Date post: | 18-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | shanon-perry |
View: | 223 times |
Download: | 2 times |
The US Government spent $3.70 Trillion dollars in 2012. That’s approximately $12,000 per person!
Put another way, government spending is approximately a quarter of all domestic expenditures.
GDP = $15.5T
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
While our government is bigger than some, it is much smaller than others
Government as a % of GDP
USA
Dissecting the Federal Budget
In 2012, The US Government spent $3.70T
On Budget: $2.939T (80%)Off Budget: $761B (20%)+ Total: $3.70T
By law, the Social Security System and the US Postal Service must maintain separate budgets and, hence, are “off” the general budget
Mandatory: $2.116T (58%)Discretionary: $1.344T (36%)
+
Total: $3.70T
Interest: $240B (6%)
Determined by Congress on an annual basis (ex: Defense)
Determined by existing law (ex: Social Security, Medicare)
Source: Office of Management and Budget
Timeline for the budget process
FebruaryJanuary March April May June July August September October
Fiscal Year Begins
With the help of the office of management and budget (OMB), the president creates a budget proposal – sent to congress the first week of February
With the help of the congressional budget office (CBO), the house and senate budget committees write their own budget proposals
Differences between House/Senate proposals are worked out in conference committees – joint resolution presented and voted on
Appropriations bills presented and voted on
The US Budget is officially titled a “Resolution of Congress” – it is not a Bill. So, what difference does it make?
A resolution, once approved by both houses of congress, requires no presidential signature Further, a resolution is not a law and DOES NOT have to be obeyed!
However, the budget itself does not allow the government to spend money. It only gives the government the authority to spend money. To actually spend money, the government must pass an appropriation bill. That is a law.
Note that authorized spending need not be appropriated in a given year, but can be carried forward, so actual outlays need not equal budget authority
Defense Appropriations Bill (2012)
Authorized: $700BAppropriated: $650B
$50B of authorization remaining
Defense Appropriations Bill (2013)
Authorized: $750BAppropriated: $800B
The Government Uses “Baseline Budgeting” with a minimum 5 year cycle
1 2 3 4 5
Current Year
Horizon YearsBudget Year
This is what the government is currently spending
Adjusted spending under the new law
Anticipated spending
Therefore, a government cut is generally not really a cut! Consider the following example
1 2 3 4 5
Current Year
Horizon YearsBudget Year
Defense AppropriationsBill
2012 $700B $750B (+7%)
$850B(+13%)
$1,000B(+17%)
$1,200B(+20%)
2013 $750B $800B (+6%)
$900B(+12%)
$1,150B(+16%)
$1,350B(+17%)
In government lingo, this would be called a $50B( 6%) cut to the defense budget!!
Financing The Government“In this world, nothing is certain, but death and taxes”
Individual Income Taxes: $1,145B
Corporate Income Taxes: $327B
Social Insurance Taxes: $927B
Other Revenues: $210B
+
Total: $2.609T
2012
On-Budget: $1.949T
Off-Budget: $660B
Income Tax
Alternative Minimum Tax
Estate Tax
Off –Budget is essentially social security taxes
Who Pays Income Taxes?Quintile Average
Income% of Total Income
% of Total Taxes
Bottom 20% $13,000 3% <1%
2nd 20% $30,000 8% 2%
Middle 20% $49,000 14% 13%
4th 20% $72,000 23% 25%
Top 20% $147,000 50% 60%
Top 5% $254,000 21% 40%
Top 1% $1,000,000 15% 30%
US Income Tax Rates (Single Filers)Taxable Income Tax Rate$0 - $7,150 10%
$7,151 - $29,050 15%
$29,051 - $70,350 25%
$70,351 - $146,750 28%
$146,751 - $319,100 33%
$319,101 + 35%
Note: These Tax Brackets are annually indexed for inflation
Standard Deduction: $5,000
Personal Exemption: $3,200+
$8,200 Taxable Income = Gross Income - $8,200
Taxable Income Tax Rate
$0 - $7,150 10%
$7,151 - $29,050 15%
$29,051 - $70,350 25%
$70,351 - $146,750 28%
$146,751 - $319,100 33%
$319,101 + 35%
The Tax Brackets indicate marginal tax rates – i.e. the percentage of each additional dollar earned that gets paid in taxes
Suppose that you earn $85,000 per year (single filer)
Gross Income: $85,000
Standard Deduction: $5,000
Personal Exemption: $3,200
$76,800
--
Taxable Income
$7,150 * .10 = $715
$21,900 * .15 = $3,285
$41,300 * .25 = $10,325
$6,450 * .28 = $1,806+Tax Bill = $16,131
Your “Average Rate” = $16,131
$85,000X 100 = 19%
On Budget: $1.949T
Off Budget: $660B
Total: $2.609T
2012 Revenues
+
Total: $3.70T
+
On-Budget: $2.939T
Off-Budget: $761B
2012 Expenditures
The Government must make up the difference between taxes collected and spending on current programs by borrowing
+
On-Budget: - $990
Off-Budget: - $101
2012 Surplus/Deficit
Total: - $1.091T
This is the official deficit that’s reported
In 2012, the government spent $2.939T on programs other than social security
$1.949T Was paid for with current taxes
In 2012, The Social Security Administration spent $761B on current benefits
$990B was borrowed from the public
$660B Was paid for with current taxes
$101B was borrowed from the public
The US budget was essentially balanced until the early 1970’s
Deficit/Surplus (Millions of Current Dollars)
What really matters is debt relative to ability to pay (GDP) While the US economy grew at an average rate of 6% (Nominal), growth of the debt has changed dramatically
Debt growth at 2.5% per year
Debt growth at 8.5% per year
Debt as a Percentage of GDP
Can we sustain our current policies?
Debt is manageable as long as it grows at a slower pace than income (i.e. we can grow out if it!)
Total Debt
Current Deficit+ Interest Rate GPD Growth
Growth of Debt
$18T
$500B+ .015
Treasury Rate
= .043
Our economy would need to grow at 4.2% (nominal) per year to sustain our current projected deficits (i.e. maintain a constant Debt/GDP ratio). Unfortuntnately, we are only growing at 3.8%
Can we sustain our current policies?
Alternatively, let’s calculate the deficit that is sustainable (Debt/GDP is constant)
Total DebtDeficitNominal
Interest Rate GPD
Growth
$18T 3.8% 1.5%
Given the above numbers, we can sustain a $400B Deficit
Two arguments for Fiscal Policy
Efficiency
Efficiency refers to the collective well being of an economy.
Equity
Equity refers to the distribution of well being across individual in an economy.
Can we use fiscal policy to increase aggregate income? (i.e. increase total welfare.)
Can we use fiscal policy to redistribute income in a “fair” way?
y
LMr
IS
FE
%8
T15$
Let’s suppose that the economy is currently at full employment (the unemployment rate is 5%) and GDP equals $15T. Government expenditures are currently $3T.
GICY
$15T $3T$12T
Note: None of the numbers here are calculated
Now, suppose that uncertainty about the future causes consumers and businesses to cut their planned expenditures by 10%
y
LMr
IS
FE
%8
T15$
GICY $3T$10.8T
$13.8T
$1.2T
%815
2.1
As 8% output gap would be associated with a 8/2.5 = 3.2% rise in unemployment
%4
Okun’s Law: A 1% rise in unemployment translates to a 2.5% drop in GDP
y
LMr
IS
%8
T15$
$1.2T
%6
T4.14$
%415
6.
As 4% output gap would be associated with a 4/2.5 = 1.6% rise in unemployment
The immediate impact would be a drop in the interest rate and production
To get back to full employment, we need the interest rate to drop even farther…
FE
%4
y
LMr
IS
%8
T15$
%6
The longer term impact would be an additional drop in the interest rate and a decrease in prices (i.e. deflation)
FE
%4
Now we are back to full employment…but after a long, painful recession and prolonged deflation
y
LMr
IS
FE
%8
T15$ GICY
$1.2T
What if the government could move the IS curve back to the right by $1.2T. The could return the economy to full employment…
We have a drop in demand of $1.2T
We should increase government spending by $1.2T, right?
“If I Had a Hammer…”
Suppose that the government pays $100 for a new hammer from the local hardware store
Now, suppose that the hardware store owner takes his $100 in new income and spends $95 (95%) at the grocery store
Now, suppose that the grocer owner takes his $95 in new income and spends $90.25 (95%) at the local tavern…..
This will continue to ripple out…
“If I Had a Hammer…”
Lets add up all the increases in income due to the initial government purchase of a $100 hammer
Hardware Store: $100
Grocer: $95
Tavern: $90.25
-------- $85.74
-------- $81.45
Total: $2,000
The initial $100 increase in government spending raised total income by $2,000 (a factor of 20)
2095.1
1
1
1
MPCm
Marginal Propensity to Consume
If the government bought $60B worth of hammers, that should do the trick!
y
LMr
IS
FE
%8
T15$
GICY
$1.2T $10.8T $3T
1 120
1 1 .95m
MPC
So, with a MPC of 95%
T8.13$
$1.2$60
20
TB
GICY
Before
After
$3.06T$11.94T
Let’s take the US Economy….we saw a rise in unemployment from 5% to 10% in this last recession.
y
LMr
IS
FE
T14$
$1.75T
T25.12$
5% cyclical unemployment
Multiply by 2.5 (Okun’s law)
12.5% drop in output
The personal savings rate at the time was around 4%
2596.1
1
1
1
MPCm
BT
70$25
75.1$ But the government stimulus
plan was over $700B and nothing happened…
$14T*(.125) = $1.75T
However, we need to be careful here…. 1
1m
MPC
We need the marginal propensity to consume, using the savings rate, we really have the average propensity to consume
It could be
.93C Y
Y
C
$40,000
$37,200Here, we have (at Y = $40,000)
37,20093%
40,000APC Average propensity to
consume
114
1 .93m
However, we need to be careful here…. 1
1m
MPC
We need the marginal propensity to consume, using the savings rate, we really have the average propensity to consume
Or, it could be
20,000 .43C Y
Y
C
C
$40,000
$37,200
$20,000
Here, we have (at Y = $40,000)
37,20093%
40,000APC Average propensity to
consume
43%MPC 1
1.751 .43
m
“If I Had a Hammer…”
Lets add up all the increases in income due to the initial government purchase of a $100 hammer
Hardware Store: $100
Grocer: $95
Tavern: $90.25
-------- $85.74
-------- $81.45
Total: $2,000
The initial $100 increase in government spending raised total income by $2,000 (a factor of 20)
2095.1
1
1
1
MPCm
Marginal Propensity to Consume
What’s wrong with this argument?
“If I Had a Hammer…”
The government needs to pay for the hammer. Lets assume that the government taxes the local hardware store and then uses the $100 to buy the hammer. How does this change things?
What does the government do with the hammer?
Case #1: The government gives the hammer to the grocer across the street (transfer)
Case #2: The government throws the hammer into the ocean (wasteful spending)
Case #3: Derek Jeter signs the hammer (raising its value to $200) and gives it back to the hardware store (productive spending)
Oops…wrong hammer!!
Public Goods have two distinct characteristics:
Non-Rivaled: Anyone can use a public good without affecting its use by others (zero marginal cost)
Non-Excludable: Its either very difficult or very costly to charge for usage of a public good
Suppose that there are 10,000 people living in Springfield. Each resident is willing to pay up to $.10 to have a drinking fountain in town. The fountain would cost $500 to build.
It would be difficult to charge people to use the fountain. Therefore, the private sector probably wouldn’t supply it. Here’s a chance for the government to step in and save the day!
Why shouldn’t the government supply private goods?
Consider the Jones’: The Jones’ live in Buffalo NY. Mr. Jones works 40 hours per week at a local factory. They have an annual household income of $50,000.
Jones’ Family Budget
Income: $50,000
Taxes: $10,000
$40,000
Consumption: $30,000
Savings: $10,000
Remember…this is determined by the Jones’ wealth – not just current income
Suppose that Obama announces that they will spend $200B on a bridge that will go halfway to Hawaii. Each household will be taxed $1,000 to pay for this project.
How should this spending plan influence the Jones’?
Jones’ Family Budget
Income: $50,000
Taxes: $11,000
$39,000
Consumption: $30,000
Savings: $9,000
Tax Increase of $1,000
This one time project should have a negligible impact on the Jones’ wealth and, hence a negligible impact on consumption
Savings drops by $1000
r S
*r
**, IS
TGI
IS ,
rS
*r
**, IS
TGI
IS ,
GICY
So, the government raises spending by $1,000 per person, and household consumption is left unchanged (household savings drops by $1,000)
000,1$
y
r
IS
r
$1,000
The IS curve moves to the right by $1,000 – i.e. the government multiplier equals 1
Suppose that the government decides to spend $1,000 wastefully every year…
rS
*r
**, IS
TGI
IS ,
GICY
000,1$
y
r
IS
r
The IS curve moves to the right by $0– i.e. the government multiplier equals 0!
000,1$
Households adjust to the permanently lower income by spending less
Now, consider another spending plan…Obama decides to nationalize the cable industry. Everyone will receive government provided cable television. They can provide this service for $500 per year.
Jones’ Family Budget
Income: $50,000
Taxes: $10,000
$40,000
Consumption: $30,000
Savings: $10,000
Rent: $15,000Food: $10,000Transportation: $4,000Cable TV: $1,000
How will this spending plan affect the Jones family?
How should this spending plan influence the Jones’?
Jones’ Family Budget
Income: $50,000
Taxes: $10,500
$39,500
Consumption: $29,000
Savings: $10,000
Extra Income: $500
Tax Increase of $500
r S
*r
**, IS
TGI
IS ,
Rent: $15,000Food: $10,000Transportation: $4,000Cable TV: $0
If this is a one time increase in income, savings goes up . If it is permanent, consumption goes up by $500
Suppose that this one a one year program only….
rS
*r
**, IS
TGI
IS ,
GICY
500$
y
r
IS
r
The IS curve moves to the left by $500– i.e. the government multiplier is negative!
000,1$
Households put the income gain into savings
500$
500$
If this were a permanent program, households would feel free to spend the $500 savings.
rS
*r
**, IS
TGI
IS ,
GICY
500$
y
r
IS
r
The IS curve doesn’t move…again, a government multiplier of zero!!
500$
Households put the income gain into consumption
The Simpson's live next door to the Jones’. Homer Simpson works at the local power plant. He earns $20,000 per year.
Jones’ Family Budget
Income: $50,000
Taxes: $10,000
$40,000
Consumption: $30,000
Savings: $10,000
Simpson’s Family Budget
Income: $20,000
Taxes: $2,000
$18,000
Consumption: $15,000
Savings: $3,000
Suppose that the government offers a temporary $1,000 tax credit to lower income households. The program will cost the average upper income household $1,000
Jones’ Family Budget
Income: $50,000
Taxes: $11,000
$39,000
Consumption: $30,000
Savings: $9,000
Simpson’s Family Budget
Income: $20,000
Taxes: $1,000
$19,000
Consumption: $15,000
Savings: $4,000
Suppose that the government offers a temporary $1,000 tax credit to lower income households. The program will cost the average upper income household $1,000
$1,000
The Simpson’s put the tax credit in the bank.
The Jones’ lower their savings to finance their higher tax bill
Suppose that the government offers a temporary $1,000 tax credit to lower income households. The program will cost the average upper income household $1,000
r S
*r
**, IS
TGI IS ,
r S
*r
**, IS
TGI IS ,
In principle, this should cancel out in the aggregate!
For transfers to make a difference at the aggregate level, we need different preferences (i.e. different marginal propensities to consume)
r S
*r
**, IS
TGI IS ,
r S
*r
**, IS
TGI IS ,
MPC = .5 MPC = .9
$500$100
rS
*r
**, IS
TGI
IS ,
GICCY SJ
So, the government raises spending by $1,000 per person, and household consumption increases by $400 (household savings drops by $400)
y
r
IS
The IS curve moves right!
$400
+$900
-$500
$400
Lets look at a breakdown of Mr. Jones tax liability
Income: $50,000
Taxes: $10,000
Tax Code
Taxable Income Tax Rate
$0 - $10,000 15%
$10,000 - $30,000 20%
$30,000 - $50,000 30%
$30,000 + 35%
Income Tax Rate Tax Paid
$10,000 15% $1,500
$20,000 20% $4,000
$15,000 30% $4,500
Standard Deduction = $5,000
Total: $10,000
Mr. Jones taxable income of $45,000 put him in the 30% tax bracket
Mr. Jones’ average tax rate is 20%
Suppose the government passes a “middle class tax cut”. The top two brackets are reduced from 30% and 35% to 25% and 30%. Also, the standard deduction is lowered to $2,000. How does this impact Mr. Jones?
