注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

SZUMA 升华知识 创造价值

Share your knowledge with the world.

 
 
 

日志

 
 
 
 

曼昆博客的两篇小文  

2009-03-02 08:15:36|  分类: 营销学会维基百科 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

Thursday, February 26, 2009

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/

Tax Rates of the Rich and Poor

I posted this information a while back, but it is all the more relevant today in light of President Obama's recently proposed tax changes.

From a recent CBO report, here are effective tax rates (total taxes divided by total income) for 2005, the most recent year available:

Lowest quintile: 4.3 percent

Second quintile: 9.9 percent

Middle quintile: 14.2 percent

Fourth quintile: 17.4 percent

Percentiles 81-90: 20.3 percent

Percentiles 91-95: 22.4 percent

Percentiles 96-99: 25.7 percent

Percentiles 99.0-99.5: 29.7 percent

Percentiles 99.5-99.9: 31.2 percent

Percentiles 99.9-99.99: 32.1 percent

Top 0.01 Percentile: 31.5 percent

N.B.: These figures include all federal taxes, not just income taxes.

That is, even before the Obama tax hikes, the rich face average tax rates more than twice those of the middle class, and about seven times those of the lowest quintile. These data do not tell you the optimal degree of tax progressivity, but they do describe the starting point from which policy is working.

permanent link 曼昆博客的两篇小文 - szuma - SZUMA—升华知识,创造价值曼昆博客的两篇小文 - szuma - SZUMA—升华知识,创造价值

my intermediate macroeconomics textbook. The following draft of a new case study is relevant for current policy debates:

Case Study

Accounting for TARP

In 2008, many U.S. banks found themselves in substantial trouble, and the federal government put substantial taxpayer funds into rescuing the financial system. A case study in Chapter 11 discusses the reasons for this financial crisis, the ramifications, and the policy responses. But here we note one particular small side effect: It made measuring the federal government’s budget deficit more difficult.

As part of the financial rescue package, called the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), the U.S. Treasury bought preferred stock in many banks. In essence, the plan worked as follows. The Treasury borrowed money, gave the money to the banks, and in exchange became a part owner of those banks. In the future, the banks were expected to pay the Treasury a preferred dividend (similar to interest) and would eventually repay the initial investment as well. When that repayment occurred, the Treasury would relinquish its ownership share in the banks.

The question then arose: How should the government’s accounting statements reflect these transactions?

The U.S. Treasury adopted the conventional view that these TARP expenditures should be counted like any other spending. When the banks repaid the Treasury, these funds would be counted as revenue. Accounted for in this way, TARP caused a surge in the budget deficit when the funds were distributed to the banks, but it would lead to a smaller deficit, and perhaps a surplus, in the future when repayments were received from the banks.

The Congressional Budget Office, however, took a different view. Because most of the TARP expenditures were expected to be repaid, the CBO thought it was wrong to record this spending like any other. Instead, CBO believed “the equity investments for TARP should be recorded on a net present value basis adjusted for market risk, rather than on a cash basis as recorded thus far by the Treasury.” That is, for the purposes of this program, CBO adopted a form of capital budgeting. But it took into account that these investments might not pay off. In their estimation, every dollar spent on the TARP program cost the taxpayer only about 25 cents. If the actual cost turned out to be larger than the estimated 25 cents, the CBO would record those additional costs later, and if the actual cost turned out to be less than projected, the CBO would later book a gain for the government.

The bottom line: Because of these differences in accounting, while the TARP funds were being distributed, the budget deficit as estimated by CBO was much smaller than the budget deficit as recorded by the U.S. Treasury.

Update: Here is how President Obama's new budget treats the issue:

Estimates of the value of the financial assets acquired by the Federal Government to date suggest that the Government will get back approximately two-thirds of the money spent purchasing such assets—so the net cost to the Government is roughly 33 cents on the dollar. These transactions are typically reflected in the budget at this net cost, since that budgetary approach best reflects their impact on the Government’s underlying fiscal position. The figure recorded in this Budget as a placeholder similarly reflects this net cost concept. The $250 billion reserve would support $750 billion in asset purchases.

------

Addendum: If you teach macroeconomics and would like to consider the 7th edition for your course, please contact Scott Guile at sguile@whfreeman.com.

  评论这张
 
阅读(113)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017