Sunday, August 26, 2012

Amateur Hour: What Is The Budget Deficit?

People do not seem to have a good grasp of what the federal deficit is. In my estimation, they do not know why it is bad when it is bad either. In order to do my small part, here is a short primer on what the deficit and debt is. If people like this post, I'll do another one on when deficits and debts are things one should be concerned about and why.



The federal government provides many services, such as defending our borders via the military, building infrastructure such as roads and sewers, and educating the masses. It also is a provider of insurance of many kinds, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These services cost money, for the services themselves and to pay for the people who make it happen, government employees. Altogether, we can call all the money the government devotes to these services "expenditures" (E).

Like any business, one needs revenue in order to keep producing products or providing services. To pay for the products and services supplied by the government, we pay federal taxes. There are many kinds of federal taxes. You might sometimes hear that half the country does not pay federal taxes. That is not true. About half the country does not pay federal income taxes, but that is only one kind of federal tax. Every employed person calls "payroll taxes," taxes which are legally devoted to Social Security and Medicare. Along with income and payroll taxes, there are corporate taxes, taxes on capital gains, the estate tax, and so on. Call the money the government takes in to pay for expenditures (E), revenue (R).

If we subtract E from R (R - E = Surplus or Deficit) for a particular year, we are left with some amount which can be either a surplus or deficit.  If R exceeds E in a given year, there is a surplus. If E is greater than R for a year, it is a deficit. As you can see, if you would like to avoid a deficit, you need R to be bigger, E to be smaller, or both. This seems easy to understand, but as Bartels points out in the linked article, many people believe that when taxes are raised, the deficit increases. In other words, they think that the higher R is, the greater the deficit will be. This does not make numerical sense and this confusion is the reason for this post.

Now you might think that numerically this view doesn't make sense, but that if we look at how things work in the real world, higher R does lead to greater deficit, since any time there is higher R there is much higher E. That is, whenever the government raises taxes, it also increases spending by even more. The problem with this view is (1) it isn't true and needn't be true in the future, and (2) it doesn't make sense. Notice that it require not only that R and E increase, but that E increase even more than R is, in order to result in an increase in the deficit. If you raise them by equal amounts, you will not get an increase in the deficit. But ,f you are willing to spend more in this way, why raise taxes in the first place? Just spend more without raising taxes.

So we get a federal deficit when the government spends more money than it takes in. The federal debt is the cumulative deficit year over year. Since we have a run a deficit over many of the last thirty years (the exception being the end of the Clinton years), the debt is far greater than the deficit. If you are concerned about the deficit and debt, you should want to know how politicians will address both R and E. Many people (Paul Ryan) suggest we can lower R and still lower the deficit. In order to get this to work, you simply must lower E even more than the decrease in R and that means reducing services or insurance. People should carefully consider whether they are happy with this trade.

4 comments:

  1. "many people believe that when taxes are raised, the deficit increases. In other words, they think that the higher R is, the greater the deficit will be."

    That isn't an equal comparison. The Republican propaganda has taught people that if taxes increase, revenue decreases because either: people will stop trying to get a pay raise because they'll have to pay more taxes (aka stupidity); rich people, I'm sorry, I mean job creators, will send more of their money to foreign sources, like bank accounts or moving factories and jobs; or just that job creators will have to lay off workers because the higher taxes are too burdensome. In that case, I don't think it's inconsistent to believe that higher taxes lead to higher deficit because higher taxes lead to lower revenue.

    "That is, whenever the government raises taxes, it also increases spending by even more."

    Sounds like the opposite of the Starve the Beast theory, which CG&G have debunked.
    http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2051/idiocy-starve-beast-theory
    http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1516/starving-beast

    I am skeptical of much of the linked article just because I think polls try to simplify complex things too much, which leads to inaccurate data. I'd have to see the exact wording of all the questions to verify that what he's saying is accurate. For instance, his presentation of all the inconsistent views could be explained, and I think he starts to address that but dismisses it. He says that taxes for the polled person may be lower, but different incomes would be higher to compensate, then dismisses it by saying that they wouldn't be high enough to make up for the higher spending and the lowered taxes elsewhere. But if the polled thinks that Romney would cut taxes for everyone and increase spending to some degree, then it could still be the case that the deficit would be higher under Romney. Also, if you think that increased spending stimulates the economy (and how a candidate directs that spending into more or less stimulative programs [are food stamps more stimulative than tax cuts?, etc.]), that could lead to a higher revenue stream which would lower the deficit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Zane, thanks for the thoughtful comments!

    Regarding 1st part:

    When you say propaganda says revenue will decrease, do you mean for individuals or for the government? I don't think many people think that raising taxes means less money for the government. Perhaps they think it won't raise as much revenue as some predict, but I don't think they think there will be less revenue. If they do, then, still, they are confused and perhaps that deserves another post.

    Regarding 2nd part:

    The quotation you use is part of a hypothetical response to my critique. People who believe raising taxes leads to greater deficits need to believe spending will increase even more than the revenue increase (supposing they think raising taxes raises revenue). Perhaps you knew that but I just wanted to be clear.

    It's fine to be skeptical about surveys; I'm skeptical to some degree. But how else are we going to find out about a large population's beliefs and attitudes?

    The deficit will almost certainly increase under Romney, but I'm not 100% sure I follow your point there. Bartels is considering the hypothesis that people are reading the question so as to suppose that other people's tax rates will change to a different degree or even valence to their own. Maybe, but it's a complicated thought to have and it would be strange if so many people came to the same conclusion given the increase in the number of variables in such a scenario.

    Last, more growth certainly leads to higher revenue, and there's a case to be made that higher spending could lead to more growth in the economic conditions we face right now. But I'm not sure how that relates to the survey.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I mean for the government. The theory they push is that when the tax rate increases, people will do what they can to escape that new burdensome rate (because 39% is unbearable, but 35% is ok) therefore reducing the amount of people being taxed. So, the tax rates are higher, but less people are or less income is being taxed. I agree with you that it isn't less revenue altogether, I'm just arguing for why people would perceive the revenue decrease while taxes increase. Really, my only point was that Republicans try to convince people that higher taxes do not necessarily equal higher revenue.

    Yeah, I knew what you were saying, I was just backing up what you said by giving two articles that say similar things, but in reverse. The idea that if you stop funding the government, the government will stop spending; presumably because the government will only spend what money they have, which is clearly not the case. I was positing that the reverse may be true, with similar logic, that giving the government more money does not mean the government will spend more money. I was hoping you'd fill in the logic and create a good argument that you could use to further your point.

    I'm not very smart, so I like to throw seeds out and see if someone smarter will water them and the seed will grow into something that actually makes sense. A lot of my seeds die...

    I guess I'm not skeptical of the survey, but of Bartels's conclusions. And I'm biased because I surveys always make me feel like an idiot, because I try to pick the closest answer which isn't close enough. I'll do a survey then look at the results and it's nothing what I was trying to convey. I assume other people have that same problem, but I don't know. I was just giving examples of what I think could lead someone to answer in a way that isn't really what they believe, or is a more complicated belief than just A is good, B is bad or whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ok, yeah, I see what you are saying. I agree that the propaganda might push that way, but I'm not sure it's effective to the extent that shows up in the survey. Agreed about second point. And I agree surveys can simplify complex attitudes, certainly. Still, it is a strange result that people think increasing taxes increases the deficit! (And that people do not associate increased spending as increasing the deficit as much as increased taxes!!).

    ReplyDelete