No Game Changer Without You!


$135,218 raised so farEND DATE: January 1   
  • Latest News
  • Pitch a Story
  • Work with a Journalist
  • Join the Blog Squad
  • Afghanistan
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Baltimore
  • Canada
  • Egypt
  • Europe
  • Latin America
  • Middle East
  • Russia
  • Economy
  • Environment
  • Health Care
  • Military
  • Occupy
  • Organize This
  • Reality Asserts Itself
  • US Politics
  • Will Taxing the Rich Deepen the Recession? - The "Fiscal Cliff" is a Scam


    James Galbraith: Long term higher taxes on rich will have little affect on economy; higher taxes for ordinary people could deepen recession over time but there is no emergency -   October 3, 14
    Members don't see ads. If you are a member, and you're seeing this appeal, click here

    Audio

      Share to Twitter
    Share to Facebook



    Amongst "independent" media the only one which (so far) has served only insight and versatility. - Håkan
    Log in and tell us why you support TRNN

    Bio

    James K. Galbraith teaches at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin. He is a Senior Scholar of the Levy Economics Institute and the Chair of the Board of Economists for Peace and Security. The son of a renowned economist, the late John Kenneth Galbraith, he writes occasional commentary for many publications, including Mother Jones, The Texas Observer, The American Prospect, and The Nation. He directs the University of Texas Inequality Project, an informal research group based at the LBJ School, and is President this year of the Association for Evolutionary Economics.

    Transcript

    Will Taxing the Rich Deepen the Recession? - The PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.

    We're continuing our series of interviews asking the question is the fiscal cliff a scam? And the man who says so is Professor James K. Galbraith. He joins us now. He teaches at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, author of The Predator State and Inequality and Instability: A Study of the World Economy Just Before the Great Crisis. Thanks for joining us again, James.

    PROF. JAMES K. GALBRAITH, LBJ SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, UT AUSTIN: My pleasure.

    JAY: So point four and point five of your six reasons have to do with the tax increases that are scheduled to take place at the beginning of the next year, and we're told this will be terrible. Do you think so?

    GALBRAITH: Well, if the tax increases on the broad middle class were to stay fully in effect for six months or a year, that's going to crimp people's budgets, and so I think that's something that should be avoided. But if the decision to restore those lower tax rates happens in mid-January, end of January, mid-February, the effect will be minimal. I think it probably will not even be perceptible in the data, 'cause people will simply go on spending what they were expecting to spend in anticipation that the Congress is going to act. And that's, I think, a very reasonable thing for people to expect.

    JAY: So on the upper-end taxpayers that will get an increase because of the end of the Bush tax cuts, we're told by the Republicans (and even some conservative Democrats don't like this idea) that this will also contribute towards a continuation of recession, 'cause the rich won't invest and such.

    GALBRAITH: There's no reason to believe that at all. To begin with, these are restoring the tax rates that existed in the Clinton period, and there's no reason to believe they inhibited investment then. On the contrary, you had a major investment boom in the last years of the Clinton administration. I'm not saying that restoring the tax rates would reproduce that boom, but they're not inconsistent with any level of investment that American business chooses to make at any given time. That's clear from the historical evidence.

    Would there be a significant effect on total spending as a result of the crimping of upper-end budgets? I think the answer to that is probably not. First of all, when you're dealing with very wealthy people, they spend what they're going to spend, and then everything else is a residual. If that residual is smaller because they're paying a higher tax rate, it's not going to make a very material difference.

    Would there be some effect in normal times? Well, it might put a crimp on, for example, upper-end housing construction, but that's not going anywhere anyway.

    So I don't really see a credible argument that allowing the upper end of the Bush tax cuts to expire would have a significant effect, contractionary effect on the economy at this point.

    JAY: So the argument that we hear, that more discretionary income on behalf of the wealthy winds up in more investment, I don't think there's too much argument on the consumer side, but essentially it's that they're the job creators, and they simply won't create—invest as much in job creation if they can't make as much as they can now.

    GALBRAITH: [inaud.] been the case. We had much higher marginal tax rates in the '50s, '60s, and into the '70s than we do now, I mean, dramatically higher, and investment rates were essentially similar to what they are now. I mean, the reality is that businesses make investment when they see a reasonable expectation of making profits, and if the share of those profits go to the federal government, the corporate income tax, the personal income tax, [incompr.] go. But nobody who's entrepreneurial is going to be deterred by that, because the alternative is to leave the money on the table, not to make it at all. So if you have an entrepreneurial culture, a true capitalist economy, as, you know, many people believe we have (and certainly the conservative argument has always been that we have), then you've got to believe that people will take those profit opportunities if they exist. That's, I think—so, to claim that somehow the wealthy business leaders of the country are so cowed by a 3 percent increase in their marginal tax rate that this will cause them to—do what, exactly?—not be entrepreneurial anymore is a—the kind of thing that I think really ought to drive a wedge between the business leadership and conservative voices who are making that argument.

    JAY: Right. Well, what—this tax increase is, as you say, pretty modest. What tax increase would you like to see if it was up to you? I mean, what—is there a point where it is negative in terms of its impact on the economy? What should the tax rate on the wealthy be?

    GALBRAITH: Well, this is a question of, let's say, the distribution of wealth, the distribution of power. It's really not an important question of the functioning and performance of the economy. Where I would worry about things is in the lower end, where working families do live hand-to-mouth, and if their incomes fall, their disposable incomes fall, they have to curtail their consumption. And then, particularly where they have very high fixed costs—mortgages, car payments—that they're trying to meet, then basically their discretionary consumption comes out of what's left.

