October 21, 2003

SO MUCH DONE, SO MUCH YET TO DO...:

FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, AS A SHARE OF GDP, DROP TO LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1942, ACCORDING TO FINAL BUDGET DATA: Erosion of income tax base drives other key budget developments (Isaac Shapiro, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

The final budget figures for fiscal year 2003 were released on October 20 by the Treasury Department.  They indicate that income tax receipts (including receipts from both the individual and corporate income tax) equaled just 8.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.  This is the lowest level of income tax collections, as a share of the economy, since 1942.  The decline in income taxes as a share of the economy to a level last seen six decades ago helps explain several other key findings about the final budget tally.

* In 2003, total federal revenues as a share of the Gross Domestic Product dropped to 16.6 percent.  The last time that total revenues as a share of the economy fell below 17 percent was in 1959, near the end of the Eisenhower Administration.  (The Gross Domestic Product is the basic measure of the size of the U.S. economy.)

* Not only are income taxes at historically low levels relative to the size of the economy, they are also at historically low levels as a share of all federal revenues.  In 2003, the share of federal revenues consisting of income taxes fell to its lowest level since 1941.  Conversely, the share of federal revenues consisting of payroll taxes reached the highest level in the history of the tax system.

* The sizable federal deficit in 2003 of 3.5 percent of GDP is more directly a reflection of diminished revenues than of increased spending.  While revenues as a share of GDP fell to their lowest level in 44 years, spending as a share of GDP was below its level in any year from 1980 to 1996, and far below its levels during the downturns of the early 1980s and early 1990s.

* The federal deficit would have been much larger in 2003 except for the fact that receipts going into the Social Security system exceeded Social Security expenditures.  The “on-budget” deficit in 2003 — the government’s measure that excludes consideration of Social Security receipts and expenditures — was 5.0 percent of the economy.


When we get to the tax and spending levels of the 1920's we'll have succeeded.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 21, 2003 10:02 PM
Comments

3.5% of GDP is a "sizable" debt?

I wish my debt were at 3.5% of our gross. And I bet a lot of other people wish that, too.

Posted by: Sandy P. at October 21, 2003 10:49 PM

First Good news I have had in a while.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 22, 2003 12:12 AM

SS didn't exist in the 20s, nor did a sizable standing military, so I doubt that we'll again see those kind of budget numbers, as a share of GDP.

The "on-budget" distinction seems pointless, as SS has been pay-as-you-go for at least thirty years. Does anyone think that SS receipts will be put into a "lock-box" anytime soon ?

Actually, I could be wrong as soon as '06, should Bush be able to follow through on his promise to privatize SS.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 22, 2003 3:47 AM

Michael:

That's the point--we need to privatize welfare and downsize the military to just a few hundred nuclear cruise missiles.

Posted by: oj at October 22, 2003 7:49 AM

Sandy;

That 3.5% of GDP is a deficit, not debt. That is in fact sizeable.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at October 22, 2003 8:27 AM

Debt though is only about half of GDP which is not particularly high historically and way lower than the debt of anyone who's buying a home and/or went to school for many years.

Posted by: oj at October 22, 2003 8:35 AM

Thanks, OJ!

How about in-the-hole is in-the-hole and I'd like mine to be at 3.5%?

Posted by: Sandy P. at October 22, 2003 10:48 AM

oj:

I disagree with both of those proposals; And total gov't debt, state and Fed, is about 70% of GDP, 7.6 trillion dollars. Still manageable, but...

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 22, 2003 7:50 PM

The comparison to buying an education does not fit, since the gummint is not a profit-making investment -- especially not if you cut off its only sources of revenue.

A comparison to buying a house is a little closer, though still not exact.

The '20s were a disaster for everybody. Why we would want to repeat them is a mystery to me.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 23, 2003 3:53 PM
« CONSERVATIVE TRIUMPH MUST BE NEAR ... | Main | PROTECTING THEIR OWN: »