For the second time in nine months, the USA has approached a fiscal cliff. This is where the federal government is forced to make government expenditure cuts and/or impose tax rises. There are two types of cliff face. The first is a legal limit on the size of the federal government debt and hence deficit. The second is failure to agree on a budget.
On January 1st this year, a fiscal cliff was narrowly averted by a last-minute agreement to raise the size of the permitted debt. On the 1st October (the beginning of the financial year), however, the US economy ‘fell over the cliff’. This time is was a failure by Congress to reach agreement over the federal budget. The sticking point was an unwillingness of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives to agree to a budget without the government making concessions on its healthcare reform. The government was unwilling to do that and so no budget was passed.
With no budget, much of government has to shut down! In practice, this means that all non-essential workers will cease to be paid. 
That includes workers in housing, parts of healthcare, the civil law part of the justice system, immigration, regulatory agencies, the passport service, parks and museums. Even workers in essential areas, such as civilian workers in the military, police and social services, are likely to see their pay delayed until the problem is resolved. The articles below look at some of the implications of this partial shut-down.
It is hoped that, within a few days, agreement on a budget will be reached. But that will not be the end of the story because a second fiscal cliff looms. And that is of the first type. There is currently a legal limit to Federal Government debt of $16.699 trillion. Because that limit was reached earlier this year, from May 18 the government has been able to use various ‘extraordinary measures‘ to carry on borrowing. These measures will run out, however, around 17 October. From then, if a new higher debt ceiling has not been agreed by Congress, the government will be unable to pay some of its bills. For example, on 1 November it will get a bill of $67billion for social security, medicare and veterans benefits. As the second Independent article below explains:
In a government shutdown, the federal government is not allowed to make any new spending commitments. By contrast, if we hit the debt-ceiling then the Treasury Department won’t be able to borrow money to pay for spending that Congress has already approved. In that case, either Congress will have to lift the debt ceiling or the federal government will have to default on some of its bills, possibly including payments to bondholders or Social Security payouts. That could trigger big disruptions in the financial markets — or a long-term rise in borrowing costs.
Not surprisingly, financial markets are nervous. Although the direct effect of lost output will be relatively small, provided agreements on the budget and the debt are reached fairly soon, the impact on confidence in the US system of government could be more damaging. Not only could this curb recovery in the USA, it could have a significant effect on global recovery, given the size and importance of the US economy to the rest of the world.
Webcasts
What does the shutdown mean for normal Americans? BBC News, Keith Doyle (1/10/13)
How the government shut down is being reported in the US BBC News (1/10/13)
Shutdown could slam frail U.S. economy Reuters, Bobbi Rebell (1/10/13)
Shutdown Will Cost U.S. Economy $300 Million a Day, IHS Says Bloomberg, Jeanna Smialek & Ian Katz (1/10/13)
How will the US government shutdown affect the global economy? The Guardian, Larry Elliott and Guy Grandjean (1/10/13)
How would a government shutdown affect the rebounding economy? Aljazeera, Duarte Geraldino (30/9/13)
How will the US government shutdown affect the economy? BBC News, Richard Lister (1/10/13)
Shutdown continues as Obama and Republicans fail to agree BBC News, Rajini Vaidynathan (2/10/13)
Former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich on shutdown BBC News, Robert Reich (2/10/13)
Government shutdown: What’s the cost? CBS News, Rebecca Kaplan (1/10/13)
US shutdown will have ‘minimal impact’ on global economy One News (New Zealand), Dan Zirker (2/10/13)
What is the US debt ceiling? BBC News, Hugh Pym (14/10/13)
Articles
US wakes up to government shutdown as Congress fails to strike budget deal Independent, Nikhil Kumar (1/10/13)
US begins government shutdown as budget deadline passes BBC News (1/10/13)
David Cameron warns on world growth as US government shuts down The Telegraph, Damien McElroy (1/10/13)
Shutdown showdown: A glossary Aljazeera, Ben Piven (30/9/13)
Everything you need to know about how the partial shutdown will work in US Independent, Brad Plumer (1/10/13)
What’s the economic impact of a US government shutdown? BBC News, Kim Gittleson (1/10/13) (follow links at top of screen for further articles)
US government shutdown isn’t the worst of it BBC News, Linda Yueh (30/9/13)
Onset of the storm BBC News, Robert Peston (1/10/13)
The gathering storm? BBC News, Robert Peston (30/9/13)
Government shutdown: what’s really going on – and who’s to blame? The Guardian, Dan Roberts (30/9/13)
Government shutdown threat is getting very old, very fast CNN, Julian Zelizer (30/9/13)
US fiscal cliff fears rattle the markets The Australian, Adam Creighton (1/10/13)
U.S. Government Shutdown Sinks Dollar Forbes, Dean Popplewell (1/10/13)
US Government Shutdown: European Markets Not Fretting Over Temporary Closure International Business Times, Ishaq Siddiqi (1/10/13)
The States to plunge into abyss of debt, off fiscal cliff Pravda, Irina Sabinina (1/10/13)
Shutting down the United States government nothing new The Vancouver Sun, Andrew Coyne (1/10/13)
Christine Lagarde urges US that debt crisis threatens world economy The Guardian, Larry Elliott (3/10/13)
U.S. failure to lift debt ceiling could damage world – IMF Reuters (3/10/13)
Data
US government shutdown: in numbers The Guardian (see also)
US Budget: Historical Tables White House Office of Management and Budget (includes estimates to 2018 as well as historical data)
Questions
- If a debt ceiling is reached, what does this imply for the budget deficit?
- How serious are the two current fiscal cliffs?
- How would a continuation of the partial government shut-down impact on the US private sector?
- What multiplier effects on the rest of the world are likely to arise from a cut in US government expenditure or a rise in taxes? What determines the size of these multiplier effects?
- Explain the likely effect of the current crisis on the exchange rate of the dollar into other currencies.
- Why might the looming problem of reaching the debt ceiling drive up long-term interest rates in the USA and beyond?
High levels of government debt and the adverse effect this has on the economy has been a key influencing factor in the fiscal consolidation efforts across the world. A key factor providing evidence in support of the connection between high government debts and low economic growth was a paper by two Harvard economists. However, the data used in their research has been called into question.
As we saw in a previous post, It could be you, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff presented a paper back in January 2010. Their research suggested that when a country’s debt increases above 90% of GDP, economic growth will slow considerably. (Click here for a PowerPoint of the above chart.) As you might expect, given the timing of this research, policymakers were intrigued. For those governments in favour of cuts in government spending and increases in taxation to bring the government debt down, this research was dynamite. It seemed to provide the evidence needed to confirm that if left to grow, government debt will have a significantly adverse effect on growth. Here was evidence in favour of austerity.
But, did a simple error create misleading information? A student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst was trying to replicate the results found by Reinhart and Rogoff, but was unable to do so. Thomas Herndon contacted the Harvard professors and they sent him the spreadsheets they had used in their calculations. Looking through it, an error in calculating the average GDP was spotted. However, the student and his supervisors also engaged in further research and came across other inconsistencies. This led to a draft working paper being published in April. The paper did find the same correlation between high debt levels and low growth, but the outstanding results found by Reinhart and Rogoff disappeared. Responding to the error, the Harvard professors said:
We are grateful to Herndon et al. for the careful attention to our original Growth in a Time of Debt AER paper and for pointing out an important correction to Figure 2 of that paper. It is sobering that such an error slipped into one of our papers despite our best efforts to be consistently careful. We will redouble our efforts to avoid such errors in the future. We do not, however, believe this regrettable slip affects in any significant way the central message of the paper or that in our subsequent work.
So, how might this correction and the implications affect government policy? Are we likely to see a reversal in austerity measures? Only time will tell.
