Greg Ip

Articles by The Economist’s U.S. Economics Editor

Archive for the ‘Republican party’ Category

Debt and the deficit: Priority report

leave a comment »

Republicans have a plan to force lower spending without risking default

May 18th 2013 | WASHINGTON, DC |From the print edition
[Greg Ip] AUSTERITY may be weighing on America’s economy, but it has its consolations. On May 14th, the Congressional Budget Office sharply revised down its estimate of the budget deficit this fiscal year, to $642 billion or just 4% of GDP, from 5.3% in February. That would put it at less than half its recent peak of 10.1% in 2009. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by gregip

May 16, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Budgets and Congress: Opening bids

leave a comment »

Congress finally restarts the budget process but the gaps are daunting

Mar 16th 2013 | WASHINGTON, DC |From the print edition
[Greg Ip] WHEN Congress sought to claw back fiscal authority from Richard Nixon in the early 1970s, it came up with its own budget process. The House of Representatives and the Senate would draw up separate budget resolutions and, through negotiation, turn them into a single budget.

In recent years that process has, more often than not, broken down. In six of the past 11 years, the House and Senate could not agree on a budget, and in the last three, the Democratic-controlled Senate did not even pass its own resolution. Instead, Congress has resorted to stand-alone spending bills, temporary fixes and behind-the-scenes deals with the White House.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by gregip

March 14, 2013 at 9:33 am

How to solve the fiscal cliff: The Obamney tax plan

leave a comment »

Nov 8th 2012, 23:33 by G.I. | WASHINGTON, D.C.

This post has been updated.

PRESIDENTS choose their words carefully. So when Barack Obama talked of  “tax reform” but not “tax rates” in his acceptance speech early Wednesday, he was presumably sending a signal. And it was similarly significant that later that day John Boehner repeatedly stated his opposition to higher tax “rates” rather than tax revenue.

Within those two statements lies the nucleus of a deal: raising tax revenue through some means other than higher tax rates. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by gregip

November 8, 2012 at 8:02 pm

Mitt Romney’s economics: Flip back please

leave a comment »

The probable Republican nominee should stop pandering to the left on China and to the right on taxes

Apr 21st 2012 | from the print edition

[Greg Ip]

TO UNDERSTAND why Mitt Romney has triumphed over his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, look no further than March’s disappointing job numbers. With growth fragile and petrol prices soaring, the economy is Barack Obama’s gaping weak spot, and Republican primary voters have backed the candidate best equipped to exploit it.

Yet it is very far from clear what they are getting. Blame that, in part, on a nominating contest that repeatedly veered into irrelevancies. But blame the candidate, too. In the past year Mr Romney’s views have metamorphosed worryingly as he has tried to protect his flank against a succession of conservative challengers. It is no exaggeration to say that there are now two Romneys when it comes to economics (see article).

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by gregip

April 21, 2012 at 9:36 pm

Taxing the rich in America: The politics of plutocracy

leave a comment »

America’s rich should pay more, but there is no need to raise their income-tax rates

Jan 21st 2012 | from the print edition

 IN AN ordinary American presidential election, a candidate who had earned a fortune in business and then paid an absurdly low tax rate would barely raise eyebrows. Americans have long considered wealth something to admire and pursue, not vilify and redistribute. Alexis de Tocqueville said he knew “of no country…where a profounder contempt is expressed for the theory of the permanent equality of property.”

But this is no ordinary election. That so much scrutiny has fallen both on how Mitt Romney earned his fortune (in the ruthless world of private equity) and his tax rate (15%, less than what some middle-class families pay) is a sign something has changed. For that, credit a decade in which the median family in America saw its real income fall by 7%, even as the top 1% grabbed a share of national income unseen since the 1920s (see article), and a level of unemployment that, though falling, remains troublingly high. Not many Americans like the tactics or fashion choices of Occupy Wall Street, but quite a few share the movement’s opinion that the economy is tilted in favour of the wealthy.

And so the rich are now a campaign issue. Barack Obama calls for “millionaires and billionaires” to “pay their fair share”: introduce a minimum tax rate on millionaires and return the top income-tax rate to 39.6% from 35%, and the other 98% of Americans would not have to pay more, he claims. Republicans shoot back that raising any taxes would destroy jobs and business confidence. They think you can fill the budget hole by spending cuts alone; many want to cut taxes further.

Neither side is talking sense. America’s rich should indeed pay more tax; but marginal rates should not go up.

History shows that deficit reduction works best when most of the burden falls on spending cuts. That means that middle-class entitlements will have to be reduced, no matter what Mr Obama tells his supporters. But, just as in every other budget squeeze, a portion must come from higher taxes, no matter what the Republicans say.

Democrats say only the top 1% need pay more; that’s misleading. Others will have to pay too. But more of the increase should be shouldered by the rich who have done so well from recent trends. Technological change and globalisation have sharpened demand for the most skilled workers, in particular superstars, be they athletes or hedge-fund managers, thus sharply increasing inequality. Tax policy has exacerbated this trend instead of mitigating it. George Bush junior slashed top income-tax rates as well as rates on dividends and capital gains, which explains why Warren Buffett and Mr Romney have such low tax rates.

Follow the money

However, restoring the top income tax rates, as Mr Obama proposes, is not the best way of extracting extra revenue from the rich. It would raise revenues of about 0.3% of GDP and do nothing to make America’s grotesquely complicated tax system more efficient. It would be far better to close or limit loopholes and deductions, currently worth up to 7% of GDP, which distort behaviour (by, for example, encouraging people to take out big mortgages) and mostly benefit the affluent. Some deductions, including mortgage relief, would have to be phased out in stages; but many could go immediately. In a similar way, equalising the rates on capital, dividends and ordinary income would make it possible to lower America’s corporate tax rate, currently one of the rich world’s highest.

The result would be lower rates, more revenue and a more efficient and progressive tax system. If that’s where the debate about wealth ends, it will have been worth it.

The original article is linked here.

Written by gregip

January 19, 2012 at 9:07 pm

The payroll-tax row: Backfiring brinksmen

leave a comment »

The “tea party” loses a fight over economic stimulus

Dec 31st 2011 | WASHINGTON, DC | from the print edition

 [Greg Ip] SINCE the 2010 mid-term elections, “tea party” Republicans have enjoyed influence out of proportion to their numbers. They forced Barack Obama and congressional Democrats to accept spending cuts without any tax increases to keep the government from shutting down in April, 2011, and from defaulting on its bills in August.

This intransigence, however, backfired rather spectacularly just before Christmas when John Boehner, the speaker of the House of Representatives, was forced to reverse his earlier position and agree to an extension of a two-percentage-point cut in the payroll tax and to the payment of unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks.

Written by gregip

December 31, 2011 at 10:51 am

The payroll-tax row: Backfiring brinksmen

leave a comment »

The “tea party” loses a fight over economic stimulus

Dec 31st 2011 | WASHINGTON, DC | from the print edition

 SINCE the 2010 mid-term elections, “tea party” Republicans have enjoyed influence out of proportion to their numbers. They forced Barack Obama and congressional Democrats to accept spending cuts without any tax increases to keep the government from shutting down in April, 2011, and from defaulting on its bills in August.This intransigence, however, backfired rather spectacularly just before Christmas when John Boehner, the speaker of the House of Representatives, was forced to reverse his earlier position and agree to an extension of a two-percentage-point cut in the payroll tax and to the payment of unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by gregip

December 28, 2011 at 1:58 pm

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 64 other followers