Month: November 2023

The Interest Payment Load

Leave a comment

November 26, 2023

by Stephen Stofka

This week’s letter is about the federal interest paid on the country’s debt. Why does the U.S. pay more on its debt than other advanced economies? In the second quarter of this year, federal government paid 20% of its revenue in interest, almost three times the average 7.34% percentage of similar countries. High interest payments crowd out spending in other areas. They spark even more debates about the debt itself which is now 120% of GDP. This added interest expense exacerbates animosities in a country that is already fractured by divided perspectives and priorities.

In the second quarter of 2022, before the Fed began to raise rates, the federal government paid 13.6% of its revenues in interest (I/R) to service the debt. That was 6% less than the percentage in 2023 and represented $280 billion, more than twice the $128 billion spent in 2022 for the SNAP (food stamp) program. The higher interest payments, however, were about the same as the 50-year average I/R of 19% (median = 17.8%). In 2021, the 27 countries of the Euro area reported to the World Bank that they paid 3.11% of their revenues in interest (see note below).

Over the past fifty years, the federal government has collected about 20% of GDP in taxes. In the chart below, I have added both averages to the chart of federal interest payments as a percentage of revenue. The average revenue is almost identical to the median so this average is representative of a variety of economic conditions and policy responses over the long term.

As an approximation, the interest expense is 20% of revenue and revenue is 20% of GDP so interest expense has averaged 4% of GDP. However, neither the public nor policymakers are accustomed to average. For two decades, the Fed has kept interest rates low to accommodate economic recovery after the dot-com bust, 9-11, the financial crisis, the slow recovery from that crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic.

The pandemic simulated several critical conditions of a large scale war and the inflation that followed was typical of those inflationary periods following wars. I will cover that in next week’s letter. To curb an accelerating inflation, the Fed began to systematically raise rates from zero in the spring of 2022. In six months it raised rates by 2%, a rapid change that was six times faster than the period from late 2015 to early 2019 when the Fed gradually raised rates by the same 2%. By early 2023, the Fed raised rates an additional 2% within six months.

As a consequence of the higher rates, the government has paid higher interest rates on its debt. (The reasons for that are complex). We have become so accustomed to “easy money” and lower interest rates that the sudden increase in interest payments has caught the attention of both the public and policymakers. Will this further fracture political sentiment ahead of the 2024 elections?

At the beginning of this letter I mentioned divided perspectives and priorities. What are they?  Some give priority to the social programs that promote individual citizen welfare as essential to a general welfare. Their opposition may deride them as socialists but they are more properly called institutionalists because they champion a lot of control and planning by a central government to achieve that welfare. Those who oppose institutionalist policies also care about individual welfare but think that well-intentioned bureaucrats in government can cause more damage to the general welfare than they repair. These might properly be called marketists who believe that the price system distributes resources in an efficient and sustainable manner.  They respond that a centrally planned economy creates moral hazard, rewarding individual needs instead of personal hard work, planning and integrity.

Institutionalists label marketists as capitalists or plutocrats and accuse them of being mean-spirited and driven only by profit and self-interest. Vulnerable communities do not have the resources to help themselves, the institutionalists argue. Marginalized communities need to draw from a central funding pool. They must overcome decades of legal policies that disenfranchised them to benefit other groups. Marketists respond that profits reward people for taking risks. The willingness to accept risk is a key component of technological innovation that benefits all of society.

Interest payments have nudged aside defense spending to become the third largest percentage of federal receipts. The top category is health insurance like Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and payments under the ACA which take up 30% of federal receipts (see note below). Social Security comes in second. Cuts to either of these programs have been a “hot rail” for conservative politicians. Everyone in Congress talks about cuts to defense spending but not in their district because it supports the local economy. The issue of rising interest payments and the federal debt is a safe one for politicians of both parties to run on in the upcoming election. According to Open Secrets, $14.4 billion was spent on the 2020 election, double the spending of the 2016 election. As candidates complain about excess spending, voters might consider why the major parties will spend about $100 for each of the votes in this coming election (notes below). I would call that excess spending.

