Shrinking the Tax Gap: Approaches and Revenue Potential

Between 2020 and 2029, the IRS will fail to collect nearly $7.5 trillion of taxes it is due. It is not possible to calculate with precision how much of this “tax gap” could be collected. This paper offers a naïve approach. The analysis suggests that with feasible changes in policy, the IRS could aspire to shrink the tax gap by around 15 percent in the next decade—generating over $1 trillion in additional revenue by performing more audits (especially of high-income earners), increasing information reporting requirements, and investing in information technology. These investments will increase efficiency and are likely to be very progressive.

NBER Working Paper No. 26475 with Natasha Sarin, Lawrence H. Summers
November 2019

Whither Central Banking?

In an environment of secular stagnation in the developed economies, central bankers’ ingenuity in loosening monetary policy is exactly what is not needed. What is needed are admissions of impotence, in order to spur efforts by governments to promote demand through fiscal policies and other means.

Aug 23, 2019 Lawrence H. Summers, Anna Stansbury in Project Syndicate

The G20 on Shaky Ground – A Project Syndicate podcast

Elmira Bayrasli: Last week, Japan hosted the G20 summit, which convenes leaders of the world’s largest economies. While the G20 has been around since 1999, the first summit with world leaders took place just over a decade ago, in 2008, in the middle of the global financial crisis. Fair and Free Trade has been a guiding principle of the G20 since its outset. For the past several years, however, protectionism has re-emerged in many G20 economies, and is currently fueling a highly-damaging trade war between the world’s two largest economies: China and the United States. What role does the G20 have to play in the age of Donald Trump, Populism, and powerful digital technologies? Larry Summers, one of the G20’s architects, joins us to discuss. He served as US Secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, and as the Director of the National Economic Council under President Barack Obama. Read more

Tariffs raise concerns about future of US – China relations

Is there any other way besides tariffs — and potentially a trade war — to get China to play fair on trade? David Greene interviews Summers for his insight on NPR’s Morning Edition.

Saving the heartland: Place-based policies in 21st Century America

America’s regional disparities are large and regional convergence has declined if not disappeared. This wildly uneven economic landscape calls for a new look at spatially targeted policies. There are three plausible justifications for place-based policies–agglomeration economies, spatial equity and larger marginal returns to targeting social distress in high distress areas. The second justification is stronger than the first and the third justification is stronger than the second. The enormous social costs of non-employment suggests that fighting long-term joblessness is more important than fighting income inequality. Stronger tools, such as spatially targeted employment credits, may be needed in West Virginia than in San Francisco. Read the full paper here.

Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring 2018

Benjamin Austin, Edward Glaeser, and Lawrence Summers 

 

Sugar high is right diagnosis, tax cuts are the wrong prescription

The approaching end of President Trump’s first year in office, another strong employment report and a still-strong stock market make it appropriate to revisit my year-old judgment that the economy is enjoying a “sugar high.” Unfortunately, the best available evidence suggests that signs of current market and economic strength are largely unrelated to government policy, that the drivers of this year’s economic strength are likely transient and that the structural foundation of the U.S. economy is weakening. Sugar high remains the right diagnosis, and tax cuts are very much the wrong prescription.

Read more

Conversations with Tyler Cowen: Macroeconomics, Mentorship and Avoiding Complacency

Listen to Conversation with Tyler Cowen: Macroeconomics, Mentorship and Avoiding Complacency where we discuss a wide range of ideas including: innovation in higher education, Herman Melville, the Fed, Mexico, Russia, China, philanthropy and my table tennis adventure in the summer Jewish Olympics.

Your Coming Tax Increase

The New York Times
David Leonhardt
September 7th, 2017

A 19th-century economist named Adolph Wagner made a prediction that came to be known as Wagner’s Law: As societies became wealthier, their taxes would rise. They would rise because people would want more of the services that government tended to provide better than the private market, like national security, education, medical care and a guaranteed retirement.

Wagner’s Law has proven truer than not, but there are still many people who would like to pretend otherwise. Specifically, they wish we could summon a country with a strong military, good schools, health care and comfortable retirements — but falling taxes. It’s a nice fantasy.

Yesterday, Larry Summers, the economist and former Treasury secretary, gave a lunchtime presentation in Washington laying out the statistics that debunk the falling-taxes fantasy. He effectively updated Wagner’s Law for the United States in 2017.

“With the same values and preferences, and the same basic attitude about government activity versus private activity,” Summers said, “you should expect government to be larger in the future than it has been in the past.”

There are four main reasons, he argued:

• One, society is aging, which calls for greater spending on retirees. The ratio of elderly Americans — those expected to be in the last 15 years of their lives — to all other Americans will rise about 50 percent from 2010 to 2030.

• Two, inequality has soared, with living standards stagnating for the middle class and poor. Taxes push back against inequality.

• Three, labor-intensive services, like education and medical care, have become more expensive, and they also tend to be the areas where the government spends money.

• Four, American military spending has not kept up recently with the spending by our main rivals, including China, Iran and Russia. This trend shouldn’t continue forever, Summers said.

I find his case compelling. Even if you disagree in one particular area — say, you favor more private-sector education, or a weaker military — the combined costs are so large that the argument holds up. That’s part of the reason that taxes on the wealthy should rise, and big tax breaks — like those for home ownership and employer health insurance — should be reduced.

I don’t mean to suggest that taxes should always be rising and that government will eventually take over the economy. Capitalism clearly has worked much better than any alternative. And there are times — for example, after a war or when a population is becoming younger — that taxes should fall. It’s also important to cut government where it’s wasteful.

But believing in capitalism is different from believing that government cannot grow. Modern capitalism depends on a well-functioning government. Capitalism has already grown a lot over the last century, across this country and much of the world, and the world is a vastly richer place than a century ago.

“If we want to maintain traditional American values,” as Summers said, “government will need to be significantly larger.”

For more details on the numbers, I recommend a new paper by Paul van de Water of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which hosted Summers’s presentation. I first learned of Wagner’s Law from the writer Matt Miller.

In North Dakota yesterday, President Trump tried his best to summon a magical world in which life keeps getting better and taxes keep falling. His pitch “is divorced from reality,” Katrina vanden Heuvel says in The Washington Post. Richard Rubin of The Wall Street Journal called the speech a big step away from tax reform and toward a simple tax cut.

Remember: If Trump succeeds in cutting taxes for the wealthy, taxes for everyone else will eventually need to rise even more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/opinion/trump-tax-increase.html?_r=0

 

 

Why the Federal Reserve’s job will get harder

With the term of Janet Yellen as Federal Reserve chair ending next February, the president will have to nominate and the Senate will have to confirm a new head of the central bank in coming months. There is much discussion of the merits and implications of possible candidates for the job. For Donald Trump and the Senate it will be important to begin by considering the challenges that will face Ms Yellen’s ­successor.

I would have preferred a slower pace in raising rates at a number of junctures. I also think that in its statements the Fed has consistently over-assessed future inflation, growth and monetary tightening at some cost to its credibility. Overall though, it has done very well in recent years. We have not enjoyed so favourable a combination of unemployment and inflation in decades. Markets and finance have been remarkably stable, perhaps too much so, for years now. And by the standards of other institutions in Washington and central banks the Fed is highly respected. This is all a tribute to its leadership but also to fortunate ­circumstances.

I suspect the Fed’s job will be much more difficult over the next few years. Economics, finance and politics will all throw up new challenges that will probably demand creative and unorthodox responses.

If history is any guide, it is more likely than not that the economy will go into recession during the next Fed chair’s four-year term. Recovery is now in its ninth year with relatively slow underlying growth for demographic and technological reasons, very low unemployment and high asset prices. Even without these factors, experience teaches that recessions are almost never forecast or even rapidly recognised by the Fed or the professional consensus forecast, but there is at least a 20 per cent or so chance that if the economy is not in recession, it will be so within a year. So the likelihood that the next Fed chair will have to address a recession is probably about two-thirds.

Historically, the Fed has responded to recession by cutting rates substantially, with the benchmark funds rate falling by 400 basis points or more in the context of downturns over the past two generations. However, it is very unlikely that there will be room for this kind of rate cutting when the next recession comes given market forecasts. So the central bank will have to improvise with a combination of rhetoric and direct market intervention to influence longer-term rates. That will be tricky given that 10-year Treasuries currently yield below 2.20 per cent and this would decline precipitously with a recession and any move to cut Fed funds.

As a result, the economy is probably quite brittle within the current inflation targeting framework. This is under-appreciated. Responsible new leadership at the Fed will have to give serious thought to shifting the monetary policy framework, perhaps by putting more emphasis on nominal gross domestic product growth, focusing on the price level rather than inflation (so periods of low inflation are followed by periods of high inflation) or raising the inflation target. None of these steps would be easy in current circumstances, but once recession has come effectiveness will diminish.

There has not been a major bout of financial instability or a foreign financial crisis in the past four years. Such good fortune is unlikely to continue. There are real risks – from China to signs of overvaluation in parts of US equity markets, from build-ups in leverage after a long period of low rates and tranquil markets to a highly disordered geopolitical situation in which US credibility has fallen off sharply.

In reporting on the last round of bank stress tests the Fed has asserted that even if the stock market loses half its value, the unemployment rate reaches 10 per cent and house and real estate prices fall only as much as they did in the last crisis, the big institutions will all be fine without capital increases. Market evidence suggests otherwise, based on past patterns their equity values would collapse.

The challenge with respect to financial crisis risk will be maintaining the crucial components of Dodd-Frank regulation, such as the requirement to hold higher capital, as well as recognising incipient problems much more quickly than in 2008, when even after Bear Stearns shaky institutions were permitted to make huge dividend payments. If crisis comes the Fed must find ways in a difficult legal and political environment to avoid the kind of unravelling that followed Lehman’s failure.

Perhaps the most profound challenges ahead will be political. There must be more risk now of presidential interference with the Fed than at any time since Richard Nixon. In dealing with international matters, the Fed is partnered with an understaffed and amateurish Treasury and a president who is dissipating US credibility. Most fundamentally, the temper of the times has turned against technical expertise in favour of populist passion and the Fed is the quintessential enduring apolitical institution.

We all have a great stake in the president making and the Senate confirming the right choice.

Read more

Farewell to Kenneth Arrow, a Gentle Genius of Economics

My mother’s brother, the Nobel economist Kenneth Arrow, died this week at the age of 95. He was a dear man and a hero to me and many others. No one else I have ever known so embodied the scholarly life well lived. Read more

It’s Time for a Reset

In statistical terms, 2016 was a year of continuity for the world economy, as performance was quite similar to that of recent years. The big changes were political, as a widespread anti-globalization movement signaled a breakdown in a consensus among most political leaders that had held since the end of the World War II. It used to be generally accepted that reducing trade barriers increases prosperity and promotes peace, benefiting investing and recipient countries and promoting international cooperation in solving problems around the world. Almost all of this was called into question in 2016. Read the full New York Times Turning Point article.

The Future of Aid for Health

In a keynote address on November 30, 2016 at the World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH) in Doha, Qatar, Summers talked about the Future of Aid for Health. Summers said, “I have always believed that economics is a moral science because it is so centrally involved with choices that directly affect human well being.  And cancer at age 30 reinforced for me that no choices centrally affect human well being as those involving health. Economics is defined as ‘the study of the allocation of scarce resources among competing ends.’  Few if any resources allocation choices are as consequencial as those involved with health care. I have become convinced  that even as we fight for increases in global health aid, there is a need for a major reorientation of the global aid for health effort away from financing service delivery in individual countries and towards global priorities.”

Trump’s economic plans could cripple government for a generation

Listen to The Axe Files, a podcast with David Axelrod, about growing up in a family of renowned economists, what did and did not cause the financial crisis in 2008, and the economic implications of Trump’s policy proposals.

Men without work

In a Financial Times book review, Summers examines Nicholas Eberstadt’s persuasive and important monograph, Men Without Work. Eberstadt’s book highlights that men in the US are doing considerably worse than men in the rest of the industrial world, where even countries with notoriously sclerotic labour markets and bloated welfare systems such as France, and even Greece, enjoy higher rates of prime age male labour force participation. Summers writes that Eberstadt understates the significance of what he studies by not highlighting the fact that, if current trends continue, a quarter of men between 25 and 54 will be out of work by mid-century.

Have big banks gotten safer?

Lawrence H. Summers and Natasha Sarin and presented a paper titled, Have big banks gotten safer? at a BPEA conference at the Brookings Institution on September 22, 2016 stating, “Since the financial crisis, there have been major changes in the regulation of large financial institutions directed at reducing their risk. Measures of regulatory capital have substantially increased; leverage ratios have been reduced; and stress testing has sought to further assure safety by raising levels of capital and reducing risk taking. Standard financial theories would predict that such changes would lead to substantial declines in financial market measures of risk.”

A Lesson on Infrastructure from the Anderson Bridge Fiasco

Sometimes small stories capture large truths. So it is with the fiasco that is the repair of the Anderson Memorial Bridge, connecting Boston and Harvard Square. Rehabilitation of the 232-foot bridge began in 2012, at an estimated cost of about $20 million; four years later, there is no end date in sight and the cost of the project is mushrooming, to $26.5 million at last count. Read more

The Fusion of Civilizations

In the May/June 2016 issue of Foreign Affairs, Summers and Mahbubani explore the case for global optimism.  The essay states, “Historians looking back on this age from the vantage point of later generations, however, are likely to be puzzled by the widespread contemporary feelings of gloom and doom. By most objective measures of human well-being, the past three decades have been the best in history. More and more people in more and more places are enjoying better lives than ever before.” Read more

Trump, China, Inversions and Austerity

Summers spoke at the International Monetary Fund on Wednesday, warning against austerity measures amid a tepid economy. Yahoo Finance sat down with him to get little more color on the economy and to find out what keeps him up most at night. Read more

Reflections the Recession, Higher-ed & the Economy

Harvard Magazine profiled a conversation with Summers on a variety of issues, including the recession, higher-ed and the economic environment.  Summers said, “Harvard will have to choose between its commitment to preeminence and its commitment to doing things in traditional ways.” Read more

Economic Unease and America’s Slow Growth

On April 7, 2016, Summers talked with John Hockenberry of PRI’s the Takeaway for a series on the the state of the global economy.  The discussion included the sluggish economy, less energy driving investments, Sanders, Trump and the Broadway musical, Hamilton. Read more