When I left this series in September, I had introduced the idea of looking at past tax tables as a means of understanding how We the People define rich. One specific note from history was a surcharge on top of themarginal tax rates to pay for the Great One (WWII). Obviously, that aspect of our moral character has gone right out the window.
Also for a
brief period (1936 to 1943,on 6 occasions) business paid more of the income tax revenue collected than did people. I also noted that 1983 and 2009 the corporate share of income tax revenue was just over 6% of the totalrevenues (FICA included). Its lowest points. Reagan/Bush II. However, interestingly enough, Bush II did manage to get thecorporate tax collections as a percentage of personal collections(excluding FICA) up to 33.9%! Clinton only managed 26.6% in 1995. The last time we saw a ratio where corporate collections were in the30% range was 1979. In 1959 it was 47.1%. 1980 heralded the new standard of the mid to low 20% range. Of course Reagan wins thispersonal verses corporate relationship with a corporate total that is only 12.8% of the personal in 1983.
One other very interesting aspect ofour tax history using
the same table is that from 1934 to 1983 when tax revenue from personal collections became less than the year prior, this was only for one year with the exception of 1945/46. Corporate revenue follows the same pattern except for 3 periods where there was a decline for 2 years running: 1946/47, 1958/59 and1961/62. From 1983 until 2001 the personal revenue is more every year than the year prior. It’s like a switch was thrown after 1983. The corporate revenue declines twice for 1 year each in this 1983 –2001 span; 1990 and 1999. Starting in 2001, the decline in revenuecollections for both personal and corporate last for 3 years running;2001 to 2003 and 2008 to 2010. Someone threw a double pole switchhere. We’ll have to wait to see for 2011.
Obviously, from this bit of history we can see a few trends at least. We have been reducing the burden on corporations as paying their share for the use of the commons. From1984 to 2000 the personal collections never declined yet thecorporate did twice. Prior to 2001, our tax tables and all their loop holes produced a fairly stable ever rising stream of revenue. However, after 2001, the stability is less in that any time there isa reduction in revenue collections, it lasts 3 times longer. Finally, except for 2005 to year ending 2007, since 1980 we think that corporations should only pay between 20 to 26% of what We thePeople pay in to our government.
I mention all the above because it isevident that more than just the marginal rates are changing and, as far as my assessment of these changes go, they are leading us to anever less stable adjusted gross income base for then calculating the tax due. That is, the base has been adjusted such that it is moresensitive to down turns in the economy. Prior to the Reagan taxrevolution, both the personal and corporate base were fairly evenlysensitive with the corporate being maybe a little more sensitive.
For 50 years (1934 to 1983) there wereonly 3 periods in which the corporate collections were less for 2years in a row and none of them were the back to back Reaganrecessions. After 1983, the base for personal taxation has changedsuch that it is not effected by any recession. However, thecorporations got relief twice. Considering that from 1934 to 1982there are only 2 recessions listed by
NBER as lasting more than a year (1973/75and 1981/82, 16 months each) 1 year of less revenue does not seembad. However, for the last 2 recessions, the revenue collectionshave been less each year for 3 consecutive years for both thepersonal and the corporate collections even though the latestrecession is listed as lasting 18 months.
Withinthis 3 year pattern, we also see that the declines are greater. Fromthe high to the low for 2000 to 2003, by 2003 personal collectionsare 79% of the high and corporations are 63% of their high. For thepresent recession personal became 78.4% of the high and corporationswas 62.9% of their high. Even in 1983, when Reagan wins thepersonal/corporation differential the declines were only 97% personaland 75.2% corporations. For another perspective, that 2 year declineof personal revenue collections for 1945/46 the personal declinedonly to 81.7% of the high. During this period the corporations onlydeclined for 1 year (1947) to 72.5% of the high. In 1947, corporaterevenue collections were 48% of the personal collections. In 2000,the peak corporations revenue was 20.6% and in 2008 it was 26.6% ofthe personal revenue collections.
Obviously we made more than marginalrate changes after 1980. We changed the way the base is calculatedsuch that corporations paid significantly less as a share of thetotal income taxes and was more tied to a change in the economy suchthat corporate taxes due were less during a recession where as thepeople had no reprieve. How’s that for fairness? Then came Bush II. The base changed even more… so such that now the decline inrevenue collected lasted longer than the recession and the declineswere greater.
We do not just need to raise the rates,we need to return to a broader base. That is, when all thedeductions are done, the adjusted gross income needs to be higher. On the other hand, what we are seeing here could be the results ofthe massive shift of income up the line combined with the decreasedrates. Considering this history, the cry to lower rates and get ridof loop holes just will not work. This is a cry for flattening theincome tax, which is what we have been doing since the 60’s which wasaccelerated since Reagan. It will create a tax base that is moreunstable and thus runs even greater deficits during times of economicdecline not to mention the overall decline in total revenue collectedduring good times. And, it totally ignores the issues of equality ofpower along with the concept of the commons. You know, that We thePeople premise.
But before you get to excited aboutthis suggesting or, that I am saying that the poor need to pay moretaxes and the rich are over taxed consider the tax table from 1936,its lowest income tax bracket is 4%. This is on an income up to$4000. Let’s bring that forward to 2010 using my favorite money converter. CPI states that $4000 is now $60,400. Today’s rate for $16,750 to $68,000 is 15% instead of 4%. Of course,I like the unskilled labor and nominal GDP/capita numbers of $145,000and $275,000 respectfully.
Alright, I’ll be fair. The lowest rate in1967 is 14% for up to $1000. That figures to 2010 of $6540 CPI,$6670 unskilled and $11200 nominal GDP/capita. Though, the $4000 in1936 is $9640 in 1967 which puts one in the 22% bracket ofthat year. Using the $12000 for the top of that 1967 bracket brings us to$78,300 CPI adjusted gross income for 2010. $78,300 puts one in the25% bracket for 2010. Obviously another issue we have here when itcomes to setting up marginal rates based on historical records is howmuch the base (adjusted gross income) is effected by how the CPI iscalculated. Any way you figure it, we have been pushing the marginalrate higher and deeper into the lower end of the income pool.
Ok, onto the fondly remembered tax yearof 1936. Next post.
Continuing objection – comparing anything economic to 1936 or 1967 or whatever is very dicey with the new globalized world.
Becker
I think I know what you are saying here, but it’s not easy.
first complaint: “defining rich”: you don’t go anywhere with that, but it’s just as well. we don’t need to “define rich.” we need to tax “according to the ability to pay” without whining over some magic line that people who are “not rich” feel entitled to “no more taxes.”
second complaint: all that throwing around numbers is almost impossible to follow.. there are denominator issues, and who knows what else is (was) going on to account for the changes is ratios of one thing to another… things for which the ratios have no natural significance.
third complaint: your point, which i think is valid, gets lost in undisciplined prose.
this is not me being mean to you. this is me pretending to be your editor. “Gee, Daniel, I think you got something here. Got to work on it some more, though.”
Colberly,
Define rich has been the come back when the discussion turns to the question of marginal rates. The cry is tied together with those who throw out “class warfare” during the same topic. So, this is a continuation of that issue.
This is not about denominators. This is simply about looking at the numbers of each year over decades to see what happened. Nothing more. The pattern of 1 year down in collections during more accurately 1 year after the end of a declared recession has changed. So has changed the share of tax collections from corps as compared to personal. The corp pays less.
I chose not to graph out what I thought could plainly be seen by simply clicking on the tax data link and reading down the frist 2 column.
Next up is the charts of the actual tax tables from ’36, 46′ 67.
STR, globalization is a designed change and so were the tax tables. I’m just simply looking at what was as it progressed to what is. Many are not happy with what is. So, I look at what was. Then maybe we can better decide how to make what is be more like what was. Not to mention, my first post here at AB was based on the premise that we had changed they way we make money going from labor to making money from money. Funny thing I’m now hearing people refer to our current situation as making money from money.
To anyother readers, yes you may want to take a moment and write down the numbers to see the relationships. Make sure you look at the data at the link.
I had kinda the opposite thought of STR reading this. In an era of globalization, corporate profits in the US (and hence corporate taxes) should be less variable than before, not more, except in the case of a worldwide recession a la 2007 – 2009.
Daniel
thanks. i think you are right, but i also think you could be a lot clearer. do not despair, you are hardly the first writer on economics who had to have a translator.
in any case it ought to be a lot easier to collect taxes from corporations, and since they tell us they will just pass the costs through to their customers, they have no reason to object, right?
I don’t know why profits would be less variable (?).
There are plenty of other differences in the economy as well.
The data crunching likely is perfectly accurate, the meaning may be clouded by comparing apples to bananas and deciding the shape is different.
Well, in skimming this (sorry) I got the impression that starting with Reagan we have been much nicer to corporations than to people, tax-wise.
Perhaps a point that Justice Sirica made during the infamous Citizens United arguments is important to note. Most of the corporations in the U. S. are for single individuals. Do they get tax breaks as corporations?
O brave new world that has such persons (sic!) in’t! (With apologies to Shakespeare).
not to mention Aldous Huxley
I always find that having a graph is better than simply talking bout numbers.
Earlier this year I looked at Federal Tax revenues by source, and put up a few graphs. The third one at theis post is especially telling.
http://jazzbumpa.blogspot.com/2011/02/federal-government-tax-reciepts.html
Cheers!
JzB
Hi JzB , thanks for the link to your charts. They do show the over all trends nicely which people should be aware of.
It’s not just the shift in the differential of the revenue sources that should be of concern, but the break with the trend of 1 and rarely 2 year declines in revenue following a recession. I don’t think this is do to simply tax law manipulation but is a result of both the tax law and the share of income to the top 1%. We were flurting with the 1% having 20% of the income in 2001 which has risen to around 24%. This change to 3 down year cycles maybe the result of such concentrated income with such a limited and low progressive tax table.
STR,
We are looking at one set of data over time. Specifically tax revenue collections of personal and corporate. This is not comparing apples to bananas simply because the stage scenary has changed over time. Nope, what I beleive is a better model using bananas and apples is we are observing either fruit ripen (you choose) from just after picking it to some would say being rotten. If it’s bananas, then it may not be hopeless in that they are over ripe and we need to find the reciepe for banana bread. In the case of apples, it’s a matter of turning them into cider. Of course either one can ripen beyond their next useful life stage and become nothing more than items for throwing at those we protest. OWS suggests some have considered the fruit is at this point. It’s trashed.
Which if this is the case, then I would use: comparing tomatoes to eggs. As in rotten tomatoes and rotten eggs. They smell real bad.
JzB … May I repost this one?