//////////////

Photo by Joshua Woroniecki on Unsplash

Keywords: health care, ACA, Social Security, Medicare, defense spending, interest payments

Health Care Note: The health care programs are 24% of the federal budget including deficits, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Election Spending: $14,400 million / 160 million voters ≈ $86 per voter in the 2020 election.

World Bank data: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.XPN.INTP.RV.ZS?end=2021&start=1972&view=chart. You can download an Excel file at https://api.worldbank.org/v2/en/indicator/GC.XPN.INTP.RV.ZS?downloadformat=excel to view interest payments for countries and regions dating back several decades.

The Free Market Myth

Leave a comment

November 19, 2023

by Stephen Stofka

In this week’s letter I will continue to look at subsidies. Subsidies are created by legislation or agency interpretation that dispenses benefits to people, businesses and institutions. There are two forms of subsidy: a monetary credit of some sort, and an ownership credit, i.e., the granting of a property right. The monetary form includes tax credits and tax expenditures that can be calculated or estimated in dollar amounts. Last week, I noted that some of the biggest tax expenditures were the non-taxability of employer paid health insurance premiums and pension plans. The ownership form includes water rights and land use rights. Unlike the right to vote, these are rights related to the ownership of a physical property or the benefits of a property.

An ownership subsidy can be indirect. A century ago, the western states divvied up water rights to the Colorado River according to the doctrine of prior appropriation which mandates that if one party does not use their share, it is available to the other parties. Water is a scarce resource in this arid region of the country so this principle makes sense. In the wetter eastern states, water rights are based on a common law riparian system where ownership of the right is not coupled with use. Federal water rights are based on this common law system so there is an inevitable conflict whenever the western states cannot resolve their allocation treaties. Today, Colorado does not use all of its allotment while California uses more than its allotment. California does not send the state of Colorado a check every year for the water they use and is a form of indirect subsidy.

Monetary subsidies include agricultural subsidies that I discussed last week. Others include tax credits for buyers of electric cars and homeowners who install solar panels. The oil and gas industry as well as renewable energy producers receive many tax credits. Spending on public transportation includes subways, buses and light rail as well as the roads and highways that motorists use to get to work. Subsidies that support social welfare include public and private schools as well as the school vouchers doled out to parents of schoolchildren. Support programs include subsidies for housing, food and health expenses that involve many tangled cross subsidies. A large retail company can offer discounted merchandise by paying their employees lower wages and the reduced income makes those employees eligible for social assistance programs.

In this jungle of subsidies, it is difficult to compute a net subsidy benefit or deficit. Two-thirds of a homeowner’s property tax might support public schools in their district but they have no kids. Is that fair? They shop at a discount retailer and save hundreds of dollars annually because the retailer can pay its employees lower wages. When this homeowner buys gas, they provide a small subsidy to fossil fuel producers and the farmers who grow corn for ethanol. They buy milk at a lower price because of a government milk support program that is paid for by all taxpayers, even those who do not drink milk. If they eat hamburger, they benefit from grazing subsidies on federal land. The homeowner does not use bus or light rail but they live in a district that includes a sales tax for those systems. Why can’t we just have a free market with no government interference?

The concept of the free market is a useful abstraction but a dangerous idea when politicians and economists advocate for that reality. A “free market” and a “fair market” are oxymorons. A market cannot be free of government influence because all three branches of government are adjudicators, instrumental in awarding and enforcing property claims and the rules of exchange. Whatever the form of money used in a market, governments regulate it. To be fair, a rule giver would treat everyone equally but the world is composed of discrete goods and services that are not infinitesimally divisible. We live in a “clumpy” world and there is no universal standard of fairness to divide the clumps. Some people advocate for equality of opportunity. Others argue for equality of outcome. These abstractions help us analyze the world but we cannot build a society with either and retain a dynamic flow of both opportunity and outcome.