Income: $50,000
Taxes: $10,000
Tax Code
Taxable Income Tax Rate
$0 - $10,000 15%
$10,000 - $30,000 20%
$30,000 - $50,000 25%
$30,000 + 30%
Income Tax Rate Tax Paid
$10,000 15% $1,500
$20,000 20% $4,000
$18,000 25% $4,500
Standard Deduction = $2,000
Total: $10,000
Mr. Jones taxable income of $48,000 put him in the 25% tax bracket
Mr. Jones’ average tax rate is still 20%
Suppose the government passes a “upper class tax cut”. The top two brackets are reduced from 30% and 35% to 25% and 30%. Also, the standard deduction is lowered to $2,000. How does this impact Mr. Jones?
Income Tax Rate Tax Paid
$10,000 15% $1,500
$20,000 20% $4,000
$18,000 25% $4,500
Total: $10,000
Income Tax Rate Tax Paid
$10,000 15% $1,500
$20,000 20% $4,000
$15,000 30% $4,500
Total: $10,000
Old Tax Code New Tax Code
p
wsl
*
p
w
dl ll
A drop in Mr. Jones’s marginal tax rate increases the incentive to work – labor supply increases. This should raise production
FEr
y
y
LMr
IS
FE
*r
*y
A cut in marginal tax rates that leaves average rates unchanged raises the economy’s capacity as employment rises. But what about expenditures?
Capacity output increases from the tax cut
rS
*r
**, IS
TGI IS ,
A permanent tax cut will increase investment (because higher employment raises the productivity of capital)
y
r
IS
r
Alternatively, suppose the government passes a “lower income class tax cut”. The bottom two brackets are reduced from 15% and 20% to 10% and 15%. The standard deduction is kept at $5,000. How does this impact Mr. Jones?
Income: $50,000
Taxes: $8,500
Tax Code
Taxable Income Tax Rate
$0 - $10,000 10%
$10,000 - $30,000 15%
$30,000 - $50,000 30%
$30,000 + 35%
Income Tax Rate Tax Paid
$10,000 10% $1,000
$20,000 15% $3,000
$15,000 30% $4,500
Standard Deduction = $5,000
Total: $8,500
Mr. Jones taxable income of $45,000 put him in the 30% tax bracket
Mr. Jones’ average tax falls to 17%
Income Tax Rate Tax Paid
$10,000 15% $1,500
$20,000 20% $4,000
$15,000 30% $4,500
Total: $10,000
Old Tax Code New Tax Code
p
wsl
*
p
w
dlll
Income Tax Rate Tax Paid
$10,000 10% $1,000
$20,000 15% $3,000
$15,000 30% $4,500
Total: $8,500
Alternatively, suppose the government passes a “lower income class tax cut”. The bottom two brackets are reduced from 15% and 20% to 10% and 15%. The standard deduction is kept at $5,000. How does this impact Mr. Jones?
sl
dlll
p
w
If households are rational and forward looking, they should recognize that the tax cut will need to be repaid and thus will not feel better off…
If households are not rational and forward looking, they will feel better off and work less
A tax cut will raise the deficit and increase government borrowing, but what about household savings?
rS
*r
**, IS
TGI IS ,
rS
*r
**, IS
TGI IS ,
If households are rational and forward looking, they should recognize that the tax cut will need to be repaid and thus increase savings… expenditures (and, the IS curve are unaffected)
If households are not rational and forward looking, they will increase expenditures (and, the IS curve shifts right)
Government Spending
If the government invests in purely wasteful spending, the multiplier effect is the largest, but should that justify spending money on stupid projects?
Effective spending (say, on public goods) could actually lower employment and output (i.e. a negative multiplier), but don’t we want our government spending our money wisely?
Transfers could give the economy a boost without wasting any resources. The bigger issue with transfers is economic equity
Taxes
Taxes are an effective stimulus only if you can change marginal rates while leaving effective rates unchanged.
Recognize the impact any tax policy has on aggregate expenditures!