Articles
Seminal economic paper on debt draws criticism Wall Street Journal, Brenda Cronin (16/4/13)
Reinhart, Rogoff … and Herndon: The student who caught out the Profs BBC News, Ruth Alexander (20/4/13)
Reinhart and Rogoff publish formal correction Financial Times, Robin Harding (8/5/13)
The 90% question The Economist (20/4/13)
Reinhart and Rogoff correct austerity research error BBC News (9/5/13)
Harvard’s Reinhart and Rogoff publish formal collection CNBC, Robin Harding (9/5/13)
Rogoff and Reinhart should show some remorse and reconsider austerity The Guardian, Heidi Moore (26/4/13)
The buck does not stop with Reinhart and Rogoff Financial Times, Lawrence Summers (5/5/13)
Meet Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, the Harvard professors who thought they had austerity licked – and Thomas Herndon, the student who proved them wrong Independent, Tim Walker (22/4/13)
Papers
Growth in a time of debt American Economic Review (May 2010)
Does high public debt consistently stifle economic growth? A critique of Reinhart and Rogoff Political Economy Research Institute, Herndon, Ash and Pollin (April 2013)
Questions
- How do high government debts arise?
- In order to reduce government debts, cuts in government spending and increases in taxation are advocated. How does theory suggest that these changes in fiscal policy will affect economic growth?
- What are the arguments (a) in favour of and (b) against austerity measures?
- How might the correction made by Reinhart and Rogoff affect policymakers and their austerity plans?
- What are the key messages from Reinhart and Rogoff’s paper?
At the start of 2013, the USA faces a ‘fiscal cliff’. By this is meant that, without agreement by Congress on new fiscal measures, the USA will be forced into tax rises and expenditure cuts of around $650 billion (over 4% of GDP). This would probably push the economy straight back into recession. This in turn would have a serious dampening effect on the global economy.
But why would fiscal policy be automatically tightened? The first reason is that tax cuts given under the George W. Bush administration during 2001–3 (largely to the rich) are due to expire. Also a temporary cut in payroll taxes and an increase in tax credits given by President Obama are also due to end. These tax increases would form the bulk of the tightening. The average US household would pay an extra $3500 in taxes, reducing after-tax income by around 6%.
The second reason is that various government expenditure programmes are scheduled to be reduced. These reductions in expenditure amount to around $110 billion.
It is likely, however, that Congress will agree to delay or limit the tax increases or expenditure cuts; politicians on both sides want to avoid sending the economy back into recession. But what the agreement will be is not at all clear at this stage.
Republicans are taking a tougher line than Democrats on cutting the budget deficit; they are calling for considerably less restraint in implementing the government expenditure cuts. On the other hand, they are likely to be less willing to raise taxes.
But unless something is done, the consequences for 2013 could be dire. The fiscal cliff edge rapidly approaches.
Articles
Nearly 90 percent of Americans would see taxes rise if ‘fiscal cliff’ hits Washington Post, Lori Montgomery (1/10/12)
Fiscal cliff a serious threat, but unlikely CNN Money, Chris Isidore (1/10/12)
“Fiscal cliff” fears may impede faster job growth Chicago Tribute, Lucia Mutikani (1/10/12)
Avert Fiscal Cliff With Entitlement Cuts, Tax Increases Bloomberg (2/10/12)
‘Fiscal cliff’ to hit 90% of US families Financial Times, James Politi (1/10/12)
Investors don’t want the US to fall off the fiscal cliff The Telegraph, Tom Stevenson (22/9/12)
Gauging the fiscal cliff BBC News, Stephanie Flanders (27/9/12)
The US fiscal cliff – and the fiscal chasm BBC News, Stephanie Flanders (2/10/12)
US fiscal cliff threat fails to galvanise policymakers Guardian Economics blog, Mohamed el-Erian (1/10/12)
Multiplying Europe’s fiscal suicide (technical) The Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (1/10/12)
Q&A: The US fiscal cliff BBC News (7/11/12)
US election: Four more years… of what? BBC News, Stephanie Flanders (7/11/12)
Background
United States fiscal cliff Wikipedia
Questions
- Explain what is meant by the ‘fiscal cliff’ and what is its magnitude.