    Now, where do we see that problem? We see it with the payroll tax. The payroll tax is paid at basically a flat rate by working people, and for the last several years, we've had a reduction in that rate of a couple of percentage points with significant relief for working families. That payroll tax holiday is also slated to go away on January 1. The president has said that he doesn't want to see any increase in middle class taxes, but he has not said that he wants to see an extension of the payroll tax holiday. Unfortunately, when that holiday expires, that will be a significant increase in middle- and working-class taxes, very clearly. Anything up to a-hundred-and-so thousand dollars gets hit. So if you want to do something that isn't on the table so far, I would say you should, first of all, pass the president's bill, which is to extend the lower rates on income. Basically, you can make that indefinitely, or you can make it for five or ten years; and I would put a phase-out, let's say, over three or four years of that payroll tax holiday, rather than ending it abruptly on January 1.

    JAY: But if you go back to the—we're going to do—in the last segment, we're going to get more into what should be done. But just back to this point of the wealthy, I mean, if tax rates were, as Warren Buffet's saying, 30, 35 percent, or if they went to 40 or 50 percent on the wealthy, or, you know, if you took it over $10 million and you went even higher than 50 percent, you're saying that the rich may not like that, but it's not a negative impact on the economy.

    GALBRAITH: I think you can, you know, press things too far. But within the ranges that we're talking about, this is much more politics than it is economics. And the president has a very strong political case. The American public agrees with him on this. The Republican Party is faced with all kinds of dilemmas about whether they can give up this modest increase on the wealthy and still survive politically. And, you know, that's really what this discussion is about. We're not going to see this in terms of material effects on economic performance.

    Now, I want to be careful, because some part of the argument that's made by progressives—and, of course, I consider myself to be one—is that we need to get as much money as possible for the federal government. And the reality is that that is not really what the objective should be. The objective of policy should be to sustain living standards for the broad American middle class, to protect people in adversity, which means sustaining Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid primarily, but also other programs that do that, and to promote the growth of economic activity, particularly on lines that solved and addressed actual problems that we have.

    And the question of the deficit, of the balance between spending and revenues, is properly seen as an outcome, as the consequence of dealing with those issues, not as an objective in itself. If it takes a bigger deficit—more spending and less tax revenues—to accomplish a given set of desirable objectives, then that's exactly what we should do. We should not allow ourselves to drift into the notion that zero—that a balance in the budget is somehow an objectively desirable thing. It might happen, it might not happen, but it really doesn't matter to—I mean, it's not something which is the—should be the focus of our economic policy-making. Much more important is to put people back to work, to rebuild the decayed infrastructure of the country, to deal with our energy and our climate problems, to protect people's—from foreclosures, to restructure the financial system. These things are all—should be very much higher on the list. And in comparison to them, the deficit and the debt are just distractions.

    JAY: Okay. Please join us for the next and final part of this series of interviews, "Is the Fiscal Crisis a Scam?" And don't forget we're in our final campaign for this year, fundraising campaign. Every dollar you donate gets matched. So please click on the Donate button. Thanks for joining us on The Real News Network.

    End

    DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


    Comments

    Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

    Comments


    Latest Stories


    Video: The Revolution Is Being Televised Pt. 1
    Who Should Pay for the Costs of Climate Change?
    Thwarted Michigan Bill Aimed At Stopping Community Agreements With Developers Will Return
    Die-In for Police Accountability Staged at Baltimore-Area Mall
    DOJ Misses Another Opportunity to Go After Banks
    Are You Watching But Not Donating?
    Why Did The CIA Really Use Extreme Torture?
    Will the New Federal Racial Profiling Guidelines have Any Impact? (3/3)
    42 Billion in Tax Breaks Favoring Corporations Extended
    Identity and Collective Denial - Lia Tarachansky on Reality Asserts Itself (3/3)
    Case Filed in European Court Against Bush-Era Torture
    Fracking Opponents Celebrate Key Victories in New Brunswick, Quebec and New York
    iMixWhatILike | From South Africa to the United States: The Continuity of Black Consciousness Movements
    The Revolution Is Being Televised Pt. 2
    The Three Remaining 'Cuban 5' Go Home
    The US and Cuba Restore Diplomatic Relations With A Spy Swap
    Obama Admin Still Seeking Testimony From Journalist James Risen
    Identity and Collective Denial - Lia Tarachansky on Reality Asserts Itself (2/3)
    Will South America Bring Life to the Bank of the South?
    Identity and Collective Denial - Lia Tarachansky on Reality Asserts Itself (1/3)
    Hundreds of Thousands of Wrongfully Purged Votes Could Have Cost Dems Midterm Elections
    Budget Bill's Little-Known Provisions Affecting Marijuana Users
    Millions March Oakland: A Look Beyond the Violence
    Contextualizing Baltimore's Recent Police Shooting
    The Lima Accord: A Great Success or More Climate Catastrophe?
    Data Collection Law on Excessive Force Shown Ineffective in the Past
    Will the New Federal Racial Profiling Guidelines Have Any Impact? (2/3)
    Chris Hedges Answers Questions from Viewers - Chris Hedges on Reality Asserts Itself pt7
    Will the New Federal Racial Profiling Guidelines have Any Impact? (1/3)
    Russia Rejects South Stream Pipeline Through Europe

    RealNewsNetwork.com, Real News Network, Real News, Real News For Real People, IWT are trademarks and service marks of IWT.TV inc. "The Real News" is the flagship show of IWT and Real News Network.

    All original content on this site is copyright of The Real News Network.  Click here for more

    Problems with this site? Please let us know

    Linux VPS Hosting by Star Dot Hosting