If you want to really cut taxes you must cut taxes and not pass on paying for your cuts to your kids. It seems pretty obvious those that advocating cutting current taxes the last few decades were only interested in living beyond their means today and foisting the responsibility to pay to their grandchildren. That is despicable behavior.

The fiscal cliff is an opportunity to return to a budget that has the generation doing the spending paying the taxes (last seen in the Clinton administration). The fiscal cliff outcome is going to be far from perfect. But the result will be a much more honorable outcome than foisting ever increasing taxes on future generations to pay for our current spending.

Obviously, if you reducing how much you are adding to your credit card balance each month and start paying your bills that means you don’t get to live off your future earnings today. So you will suffer today compared to continuing to tax the future to pay for your spending.

I hope the compromise results in spending cuts and an elimination of the Bush generation shifting taxes (cutting taxes on the the current wealthy without spending cuts – so just taxing the future to pay for tax cuts today). It is unlikely the fiscal cliff results in us actually paying for our spending (the best possible result is not an elimination of adding to the taxes future generations must pay but just a reduction in the level of tax increases we are imposing on the future every year).

Lots of little things should be done to save a few billion (maybe it could add up to $50 billion a year if we are very lucky). But the serious spending cuts have to come from reductions in military spending, reducing waste in the health care system and making social security more actuarially sensible (social security is not part of the fiscal cliff discussions though). Reducing tax breaks also has to happen, unless absolutely huge spending cuts can be found which is not at all likely.

The concept of the minimum tax rate (AMT – Alternative Minimum Tax) is fine (even good actually), but the implementation now is very poor. Every year they have to pass an exemption to avoid catching millions of actually middle class (say earning $50,000 a year) from being caught by poorly written law. I think they should rework this to be a policy that actually works instead of one they have to make exceptions for every year (they pass the law the current way to avoid paying for the policy they want – it is only waste in order for them to lie about the income level they are voting for).

I wouldn’t mind if the fiscal cliff results take affect without action. Then they can step in and make a few adjustments. Add some spending; reducing taxes on those making less than $100,000; possibly add some adjustments to reduce taxes on investment income (capital gains and dividends). A change to cap the mortgage deduction would make a great deal of sense. Helping people buy a modest house is fine. Taxpayers helping people buy mansions is silly. If we go this route things will be harder at first (and financial markets will get excited and talking heads will bather on and on) but we will get a better long term result. But we will still only be reducing the level of extra taxes we are adding onto future generations. I expect they will compromise before significant fiscal cliff affects take place (which is long after the fake “deadline”).

The debate is mainly about which special interests win (is military spending going to be reduced at all from the enormously high levels, are we going to stop wasting money on security theater, is social security policy going to acknowledge drastically longer life expectancy, are we going to continue the coddling of trust fund babies and hedge fund managers the current politicians have to voting for, how large of excessive health care costs will be tolerated…?) and how large the additional taxes we will pass along to the future will be.

No one is talking about paying for some of of the huge spending we did in the last few decades that we didn’t pay for. No one is even talking about paying for our own spending. Hopefully the fiscal cliff will result in a reduction of the amount of the taxes we are adding to the future every single year. Sadly we are likely to increase taxes on our grandchildren at a much higher rate than if we did nothing (the compromise is largely about who gets to benefit today at the expense of our grandchildren not actually paying for the spending we are going to do and have done the last few decades).

We also have failed to reform the health care system for decades. The costs in the US are double that of other rich countries with no better results. This results in hundreds of billions of dollars in costs to the government annually (health care for employees – including military, government retires, and medicare and medicare). These costs have to be reduced by getting the USA system so it is closer to the rest of the world. Even just getting to mediocre results would save hundreds of billions a year but seems unlikely given how extremely poorly we have done. Mainly this is due to those benefiting from the current massively overpriced system paying congresspeople to avoid any fixes that reduce their personal benefits from the current broken system.

The USA government is likely to foist a large cost on those holding USA government debt in order to reduce the amount of tax increases on future generations. This will take the form of inflation. This means holding USA government debt is risky and not very sensible in my opinion (if you do so use inflation protected bonds). Essentially investors today are betting they can time their investment to avoid the inflation that is nearly inevitable. Given the extremely low payments currently this is a very bad investment idea in my opinion.

The extent of the irresponsible spending and taxing-the-future has been so large that massive levels of inflation in the USA are possible in the coming decades. It is a significant risk to the economy created by those seeking to lower taxes the last few decades by increasing the tax on our grandchildren.

Related: The Long-Term USA Federal Budget Outlook – Economic Consequences Flow from Failing to Follow Real Capitalist Model and Living Beyond Our Means – Anti-Market Policies from Our Talking Head and Political Class – The USA Economy Needs to Reduce Personal and Government Debt – NY State Raises Pension Age to Save $48 Billion

Economic data is always a bit tricky to understand. It makes some sense that excluding social security would reduce the USA debt percentage a bit. But these debt as a percentage of GDP are lower than other sources show. There are obviously many tricks that can be used to hide debt and my guess is the main thing going on with this data is OECD intentionally trying to make things look as good as possible.

Still looking at historical trends in data is useful. And I believe looking at data from various sources is wise. There has been a dramatic increase from 2008-2010. The USA is up from 41% of GDP to 61%. Spain is up from 34% to 52% (but given all the concern with Spain this doesn’t seem to indicate the real debt problems they have.

Japan and France don’t have 2010 data, so I used a rough estimate of my own based on 2009 data. Greece has been over 100% since 1998 and now stands at 148%, 2nd worst (to Japan) for any OECD country (Europe, North America, Japan and Korea), Italy is 3rd. Ireland is at 61% (up from 28% in 2008). The UK is at 86%, up from 61%.

Related: Government Debt as Percentage of GDP 1990-2009: USA, Japan, Germany, China… (based on IMF data) – Government Debt as Percentage of GDP 1990-2008 – Government Debt Compared to GDP 1990-2007 – Top 15 Manufacturing Countries in 2009

The chart shows gross government debt as percentage GDP from 1990-2009. By Curious Cat Investing and Economics Blog, Creative Commons Attribution. Data source: IMF

___________________________

There are plenty of reasons to question this data but I think it gives a decent overall picture of where things stand. It may seem like government debt should be an easy figure to know but even just agreeing what would be the most reasonable figure for one country is very difficult, comparing between countries gets even more difficult and the political pressures to reduces how bad the data looks encourages countries to try and make the figures look as good as they can.

The poster child for irresponsible spending is Japan which has gross government debt of 218% of GDP (Japan’s 2009 figure is an IMF estimate). Greece is at 115%. Gross debt is not the only important figure. Government debt held within the country is much less damaging than debt held by those outside the country. Japan holds a large portion of its own debt. If foreigners own your debt then debt payments you make each year are paid outside your country and it is in essence a tax of a portion of your economic production that must be paid. If the debt is internal it mean taxpayers have to support bond holders each year (but at least when those bondholders spend the money it stays within your economy).

The USA debt stood at 64% in 1990, 71% in 1995, 55% in 2000, 61% in 2005, 71% in 2008 and 84% in 2009. Most rich countries saw significant increases in 2009 and will again in 2010. The IMF sees the USA going to 93% in 2010 and 103% in 2012. They see Germany at 75% in 2010 and 77% in 2012. They see the Greece increasing to 144% in 2012 and Japan to 239%.

Hong Kong has maintained gross government debt under 2% every year. Taiwan was 35% in 2005 and 40% in 2009, IMF estimates they will be at 37% in 2012. Singapore was 93% in 2005, 106% in 2009 with an estimate for 93% in 2012. Brazil had a 69% debt level in 2005, 69% in 2009 and the IMF has a 2012 estimate of 66%. Mexico had a 40% level in 2005, 45% in 2009 and is estimated to stay at 45% in 2012. Thailand, Turkey, Venezuela are under 50%; Malaysia and Argentina are under 60%. India was at 79% in 2005, 74% in 2009 and is estimated to be at 71% in 2012.

Related: Government Debt as Percentage of GDP 1990-2008 – USA, Japan, UK… – USA State Governments Have $1,000,000,000,000 in Unfunded Retirement Obligations – The USA Economy Needs to Reduce Personal and Government Debt – Oil Consumption by Country in 2007

Gross debt consists of all liabilities that require payment or payments of interest and/or principal by the debtor to the creditor at a date or dates in the future. This includes debt liabilities in the form of SDRs, currency and deposits, debt securities, loans, insurance, pensions and standardized guarantee schemes, and other accounts payable. Thus, all liabilities in the GFSM 2001 system are debt, except for equity and investment fund shares and financial derivatives and employee stock options. Debt can be valued at current market, nominal, or face values (GFSM 2001, paragraph 7.110).

That is either amazingly bad economic forecasting or a lie. My guess is he knew this wasn’t true. Which would make it a lie. If he really was that out of touch with economic reality, we have to question why we ever thought he had insight into the economy.

Greenspan Says Congress Should Let Tax Cuts Expire

Related: Estate Tax Repeal (2006) – Charge My Government to My Kids (2007) – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household

Accepting that, I don’t agree with those that vilify his performance. He was Fed chairman from 1987-2006. He made some very bad decisions that cost people dearly. But it isn’t very surprising someone in such power for so long would make some very bad and costly decisions. My guess is he caved to pressure from political allies that reminded him how the current President Bush’s father blamed Greenspan’s decisions for his losing the Presidency. And so Greenspan was trying to do what he could to do what the then President Bush wanted. Not a very honorable explanation but people often do not make the most honorable choices.

In 2003 he publicly disagreed with the wisdom of additional cuts:

Politicians, eager to give favors, at the expense of the future, went ahead and passed more tax cuts – weakening the country for their (and their political allies) short term benefit.

Related: Estate Tax Repeal (2006) – Charge My Government to My Kids (2007) – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household

Greenspan’s thoughts on the economy, from his July 16th 2010 interview:

The very ill advised tax shifting from those earning money in 2001 – 2011 to those earning money later should not be extended. Even calling them cuts is not true. You cut taxes by cutting spending. If you run a deficit all you do by “cutting taxes” is shift the tax from today to your kids. We shouldn’t do that.

Related: Greenspan Defends His Support of Tax Cuts (2005) – America Cannot Afford Tax Cuts (2001) – Greenspan has screwed up, and now he doesn’t know what to do

I agree that the damage done by those (which is nearly all of them) countries living beyond their means is significant. The USA and many countries in Europe and Asia (South Korea and China are two exceptions) have raised taxes on the future (by default – spending more than you have necessarily increases taxes later) to consume today. The strong emerging markets are another exception, many having learned their lessons and stopped spending money they didn’t have in the 1990′s.

However the richest countries have been spending money they don’t have for decades and the increase in government debt as a portion of GDP is an increasingly serious problem. It would be nice if the government of the rich countries could behave responsibly but it does not look like many of them have citizens who will elect honest and competent leaders. As long as they elect leaders that insist on raising taxes on the future (and lying to the populace by claiming they cut taxes – because they eliminate taxes today) those countries will pay severely for the irresponsible spending.

Saying you cut taxes when you just delay them is equivalent to saying I paid off my credit card bill when all I did was get 2 new credit cards, borrow all the money I owed on my original card, pay that one off, and then borrow more to increase my debt even more. Yes it is true I did pay off my original credit card, but that is hardly the salient point. My credit card debt increase. All that has happened in the USA since the Clinton administration had a balanced budget is politicians used a credit card thinking to lower taxes while necessarily increasing them in the future. You don’t reduce debt by spending money you don’t have.

Greece, Spain and Italy have practiced very irresponsible economic policies. But this is not much of a surprise. The Euro has some very good economic benefits but the weakness of irresponsible government spending while having a shared currency has been largely ignored (which has been very unwise). At least in the USA some people realize their kids have to pay the credit card bills being foisted upon them by the current crop of politicians and they don’t like it and try to reduce the abuse. When some countries, like Greece, seem to want Germany to pay their bills the incentive to elect honest and competent politicians seems to disappear. But Greece is just so small, even if they are many times as irresponsible as larger economies their problems are going to remain small, in comparison.

To me the biggest reason the US dollar has not declined more due to the huge debt is the other options are not much better. I can certainly understand why people have been seeking protection from inflation via gold and other commodities.

Related: The USA Economy Needs to Reduce Personal and Government Debt – Dollar Decline Due to Government Debt or Total Debt? – Estate Tax Repeal

Japan has by far the highest level of government debt in the OECD. The Yen is not collapsing. The debt is a factor but the lack of saving (USA consuming more than it produces) seems the biggest problem to me. China not only does not have large government debt it has large amounts of personal savings. People have been living far within their means in Japan and China (only by government intervention, due to desires to not have the currency appreciate has that appreciation been slowed).

Thankfully we have been increasing savings a bit recently but it is a drop in the bucket so far (Consumer Debt Down Over $100 Billion So Far in 2009). It will have to increase in size and continue for years to begin to address the problems in a significant way.

Related: The USA Economy Needs to Reduce Personal and Government Debt (March 2009) – The Truth Behind China’s Currency Peg – Who Will Buy All the USA’s Debt?

Related: Warren Buffett Webcast on the Credit Crisis – The Long-Term USA Federal Budget Outlook – Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting 2008 – Federal Reserve to Buy $1.2 Trillion in Bonds, Mortgage-Backed Securities

The cost of paying for a dysfunctional medical system has been a huge drain on the USA economy for decades. But that is nothing compared to what the future holds if we don’t adopted sensible strategies that reduce the huge extra costs we pay and the worse performance we receive for that cost.

Social security is not the huge problem many think it is. Still I would support reducing the payout to wealthy individuals and bringing the age limits more in line with the changes in life expectancy. 12.4% of pay for low and middle wage workers (high income earners stop paying social security taxes so in effect marginal tax rates decrease by 12% for any income above $106,800). Medicare taxes add 2.9% bringing the total social security and Medicare taxes to 15.1% (including both the amount paid directly by the employee and the amount paid for the employee by the employer).

Related: True Level of USA Federal Deficit – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household – quotations about economics – articles on improving the health care system – USA Spent $2.2 Trillion, 16.2% of GDP, on Health Care in 2007

The USA federal government debt is far too large, in my opinion. We have been raising taxes on future taxpayers for several decades, to finance our current spending. Within reason deficit spending is fine. What that reasonable level is however, is not easy to know. One big problem with the past few decades is that during very prosperous economic times we spent money that we didn’t have, choosing to raise taxes on the future (instead of either not spending as much or paying for what we were spending by raising taxes to pay for current spending).

By not even paying for what we are spending when times were prosperous we put ourselves in a bad situation when we have poor economic conditions – like today. If we were responsible during good economic times (and at least paid for what we spent) we could have reduced our debt as a percentage of GDP. Even if we did not pay down debt, just by not increasing the outstanding debt while the economy grew the ratio of debt to GDP would decline. Then when times were bad, we could afford to run deficits and perhaps bring the debt level up to some reasonable level (maybe 40% of GDP – though it is hard to know what the target should be, 40% seems within the realm of reason to me, for now).

There is at least one more point to remember, the figures in the chart are based on reported debt. The USA has huge liabilities that are not accounted for. So you must remember that the actually debt is much higher than reported in the official debt calculation.

Now on to the good news. As bad as the USA has been at spending tomorrows increases in taxes today, compared to the OECD countries we are actually better than average. The OECD is made up of countries in Europe, the USA, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The chart shows the percentage of GDP that government debt represents for various countries. The USA ended 2006 at 62% while the overall OECD total is 77%. In 1990 the USA was at 63% and the OECD was at 57%. Japan is the line way at the top with a 2006 total of 180% (that is a big problem for them). Korea is in the best shape at just a 28% total in 2006 but that is an increase from just 8% in 1990.

Related: Federal Deficit To Double This Year – Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children – True Level of USA Federal Deficit – Who Will Buy All the USA’s Debt? – Top 12 Manufacturing Countries in 2007 – Oil Consumption by Country

Notes on the Data from the OECD web site.
For most countries, gross financial liabilities refer to the liabilities (short and long-term) of all the institutions in the general government sector, as defined in the 1993 System of National Accounts (SNA) or in the 1995 European System of Accounts (ESA). This definition differs from the definition of debt applied under the Maastricht Treaty essentially in two respects. First, gross debt according to the Maastricht definition excludes trade credits and advances, as well as shares and insurance technical reserves. Second, government bonds are valued at nominal values instead of at market value or issue price plus accrued interest as required by the SNA rules. The United States and Canada also value government bonds at nominal value.

In principle, debts within and between different levels of government are consolidated; a loan from one level of government to another represents both an asset and an equal liability for the government as a whole and so it cancels out (is “consolidated”) for the general government sector.

The comparability of data can be affected in two ways. First, national differences in implementing SNA/ESA definitions can affect the comparability of government debt across countries. Second, changes in implementing SNA/ESA definitions can affect the comparability of data within a country over time.

There are two standard ways to measure the extent of government debt – by reference to gross financial liabilities or by reference to net financial liabilities – the latter being measured as gross financial liabilities minus financial assets. Gross financial liabilities as a percentage of GDP is the most commonly used government debt ratio and is shown here.

Some suggest we need to regain consumer confidence. Unfortunately that fixes nothing. That “strategy” is just to convince people problems don’t exist and buying what you can’t afford is fine. Just convince people to go spend more money, run up their credit card debt, borrow against their house, as long as everyone believes it can continue. That can work for awhile but it then fails due to structural issues. And the solution becomes more and more difficult the longer such a strategy is used. The same way a ponzi scheme eventually implodes.

If you could convince those in a ponzi scheme (and new investors) that they should just be optimistic it can continue. But eventually people ask for their money to buy something and none exists and the scheme fails.

With an economy, after structural problems are addressed then you need to convince people to be less fearful and to be more optimistic. Because often by that time people have become so fearful that they are not taking even reasonable steps. They don’t buy even though they have the money in the bank and have a real need for the purchase. When this happens, convincing people that the economy is stable is important. However, cheerleading and convincing people to just continue to run up their debts to spend more is not wise when the economy is already far to in debt is not wise (though it is politically expedient).

The USA needs to stop living beyond its means. That is the most important factor to long term economic strength. But the focus doesn’t seem to be on doing this, instead it seems to be on printing money to paper over the problems. There are many great strengths of the economy and those have allowed huge federal deficits, huge personal debt, monopolistic practices, destabilizing financial risks taking… Even with that things have been quite good. But those areas need to be addressed over the long term.

Related: Let the Good Times Roll (using Credit) – Families Shouldn’t Finance Everyday Purchases on Credit – Living on Less