Governments award monopolies for the public good. Companies secure monopolies and market restrictions from government to reduce competition. The government is part of the market as a buyer of goods and services. Some authority must regulate the exchange of ownership that accompanies the exchange of goods and services. The protection of person and property in a market requires either a police presence or an impromptu coalition of people who enforce rules with force if necessary. Some authority must certify weights and measures or a “free market” becomes a “market of force,” a melee of arguments and fights.

We live our lives in a storm of electromagnetic waves, unaware of most of them but dependent on many of them. We rarely make a transaction without the involvement of some subsidy yet many of us live with the illusion of independence. Some pay more in income tax or property tax. Some help coach the school soccer team. As nodes in a social web we cannot calculate the cost of our contribution to the strength of that web. At any point in time some of us contribute more, some less. Over a lifetime our contribution varies from less to more and less again. Our society flourishes when we spend less energy keeping score.

///////////

[20231119Market.png]

Photo by Jezael Melgoza on Unsplash

Keywords: monopoly, public goods, property rights, water rights

Subsidies and Deficits

Leave a comment

November 12, 2023

by Stephen Stofka

Note: at the end is a correction to last week’s letter.

This week’s letter continues to investigate the subsidies, both direct and indirect, that secure re-election for politicians but make deficits inevitable. This week there was weak market demand for $24 billion of newly issued 30-year Treasury bonds, forcing primary dealers like J.P. Morgan to absorb 24% of the debt, more than twice their usual participation rate. Treasury bonds carry little if any credit risk because the U.S. can always pay its debts by issuing more debt. However, long term debt exposes traders to market risk that they must offset by demanding a higher rate of interest for purchasing the debt. Higher interest payments narrow the budget space for subsidies and benefit programs that politicians dole out to gain constituent support. The long term outlook is that our arguments over fairness will cause greater fractures in our society.

As social animals we begin at an early age to form a sense of fairness that can test parents’ patience. An older sibling gets to stay up later at night and that is unfair. The level of chocolate milk is lower in one glass than in a sibling’s glass and that is unfair. We sympathize with animals who suffer the loss of their parents, their herd, or their environment. While we may have an instinctive ability to recognize unfairness, we must be taught how to construct rules that are based on fairness. These involve conflicts over sharing toys, a playroom, or a TV game console. Through experience and temperament, we build a framework of fairness that is unique. As we grow older we glue these values together with justifications and associate with others who share similar values. We form interest groups that compete for federal, state and local benefits, reasoning that our welfare is the general welfare.

We have been taught since childhood that public laws and public monies should be spent on the public good. We may not recognize property arrangements that advantage one group by disadvantaging another group, or at the expense of the general public. The exchange of goods and services take place in a web of property rights whose density obscures the dependencies between parties. Those rights are instituted and enforced by a network of government institutions – a legislature or council, an executive agency, the courts and a police force. Those rights favor a majority according to some characteristic, or an effective interest group that directs public money and property to their cause.

At the heart of most contentious Supreme Court decisions is the reality that one group of people in this country are going to indirectly subsidize others. One group of people will have to give up something – call it rights, power or a sense of safety – for other people to enjoy rights, power or greater security. More than 200 years ago, Adam Smith wrote that a well governed society with a respect for private property could produce a greater prosperity for everyone in the society. His was a long term vision. In the short term empowerment is a zero sum game and that is why so many issues in our society are contentious.

When a subsidy benefits a relatively small group of people, they fight hard to protect that subsidy. When the costs for the subsidy are spread over a large group, there is little opposition to the subsidy. An interest group becomes part of an Iron Triangle to protect the subsidy. This triangle consists of the interest group, a legislative subcommittee and an executive agency. An example is the ethanol subsidy. Department of Energy data shows that, in 2022, 35% of the corn crop in America was devoted to the manufacture of ethanol. Over its life cycle, ethanol added to gasoline reduces greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 40%, according to several studies. Farmers receive a maximum subsidy of $20 per dry ton of corn or other feedstock that they sell to biofuel plants. Biofuel producers receive a tax credit of 46 cents per gallon of ethanol. The consumer’s cost for the 10% addition of ethanol is small. The benefits to the ethanol blenders and farmers is large. A senator or representative in a farm state like Iowa is expected to protect that subsidy.

