Monday, July 14, 2014
By David Cay Johnston
The
inability to maintain 2000-level prosperity has cost us all
July 9,
2014--Why are so many Americans feeling squeezed economically even as
the economy expands at an accelerating pace?
Last month
set a new record for sustained job creation: 52 straight months of
added jobs, with a robust 288,000 more jobs in June and more than 9
million jobs created since February 2010.
The
unemployment rate is down to 6.1 percent, and the number of long-term
unemployed has been slashed, from about 5 million people to about 3
million.
The stock market is soaring, reaching
a record high on July 3.
The Dow Jones industrial average
passed 17,000—amazing compared with its Great Recession low of
6,627 in March 2009, just weeks after President Barack Obama took
office.
So what’s missing?
Why did Obama acknowledge in a
television interview last week that the “underlying trend for
middle class families, that they don’t feel, no matter how hard
they work, they’re able to get ahead in the same way that their
parents were able to get ahead.”
The answer lies in a very large sum
of missing money—about $6.6 trillion by my count—over the first
12 years of this century.
That’s as much money as everyone in
the United States made from New Year’s Day 2012 through late
September of that year.
It may also explain Obama’s low
approval ratings.
How could such a gigantic sum go
missing and not get noticed?
I calculated that enormous figure by
comparing the average income Americans reported on their 2000 tax
returns with what they reported each year for 2001 through 2012,
adjusting for inflation and the growing population.
Add up the income for 12 years and it
turns out to be $6.6 trillion less than if we had maintained the
prosperity of 2000 for a growing population.
Why use 2000 as a benchmark?
Well, first off, it marks the end of
one era and the start of another.
More important, that very good year
economically was when George W. Bush, running for president, said
American prosperity would get even better if he was elected and his
tax cuts—key aspects of which he kept secret until after the
election—would ensure American prosperity.
The results: The prosperity of the
prior decade was lost.
Job growth fell far behind population
growth.
The median wage (half make more, half less) has been mired
since 1998 at a bit more than $500 per week.
How much better off would you be
right now if you had another $38,000?
In 10 of the 12 years when the Bush
tax cuts were in effect, the average income shown on tax returns was
lower than in 2000.
In the two upside years, average
income rose modestly, up $504 for 2006 and $1,744 for 2007.
Total those 12 years and the net
shortfall per taxpayer comes to $48,010.
Consider what $48,000 of additional
income over those 12 years would have meant to you.
It is the equivalent of $11 appearing
in your wallet every morning from the start of 2001 through the end
of 2012.
How much better off you would be if
your income had been $48,000 higher over those 12 years?
To be sure, you would have owed taxes
on that money.
If you were not in the top 1 percent,
federal income tax would have taken
on average about 10 percent of that, leaving
you with $43,200.
The top 1 percent would have paid
23.5 percent in tax.
In addition, if the extra income was
all in wages, then Social Security and Medicare taxes also would have
taken a bite, leaving you with about $39,500.
So how much better off would you be
right now if you had another $39,050?
And remember that is just the extra
after-tax income you would have enjoyed had the prosperity of 2000
been maintained, while then-Gov. Bush promised greater and more
widespread prosperity.
Add up the shortfall of every
taxpayer, taking into account both inflation and the growing
population, and the cumulative shortfall comes to $6.6 trillion
before taxes.
More than half the shortfall occurred
during the first four years of the Obama administration, which
inherited the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
You will not find these missing
income figures in any official government report.
I calculated them from IRS data. But
measures like this explain why so many Americans feel they are not
getting ahead, as Obama observed last week.
As I reported in an earlier column, the average real hourly wage is now 6 percent smaller than in 1972 and 1973.
Of the total national increase in
income in 2012 over 2009, an astonishing one-third went to just 16,000 households, and 95 cents of each
dollar went to the top 1 percent; the bottom 90 percent lost
ground.
Had that $6.6 trillion shortfall been
realized as income, it would have been enough to pay
off all the student loans in United States
($1.26 trillion), all the automobile loans ($892 billion) and all the
credit card debt ($827 billion).
After paying all that debt off and
taking taxes into account, Americans still would have more than
$2.4 trillion left in their pockets and bank accounts.
For the average taxpayer, that nearly
$48,000 of additional gross income, after taxes and paying off all
those debts, would leave more than $17,800 for anything from
retirement savings to spending sprees.
In a December 1999 speech
to Iowa voters, the future President Bush
vowed, if elected, to put into law a “tax cut designed to sustain
our nation’s prosperity—and reflect our nation’s decency.
The entrepreneurs of America create
jobs, take risks and make their profits with honor.
My tax cut plan will expand their
ranks by encouraging American enterprise.
Low tax rates are a powerful economic
tool to promote a higher standard of living for all Americans.”
Americans went along, congressional
Democrats joined Republicans to enact the tax cuts, and now we know
the results.
Instead of swimming in jobs, savings
and cash, the United States suffers chronic unemployment, with 3.1
million Americans out of work for more than six months and another
7.5 million forced to work part time because they cannot find
full-time work.
There is more than enough empirical
evidence to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts failed to produce the
promised result.
The country needs to stop the
continuing economic damage by adopting different policies.
<< Home