Economics

سياسة مالية أميركية موجهة نحو المستقبل

Nov 24, 2015 Glenn Hubbard

نيويورك ــ أخيرا، بدأ المرشحون الجمهوريون في حملة الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية يركزون على الاقتصاد. وهو تحول بالغ الأهمية في وقت يتسم بالقلق المتزايد بين الناخبين من ذوي الدخل المتوسط إزاء التفاوت في الثروات، وتنامي الوعي بعدم استدامة الضمان الاجتماعي والرعاية الصحية وبرنامج Medicareلتقديم الرعاية الطبية لكبار السن. ولكن من المؤسف أن الاهتمام المكرس للصلة بين هاتين القضيتين الرئيسيتين غير كاف.

الواقع أن معالجة المشاكل المحيطة بالضمان الاجتماعي وبرنامج الرعاية الطبية لكبار السن هي المفتاح لمعالجة المنغصات التي تبتلي الطبقة المتوسطة. ولكن أنصار إصلاح السياسة المالية لا زالوا يركزون بشكل خاص على استخدام معدلات الضريبة الأعلى على الأثرياء لتمويل زيادة دخول كل الشرائح الأخرى.

قد تكون إعادة توزيع الدخل فكرة جذابة في نظر البعض ــ ومنهم ولكن بدرجة أقل بعض الشيء أعضاء الحزب الجمهوري الذين يؤيدون نسخة مخففة، حيث تدعم معدلات الضرائب الهامشية الأعلى برامج المساعدات الأسرية الموسعة ــ ولكن هذا ليس إلا ذهب الحمقى الزائف. فكما تُظهِر دراسة حديثة أجرتها مؤسسة بروكنجز، لن تفعل معدلات الضرائب الهامشية الأعلى شيئاً يُذكر لتقليص فجوة التفاوت في الدخول في الولايات المتحدة.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 13 Comments on this article

Kerry Pechter Dec 9, 2015

Every dollar distributed through Social Security and Medicare goes directly through the recipient and into the general economy. If there are 20,000 seniors in my city receiving $1,000 per month from Social Security, they are spending about $20 million per month and $240 million a year here. How is that a recipe for bankrupting the country? I've never met an economist who could answer that question.
- Rohit Gupta Dec 12, 2015
  
  The fact that "every dollar" that you mention was already collected from taxes which have deadweight losses ?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gary Boatwright Nov 30, 2015

An unpleasant logical problem is yhe tenuous if non-existent link between wealth inequality and "the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare." These are two entirely different problems. Correcting wealth inequality will not solve the problems of Social Security and Medicare. Fiscal policy cannot solve the problem. Of course, raising marginal tax rates will not "solve" this problem. Prof. Hubbard's article is a beautiful scarecrow, but not a scholarly or serious critique of the problems facing S.S. and Medicaren
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Patrick Sullivan Nov 29, 2015

A little unpleasant fiscal arithmetic for those critics of Prof. Hubbard: We currently have about three workers paying taxes to support one SS beneficiary. If the benefits average $1,000 per month, or $12,000 per year, then each worker is being taxed (both the worker and employer) $4,000 annually. That's bad enough.

However, we're headed for, when Baby Boomers are all retired, a situation where there are only TWO taxpaying workers for each beneficiary. That means a $6,000 per year burden on every worker in America. Or, a 50% increase in payroll taxes.

The 'dead-weight loss' of that tax increase is what Prof. Hubbard is talking about when he writes about 'growth destroying tax increases'. Not only do the American workers lose their taxes to government, they also suffer the drag on the economy--'dead-weight loss'--that results in lower growth.

In fact, we're already suffering it. Projections of future economic growth are for much lower growth than in the past.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gary Boatwright Nov 29, 2015

The only problem with Social Security and Medicare is ideological blinders. A one percent transaction tax on all stock market trades would be more than sufficient to fund Medicare For All Americans.

Raising the cap on Social Security FICA payments from the current $200,000 to $1,000,000 would allow Social Security payments to be significantly increased.

Both of these modest improvements would benefit both senior citizens and the overall American economy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Walter Gingery Nov 27, 2015

One of Hubbard's key premises is "maintaining low marginal tax rates."

But he fails to explain his preference. This is fatal to his argument, because the most prosperous period in recent American history was precisely when marginal tax rates were at their highest, namely, the period from WWII to the end of the '70's. (Rates were in the range of 90, 80 and 70%, far above what the cited Brookings study dared to contemplate.)

The above notwithstanding, it remains true that the rising cost of medical care casts a long shadow over the future. Here I am in accord with Hubbard. Even Paul Krugman admitted in a recent column that the long-term trend remains at 5 - 10% a year. That is unsustainable, no if's, and's or but's about it.

To get a handle on costs, we have got to drastically curtail our reliance on third-party insurance as provided through employers, Medicare and Medicaid. Ending the tax exclusion for employer medical insurance, "cadillac plans" in particular, would be a start.

But already Clinton has made noises about repealing even this modest proposal. Americans seem to believe that "someone else" will always be responsible for paying the bills.

One way out, in my opinion, is a combination of (a) True Catastrophic Insurance, whereby every penny of medical costs over, say, $35,000 would be covered -- no exclusions, and (b) rationalized Health Savings Accounts, that would allow Americans to build savings over years, instead of having to expend it all in one year.

Over a lifetime, the average American will spend about $1,250,000 on health care and insurance. After paying for True Catastrophic Insurance, that person would still have over $850,000 left to pay for medical care out of pocket.

So we have a choice: control our health expenditures ourselves, or go bankrupt letting a third party spend them for us.
- Rohit Gupta Dec 12, 2015
  
  > most prosperous period in recent American history was precisely when marginal tax rates were at their highest, namely, the period from WWII to the end of the '70's.
  
  Look at growth rates under Eisenhower, they were the slowest among all Presidents till GW Bush. Au contraire, tax rates were cut under LBJ under Kennedys plan and we had the Swinging Sixties.
  
  The period between WW2 and Eisenhower had Korean war spending to boost the economy.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hiroshi Nagatsuma Nov 26, 2015

I am always waiting for some real economists to talk about Federal Reserve Act that made FED a private organization and US dollar bills mere papers as Ron Pole often talks about. U.S. is spending astronomical amount of dollars on wars by the benefit of this law. Only papers anyway. Question is why no use papers on social care matters. Krugman wrote during Japan economic crisis, print yen bills using printing machine and distribute it by helicopter. BOJ bill is not a mere paper like U.S> dollar bills.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stefan S Nov 25, 2015

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. The suggestion that we cannot afford Social Security and Medicaid is a pathetic joke. Draconian taxes, say 90% tax on income over $5,000,000, would go a great distance in dissolving inequality by convincing enterprises to re-invest profits rather than line pockets. After all, $5,000,000 per year is more than $13,600 per day. How much do the rich need to live? We need to reallocate our resources.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Kelley Nov 25, 2015

Written like a true Republican ideologue. Social security is not in trouble, unless you believe the faith and credit of the US aren't any good. Second, Bernie has the right plan for social security and Medicare for all would also drastically reduce healthcare costs. The old sops about more training and education for workers are clearly bs in light of a structurally changing economy that is eliminating jobs through technology and lowering wages through competition with desperation ignores the failure of neoliberal economic policies. Further as Mr. Chambers points out below, how is continued growth sustainable?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tim Chambers Nov 25, 2015

There is nothing unsustainable about Social Security or Medicare. That is merely a Republican canard. Both programs would be sustainable if all income and inheritances were taxable at the present rates for these programs. And with average life expectancy going down, due to the unexpected consequences of Reaganomics, these vital programs aren't likely to cost as much as projected.

Get off the banksters payroll, Hubbard, and and look at the world from an unbiased perspective. It will look a whole lot different to you if you do.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Nov 25, 2015

The article is premised on the assumption that growth (greed) is good, and quality of life is a 'kind of communist thing'. The US pays about double what other first world countries pay per patient, and there is little evidence that the quality of service is any better. The issue lies in the privatision of health care - for a long time the best performing industry by far on the NYSE was pharmaceuticals. It might sound anti-american, but some things should be government run (on a cost recovery basis) and others should be privatized. America is reaping the bitter fruit of privatizing the wrong program.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Nov 24, 2015

In today’s age, where only money talks, do you really expect a politician, any politician to act upon your recommendations? Excellent article by the way, good work, but one sees no hope anymore with the Elite “In-Charge”…
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/pTb4lb8ar

سياسة مالية أميركية موجهة نحو المستقبل

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

سياسة مالية أميركية موجهة نحو المستقبل

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification