James Pethokoukis
examines whether Tim Pawlenty’s 5 percent growth target is
achievable:
Overall, U.S. GDP growth has averaged 3.3 percent over the past
50 years, with roughly half coming from a growing labor force (1.6
percent) and half coming from higher productivity (1.7 percent).
But with America aging, annual labor force growth is expected to
slow dramatically to just 0.5 percent. The McKinsey Global
Institute thinks a higher retirement age and smarter immigration
policy could boost that rate to 1 percent or so. But even then,
productivity growth would have to increase to 2.3 percent long term
just to maintain that historic growth rate.
The good news is that McKinsey thinks that’s possible, too. One
move it recommends is enhancing the U.S regulatory environment.
Another is reducing marginal tax rates. Both actions are in line
with the Pawlenty agenda. Pawlenty’s proposal to eliminate capital
gains taxes would create a de facto consumption tax, which many
economist think good for growth. He would also lower the top
individual tax rate to 25 percent and the top corporate rate to 15
percent.
This would still require the economy to grow faster than during
either the 1980s or '90s booms.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.8.11 @ 1:36PM
He is a RINO Republican running for President, I simply do not believe a word he says.
Oldefarte| 6.8.11 @ 2:22PM
Jim, even though I'm currently more in favor of Pawlenty's candidacy than for any other NOW DECLARED one, I disagree with his economic/financial expressed theories slightly. I do not favor currently any tax cuts until such time as the the economy is demonstatively on solid ground and actively moving forward. Instead I favor the direly needed huge/substantial governmental expense reductions only, as I think that same could possibly initiate the economic push forward and get it going in the right direction. The tax increases favored by all Democrats is a non-starter and asinely counter-porductive, but tax cuts at this time would also be so [since government will immediately need every nickel and dime within current tax rate/payments to fund a substantially reduced government structure. Once the economy becomes heated up from a substantial governmental spending reduction, and tax receipts increase tremendously from same, then possibly tax cuts should be considered and implemented. IMO, substantial governmental spending reductions would thereby shift banking capital from government/public lending to potential private/business loans [needed for expansions of their businesses]. Also by huge governmental spending reductions, both businesses and individual consumers confidences would be raised from same reduction, and they would be encouraged to make loans, to purchase goods and services and to grow our economy. I like Pawlenty's ideas on turning around our economy, but I disagree with his use of immediate tax cuts as a tool to do so originally!!!!!!!
c. j. acworth| 6.8.11 @ 6:31PM
How about some major tax reform for starters. If we had a flat tax (or flatter, at any rate) for business and individuals, how much would be saved in compliance costs? Wouldn't that be as good as a tax cut, even if the rates don't change? I wonder how much money ( in tax-lawyer payouts ) it costs a major corporation to pay Uncle his pound of flesh.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.8.11 @ 7:57PM
Hit! Nail! Head! Bravo.
Rick V.| 6.8.11 @ 8:25PM
I'm no economist, but I salute Pawlenty for a broad growth-based economic proposal that will set him apart from the pack. You will never convince me that tax cuts are harmful; tax cuts mean that individuals and business retain more of their own money to spend in ways they believe will benefit them. Let the marketplace determine success, because government certainly can't. Making one's own decisions with one's own income is a critical component of liberty. When government limits income through punitive taxation, government is limiting an individual's own decision-making ability and, as such, restricting individual liberty. Point goes to Pawlenty.
Lillith| 6.8.11 @ 10:53PM
Pawlenty has no principles. He started out governing MN as a moderate Republican. He changed his tune when he thought he could ride the Tea Party rage to the White House. If he thought being a moderate would help him win, he would switch back. Very cunning but very deceitful.