View this email in your browser ([link removed])

FAIR

NYT's Look at Democratic Tax Plans Is an Orgy of Really Big Numbers ([link removed])

by Dean Baker

[link removed] have often gone after the media on printing large numbers that are meaningless to almost all their readers. The point is that when you throw out numbers in the millions, billions and trillions, very few readers have any idea what these numbers mean ([link removed]) . It is possible to make them meaningful by simply adding some context, such as expressing them relative to the size of the economy or as a per-person amount.

I actually got ([link removed]) Margaret Sullivan, then the New York Times public editor, to completely agree ([link removed]) with me on this point. In her column, she also enlisted the enthusiastic agreement of then Washington editor David Leonhardt. But then nothing changed.
NYT: One Guaranteed Winner in the Democratic Primary: Plans to Tax the Rich

The New York Times (2/22/20 ([link removed]) ) reports that Democrats have "proposed trillions of dollars in new taxes on businesses and wealthy Americans"—but does little to explain what this means.

We see the fruits of this failure in a New York Times article (2/22/20 ([link removed]) ) that compares the tax and spending plans of the leading Democratic contenders. It gives a a true orgy of really big numbers in the form of trillions of dollars of additional taxes and spending, providing readers with no context that would let them know how much impact these taxes are likely to have on the economy and/or their pocketbooks.

We are told that:

Even Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire himself, would raise taxes on the rich and corporations by an estimated $5 trillion, which is about 50% more than Mr. Biden would.

A bit later we get:

Mr. Sanders’ policy agenda is by far the most expensive of the leading candidates, though estimates vary. The cost of his policy plans on just a handful of topics — healthcare, higher education, housing and climate change—could exceed $50 trillion over ten years. By contrast, the federal government is currently projected to spend roughly $60 trillion over the next decade. [Total federal spending is some context.]
...In addition to a Medicare for All program that would require an estimated $20.5 trillion ([link removed]) in new federal spending over ten years, Ms. Warren’s proposals include a sweeping set of new programs ([link removed]) addressing areas like Social Security, climate change, higher education, K–12 schools and housing. Taken together, those proposals and her Medicare for All plan have an estimated 10-year price tag of more than $30 trillion ([link removed]) .

Since most readers probably don’t have a very good idea of how much money $30 trillion would be over the next decade, a useful starting point might be the projected size of the economy. The Congressional Budget Office puts ([link removed]) GDP over this ten-year period at roughly $280 trillion. That means $30 trillion in additional taxes and spending would be a bit less than 11% of projected GDP. Mr. Bloomberg’s projected $5 trillion in taxes would by roughly 1.8% of projected GDP.

To get a bit more context, the tax take projected ([link removed]) for 2020 is 16.4% of GDP. By contrast in the late 1990s boom, tax revenue was over 19% of GDP ([link removed]) , peaking at 20% in 2000. This means that Bloomberg’s proposed increase in taxes would still leave us with revenues that are far smaller as a share of GDP than what we paid in the late 1990s.

The proposals from Warren and Sanders would raise above the late 1990s level, but perhaps by less than the really big numbers in this piece might lead readers to believe. If we increased taxes by 11% of GDP, it would raise them to a bit more than 27% of GDP, roughly 7 percentage points about the 2000 peak.

The Sanders proposals would imply an increase in taxes of roughly 18 percentage points of GDP, putting us at a bit over 34% of GDP. That is considerably more than the 2000 peak, but still much lower ([link removed]) than in most other wealthy countries. (To get a full comparison, we have to add in state and local taxes. This is difficult to do, since many of Sanders’ proposed federal expenditures [e.g. Medicare for All] would in part replace spending currently being undertaken by state and local governments.)

These proposals can certainly be discussed in considerably more detail, but a piece like this could at least try to put the numbers in some context that would make them meaningful to readers, rather than just tossing around “trillions” like it is some sort of mantra. The reality is that the Biden/Bloomberg proposals are not terribly big deals in terms of the budget and what we have done historically. Clearly the Warren and Sanders proposals are more ambitious. Readers can decide whether they think the potential benefits are worth the cost; taking a few minutes to add a little context would give readers an idea of what is at stake.
------------------------------------------------------------

A version of this post appeared on CEPR’s blog Beat the Press (2/24/20 ([link removed]) ).

ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) (Twitter:@NYTimes ([link removed]) ). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.

Featured image: New York Times depiction of an Elizabeth Warren rally. (Photo: Mason Trinca/New York Times.)
Read more ([link removed])

© 2020 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .