaningful redress, not only for the handful of surviving "head tax" payers and widows/spouses, but first-generation sons/daughters who were direct victims.
Some have proposed that the redress be based on the number of "Head Tax" Certificates (or estates) brought forward by surviving sons and daughters who are still able to register their claims, with proposals for individual redress, ranging from $10,000 to 30,000 for an estimated 4,000 registrants.
As no mention of redress for those children was made, the Chinese Canadian community continues to fight for a redress from the Canadian government. A national day of protest was held on July 1, 2006 in major cities across Canada, with several hundred Chinese Canadians joining in local marches.
[edit]See also

Chinese Canadian National Council
National Congress of Chinese Canadians
Anti-Chinese legislation in the United States
Canadian First World War Internment Recognition Fund (www.internmentcanada.ca)
[edit]References

^ James Morton. "In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia". Vancouver, BC: J.J. Douglas, 1974.
^ a b c d e Canadiana.org (2005), "Asian Immigration", Canada in the Making, retrieved 2007-09-01
^ Todd, Alpheus (1894), Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies (Reprint ed.), The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., ISBN 1-58477-617-X Page 194. Reprinted 2006 by The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.
^ a b Canada. Dept. of Trade and Commerce (1885), Chinese Immigration Act, 1885, retrieved 2007-09-01
^ Canada. Dept. of Trade and Commerce (1887), An act to amend the Chinese Immigration Act, 1887, retrieved 2007-09-01
^ Canada. Dept. of Trade and Commerce (1892), An act to further amend the Chinese Immigration Act, 1892, retrieved 2007-09-01
^ a b Canada (1901), Act respecting and restricting Chinese immigration, retrieved 2007-09-01
^ a b c Vancouver Public Library (2007), Chinese Head Tax, retrieved 2007-09-01
^ a b c Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, Canada, April 18, 2005, page 1100
^ * James Morton. "In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia". Vancouver, BC: J.J. Douglas, 1974. (A thorough discussion of Chinese immigration and life in BC, railway politics and a detailed profile of the political agendas and personalities of the time)
^ Most head-tax families haven't gotten a penny | Straight.com
^ a b Chinese Canadian National Council
^ PRM 2005 - Redressing the Past of the Lo Wah Kui
^ CanLII - 2002 CanLII 45062 (ON C.A.)
^ Redress: Justice In Time - News
^ GungHaggisFatChoy :: Gim Wong completes his "Ride for Redress" in Montreal - flying back to Vancouver for Wednesday
^ Conservative Party Of Canada
^ CCNC Press Release - Chinese Canadians welcome New Year's promise on Head Tax Redress from PM Designate Stephen Harper
^ CTV.ca | Chinese-Cdns. hail promise for head tax apology
^ Throne speech promises crime crackdown, GST cut
^ Canada (2006). "Address by the Prime Minister on the Chinese Head Tax Redress". Government of Canada. Retrieved 2006-08-08.
^ Sympatico / MSN : News : CTV.ca: PM apologizes in House of Commons for head tax
[edit]External links

Transcript of Prime Minister Harper's apology in Parliament
Podcast of government announcement and reactions (Quicktime)
National Post-Chinese Cdns Speak of Anger, Anguish - April 23, 2006
Chinese Head Tax & Exclusion Act Redress in Canada - www.redress.ca
Generasian Website-Redress Campaign www.generasian.ca/HeadTax2005.html
The CCNC Redress Campaign www.ccnc.ca/redress
National Post newspaper article on NCCC's November 17, 2005 announcement
Vancouver Sun newspaper article on Canadian Heritage's November 24, 2005 announcement
CBC British Columbia story on the Head Tax redress controversy, November 28, 2005
The Star newspaper article on CCNC award, November 29, 2005
gughaggisfatchoy.com's blog with advocacy about Head Tax redress
Political debates heats up over Chinese head tax. CBC.ca Canada Votes 2006, January 5, 2006.
HeadTaxRedress.org
Bill C-333 Chinese Canadian Recognition and Redress Act (First Reading), from the Canadian Parliament's Official Homepage, November 15, 2004
Bill C-333 Immigrants of Chinese Origin Exclusionary Measures Recognition Act (Reprinted as amended by the Standing Committee), from the Canadian Parliament's Official Homepage, November 4, 2005. Section 2 (Recognition) and Section 3 (Apology) were deleted after the amendments.