- What would be the multiplier implications of the USA ‘falling off the cliff’ both for the USA and for the rest of the world?
- What factors determine the size of the government expenditure and tax multipliers? What would be the problems of (a) underestimating and (b) overestimating the size of these multipliers?
- How can a fiscal stimulus be reconciled with a policy of reducing the size of the budget deficit as a proportion of GDP over the longer term?
- In what ways can the actions of Democrats and Republicans be seen as game playing? What are the possible payoffs and risks to both sides?
- Is relying on export growth to bring the world economy out of recession a zero sum game?
- Explain which is likely to be more effective in stimulating short- and medium-term economic growth in the USA: fiscal policy or monetary policy.
Trade union action has been a feature of the British labour market over the past few years, as discussed in this first and second blog. With the government’s austerity measures still in place and ongoing issues over pension provision, there are many explosive issues that will undoubtedly be discussed at this year’s TUC Conference in Brighton.
We have already heard from numerous unions that strike action over the coming year is ‘inevitable’. With rising prices, static or even falling wages, reduced pension provision and increased contributions, the cost of living has become increasingly unaffordable for many members of the trade unions. Dave Prentis, the General Secretary of Unison said:
‘I think people have been pushed into a corner. They are moving into poverty … The threat is that if we can’t move forward in negotiations to find a way through it then we will move to industrial action. There is no doubt whatsoever that we can create disputes throughout next year.’
Although few would argue against the notion that the government’s finances are in a dire state and spending cuts together with tax rises are needed, the controversy seems to lie in exactly when these cuts should take place and how severe they should be. For many, cutting government spending and raising taxes whilst the economy is still in recession is asking for trouble. For others, it’s the right thing to do and everyone should play a part in helping to return government finances to a semblance of balance. The Labour government has traditionally supported trade unions, but even their leadership backed the government’s plan for pay restraint for public sector workers. This, together with the continuing debates over public sector pensions has clearly angered many public sector workers, thus creating this ‘inevitable’ industrial action over the coming year.
Unison and GMB have said that they will be working together in order to try to better pay and conditions for its members, by co-ordinating public-sector strikes around Spring next year. Co-ordinated strikes across a variety of sectors could create havoc for the economy. Not just disruption for the everyday person, but losses for businesses and the economy. A general strike has not taken place since 1926, but it is thought that TUC delegates will be voting on whether or not one should be planned. So, when faced with these inevitable strikes, should the government back down and cut back on austerity or stand up to them and suffer the disruption of a strike, whilst continuing on with bringing its budget back on track? The following articles look at the TUC Congress and the proposed strike action.
Public sector unions plan Spring strikes Guardian, Dan Milmo (9/9/12)
Trade union warns of further strikes Financial Times, Brian Groom (7/9/12)
Trade union officials gather for TUC Congress in Brighton BBC News, John Moylan (9/9/12)
Unite union leader warns of wave of public sector strikes Guardian, Dan Milmo (7/9/12)
Unison and GMB unions planning co-ordinated strikes over pay BBC News, Justin Parkinson (9/9/12)
TUC Conference 2012: a mixture of new and old Channel 4 News (9/9/12)
Government must stand up to these TUC bully tactics Express, Leo McKinstry (9/9/12)
Questions
- What is the purpose of a trade union?
- What is the difference between individual and collective bargaining? Why is collective bargaining likely to be more successful in achieving certain aims?
- If there is co-ordinated strike action, what are the likely costs for (a) the workers on strike (b) the non-striking workers (c) businesses and (d) the economy?
- What are the main issues being debated between unions and the government?
- Explain the economic reasoning behind Dave Prentis’ statement that people are being moved into poverty.
- Do you agree with strike action? Do you think it has any effect?
- When do you think is the right time to implement austerity measures? Has the government got it right? As always, make sure you explain your answer!!
Let’s face it – no-one likes paying tax! After all, to see your monthly pay decline by £1000 through taxation and national insurance has got to hurt. Yet, taxation and national insurance contributions are essential sources of government revenue to finance benefits and public and merit goods.
However, with so much attention given to the UK’s ‘culture of dependency’, many people are increasingly angry with having to pay so much in taxation to see it being spent by the government on individuals who in some cases choose not to work and at the same time seeing other rich people paying so little in taxation. The increase in the top rate of tax received a lot of coverage. Although it did make the tax system more progressive, there were many concerns that it would lead to lower growth, a lack of innovation and enterprise and increased tax evasion and avoidance, as the super-rich were being hit with phenomenal tax bills. The post on the 50p income tax available here is worth looking at again to think about the effect that taxes have on incentives.
The issue of tax avoidance is by no means new, but with a large budget deficit in the UK, tax avoidance by the super-rich has become something that everyone has an opinion on. The average household has seen its income squeezed more and more, as the government continues its efforts to cut the deficit. The fact that the super rich are avoiding sometimes millions in taxation, while the average household struggles to pay even the basic rate of tax, creates a rather contentious issue. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, has said that the basic rate of tax could be cut by 2p in the pound if tax avoidance came to an end. He commented to the BBC’s Sunday Politics Programme that:
‘We have to make sure that everybody, especially the rich and famous, are paying their fair share of tax…These sorts of schemes that save wealthy people potentially tens of millions of pounds in tax, they are paid for by everybody else… If we could narrow the tax gap in this country by a quarter we could reduce income tax for every basic rate payer by 2p in the pound.’
This would clearly have some very positive effects on some of the poorest people living in the UK.
There is a variety of tax avoidance schemes available and the one receiving the most attention at present is the Jersey-based K2 scheme, which Jimmy Carr and others are thought to be using. The Public Accounts Committee will be reporting on the problem of using private companies to pay salaries, as a means of avoiding income tax and national insurance contributions.
If tax avoidance could be stopped, or at least reduced, then not only could basic rate tax payers benefit, but it might go some way to cutting the budget deficit, giving the government more flexibility in stimulating the economy. According to HMRC, tax avoidance and evasion cost the economy some £42 billion – enough to pay off one-third of Britain’s budget deficit.
The following articles consider the problem of tax avoidance and then try answering the questions on the issue of taxation.
Five-point plan to curb tax cheating by big firms and super-rich Guardian (27/6/12)
Stop tax dodgers or there will be ‘riots on the streets’, warns top lawyer designing new anti-avoidance rules Mail Online, Julian Gavaghan (26/6/12)
Danny Alexander describes aggressive tax avoidance as ‘morally repugnant’ Guardian, Patrick Wintour (24/6/12)
Basic tax ‘could be cut by 2p’ if avoidance ended BBC News(24/6/12)
Danny Alexander says tax avoidance ‘adds 2p in every £1 to basic tax rate’ Independent, Oliver Wright (24/6/12)
Make tax returns public, urges peer The Press Association (28/6/12)
Tax officials reveal scale of probe Financial Times, Jim Pickard (27/6/12)
Questions
- What are the key principles of a good tax system?
- Explain how taxation affects the incentive to work?
- What is the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance?
- Using indifference analysis, illustrate the effect of a cut in the basic rate of income tax. How does it affect the decision to work more or less? You should consider the income and substitution effects in your answer and which rate of tax (if any) an individual is paying.
- Why is tax avoidance of such concern at the moment? Think about the current state of the economy.
- What are taxes and national insurance contributions used to pay for?
- To what extent do you think tax avoidance is a natural consequence of any tax system?
For the second time in nine months, the USA has approached a fiscal cliff. This is where the federal government is forced to make government expenditure cuts and/or impose tax rises. There are two types of cliff face. The first is a legal limit on the size of the federal government debt and hence deficit. The second is failure to agree on a budget.
That includes workers in housing, parts of healthcare, the civil law part of the justice system, immigration, regulatory agencies, the passport service, parks and museums. Even workers in essential areas, such as civilian workers in the military, police and social services, are likely to see their pay delayed until the problem is resolved. The articles below look at some of the implications of this partial shut-down.