Regarding fiscal policy, almost everyone’s attention is focused on Biden’s growth-sapping plan to increase the burden of taxes and spending.
People are right to be concerned. If the President’s plan is approved, the already-grim fiscal outlook for United States will get even worse.
This battle will be decided in next 12 months, hopefully with a defeat for Biden’s dependency agenda.
Regardless of how that fight is resolved, though, we’re eventually going to get to a point where sensible people are back in charge. And when that happens, we’ll have to figure out how to restore the nation’s finances.
That requires figuring out the appropriate goal. Here are two options:
- Keeping taxes low.
- Controlling debt.
These are both worthy objectives.
But, as a logic teacher might say, they are necessary but not sufficient conditions.
Here’s a chart showing how a policy of low taxes (the orange line) presumably enables faster growth, but also creates the risk of an eventual economic crisis if nothing is done to control spending and debt climbs too high (think Greece).
By contrast, the chart also shows that it’s theoretically possible to avoid an economic crisis with higher taxes (the blue line), but it means less growth on a year-to-year basis.
The moral of the story is that the economy winds up in the same place with either tax-financed spending or debt-financed spending.
Which is why we should consider a third goal.
- Limiting spending.
The economic benefits of this approach are illustrated in this second chart. We enjoy faster year-to-year growth. And, because spending restraint is the best way of controlling debt, the risk of a Greek-style economic crisis is averted.
Now for some caveats.
I made a handful of assumptions in the above charts.
- The economy grows 2.0 percent annually for the next 31 years with tax-financed spending
- The economy grows 2.5 percent annually with debt-financed spending, but suffers a 10 percent decline in Year 31.
- The economy grows 3.0 percent annually for the next 31 years with smaller government (thus enabling low taxes and less debt).
Anyone can create their own spreadsheet and make different assumptions.
That being said, there’s a lot of evidence that higher tax burdens hinder growth, that ever-rising debt burdens can lead to crisis, and that less government spending produces stronger growth.
So feel free to make your own assumptions about the strength of these effects, but let’s never lose sight of the fact that spending restraint should be the main goal for post-Biden fiscal policy.
[…] Tax-financed spending is bad for prosperity. […]
[…] Second, “funded liabilities” are hardly an improvement over “unfunded liabilities” since that simply means debt-financed spending becomes tax-financed spending. From the frying pan to the fire, or vice-versa. […]
[…] I tell people to focus on government spending rather than red ink. After all, the economy is hurt whether spending is financed by taxes or borrowing (or printing […]
[…] I tell people to focus on government spending rather than red ink. After all, the economy is hurt whether spending is financed by taxes or borrowing (or printing […]
[…] All of those options lead to the same bad outcome. […]
[…] that spending hurts our economy whether it is financed by taxing or borrowing (or, heaven forbid, by printing […]
[…] that wind up saddling us with more red ink. Besides, the long-run damage of tax-financed spending is very similar to the long-run damage of debt-financed […]
[…] that wind up saddling us with more red ink. Besides, the long-run damage of tax-financed spending is very similar to the long-run damage of debt-financed […]
[…] P.S. Biden’s plan will increase the deficit, which also is not good, but keep in mind that tax-financed spending is no better than debt-financed spending. In either case, you wind up with the same bad result. […]
[…] that spending hurts our economy whether it is financed by taxing or borrowing (or, heaven forbid, by printing […]
[…] that spending hurts our economy whether it is financed by taxing or borrowing (or, heaven forbid, by printing […]
[…] P.S. Biden’s plan will increase the deficit, which also is not good, but keep in mind that tax-financed spending is no better than debt-financed spending. In either case, you wind up with the same bad result. […]
[…] P.S. Biden’s plan will increase the deficit, which also is not good, but keep in mind that tax-financed spending is no better than debt-financed spending. In either case, you wind up with the same bad result. […]
[…] P.S. Biden’s plan will increase the deficit, which also is not good, but keep in mind that tax-financed spending is no better than debt-financed spending. In either case, you wind up with the same bad result. […]
“we’re eventually going to get to a point where sensible people are back in charge.” If you think that we’re really in trouble. Neither party is going to cut spending to match growth.
Legislators have no incentive to correct themselves. While a “debt-brake” would work, it will be impossible to legislate, unless the X really hits the fan.
What might work is a bonus for legislators, if they keep Discretionary spending growth under 2%, not inflation adjusted. It might cost us as much as $250 million to pay legislators to do their jobs, but it would put limits on a trillion dollar expense. “Special” spending above the limit would void the bonus for incumbents, until their next election.
Mandatory spending could be fixed with a UBI and Flat Tax, with the UBI matching rates of inflation. (GDP is already adjusted for inflation, so economic growth would exceed on-going cost.) UBI would replace all tax deductions and some safety-net.
[…] The Economics of Tax-Financed Spending vs. Debt-Financed Spending […]