As I noted last week, just six tax expenditures reduced tax revenue to Treasury by almost $700 billion last year, more than half the total deficit. The largest expenditures were the exclusion of employer paid pension contributions and health insurance premiums. How many of us will agree to give up their tax exclusion in the interest of making tax rules uniform? Homeowners can enjoy 30-year mortgages at low rates because the federal government effectively underwrites those mortgages. In Britain, homeowners do not enjoy the protection of decades-long mortgages. According to a recent article in Forbes, 800,000 fixed rate mortgages in Britain were due in 2023, and 1.6 million will be due in 2024. Homeowners will have to remortgage at higher rates.

The slim Republican majority in the House cannot agree within their own caucus to bring a bill before the House for a vote. Lawmakers prefer to complain about spending because that is a popular stance with their constituents. A lawmaker’s abiding concern is getting re-elected by their constituents. Few will complain about raising tax revenues if the revenues are to come from a broad group of taxpayers. Democratic politicians argue for higher taxes on a small group of the rich for fear of antagonizing the majority of their voters. Reducing revenue by subsidies and tax exclusions is as much a policy choice as spending appropriations. Without a continuing resolution in the next week, the federal government will begin to shut down non-essential facilities. The House has not been able to produce a budget on time in thirty years because lawmakers have limited choices. Taxpayers, favored industries and social welfare interest groups will oppose a lawmaker who advocates the elimination of a tax exclusion, a subsidy reduction for producers or households.

We are a nation competing for space at the public trough. For at least a generation, our federal government will be unwilling to collect enough revenue to meet spending commitments. Buyers of U.S. debt will realize the inevitability of deficits rising faster than economic growth and reduce their holdings of long term bonds.

//////////////////

[Photo by Anna Samoylova on Unsplash

Keywords: ethanol, subsidy, tax expenditures, deficit

Correction: In last week’s letter I wrote “ twice last year’s deficit of $118 billion.” The link was to the average monthly deficit. That should have read “twice last year’s average monthly deficit of $118 billion,” not the deficit for the entire year. The total deficit for last year was $1.375 trillion.

Subsidies and Fairness

Leave a comment

November 5, 2023

by Stephen Stofka

This week’s letter is about subsidies and fairness. The culture of Western civilization emphasizes individual effort and achievement while downplaying our reliance on others. In the past two weeks, I have questioned an economic assumption that workers are paid the value of their marginal product. This week I will extend that analysis toward other commodities in our lives. Our society is a network of cross-subsidies; we often don’t pay the marginal cost of what we buy or pay our fair share of taxes into the public pot because of tax subsidies we receive. We judge the fairness of a subsidy by the recipient of the subsidy and we tend to favor ourselves as deserving of the subsidies we receive.

This month oil refiners are selling unleaded gasoline near a breakeven cost to wholesalers at $2.20 per gallon, reported the Wall St. Journal. A week ago, the spot price of WTI crude was about $83.00, making the per gallon cost almost $2 per gallon (see oil notes at end). The public uses less gasoline during the winter months so the slack demand reduces pricing power at the wholesale and retail level. A 20 cent profit on a gallon of gasoline does not allow oil refiners to meet their “hurdle rate,” the expected return on investment. The users of diesel and jet fuel, business customer whose demand is less seasonal, make up the difference in profits. The heaviest users of these products are trucking companies, power plants and the airlines. The users of diesel and jet fuel are effectively subsidizing the lower gasoline prices for consumers.

Is it fair that women should spent double the amount of time caring for children that men do, according to the American Time Use Survey. Is it fair that tax revenues from some states are used to subsidize the incomes of people in other states? Vermont, W. Virginia and Alaska rely on federal grants for more than a third of their budget, according to a recent report from the Office of Management and Budget and the Census Bureau. Less than a sixth of Colorado’s budget relies on federal aid.

Many subsidies are indirectly awarded through the tax system. Three of the biggest items are employer contributions to pension plans, employer-paid health insurance premiums and imputed rental income, or owner’s equivalent rent. Employers write off their contribution to an employee’s pension plan but the employee does not report the income. The U.S. Treasury estimated the tax subsidy of the various types of pension plans and IRAs was $228 billion in 2022, a sixth of last year’s deficit of $1,378 billion. Employers write off health insurance premiums they pay for their employees but that expense is not included in personal income. In 2022, the tax loss was estimated at $221 billion. Homeowners make a capital investment in their homes but do not report the annual rental income – termed an imputed rental income – they receive from that investment. In 2022, the Treasury estimated that tax subsidy at $131 billion. We may complain about the deficit but no one lobbies to reduce these subsidies.

Long-term capital gains from investments are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. That tax exclusion favors the top half of taxpayers and had an estimated cost of $108 billion in foregone tax revenue in 2022. Tax law allows beneficiaries to inherit stocks and other investments at current valuations so that heirs are not responsible for the capital gains accrued during the lifetime of the deceased. That method of valuation is called a step-up and cost the government an estimated $44 billion in 2022. Certain service providers like lawyers and accountants enjoy a 20% deduction on their business income. This pass-through income exclusion had an estimated cost of $56 billion in 2022, about the same amount as the deduction for charitable contributions. In contrast, federal agricultural subsidies were only $15 billion, about ¼% of total federal spending. Like foreign aid, people often overestimate how much the U.S. government subsidizes farmers.

Libertarians devoted to methodological individualism or an 18th century ideal of the yeoman farmer reject the notion of an income tax subsidy. The income belongs to the individual, not the government, and the government cannot rightfully extract a tax without the consent of the individual. A person can avoid or reduce the burden of a sales or excise tax by not buying something or buying a lower cost item. An income tax is levied on someone’s effort. Religious conservatives might reject the legitimacy of an income tax for that very reason. They argue that it was God who commanded that we work after ejecting Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. A tax on our effort then is an affront to God’s own commandment.

Some discredit the legitimacy of any tax if they don’t like how the tax money is spent. In 1964, the singer Joan Baez refused to pay 60% of her income tax because the government was using the money for the war in Vietnam. In 1967, writers and editors protested the “Vietnam war tax,” a 10% surcharge on telephone service each month. In response to Bush’s War on Terror, the Code Pink campaign and other tax protesters refused to pay a portion of their taxes. Some were jailed and others had their bank accounts and wages seized by the IRS.

We can’t always stipulate why we think something is fair or unfair but we know it when we see it. Each of us builds a personal framework of justifications for our beliefs and opinions, then finds others with similar frameworks. Our opinions of fairness don’t matter unless we can join with others who have the same criteria we do. Finding others who share our fairness preference validates our sense of justice and raises our personal preference closer to that of a universal law. The more people who share our outrage at an injustice confirms our convictions. However, our assessments of fairness are not universal or eternal. They can change with our circumstances – our age or income, our access to resources. This idea – that justice is a communal agreement about what is fair – disturbs those who prefer to believe that there are universal truths. There may be universal facts like gravity but there is only one universal truth – on average, people give greater consideration to whatever is closer to them.

////////////////////

Photo by Andrew Moca on Unsplash

Keywords: oil, subsidy, sales tax, income tax, tax protest, tax expenditures

Oil notes: A barrel of oil is 42 gallons is different than a drum, which typically has a 55 gallon capacity. The price of a barrel of oil divided by 42 is the spot price of a gallon of oil. WTI crude closed slightly lower at the end of this week at $80.51.