I worry about big tax increases because of America’s grim long-run fiscal outlook.
The video clip is less than two minutes (taken from this longer discussion with Fergus Hodgson), but I can summarize my key point in just one very important sentence
Anybody who opposes entitlement reform is unavoidably in favor of big tax increases on lower-income and middle-class Americans.
There are three reasons for this bold (and bolded) statement.
- The burden of spending in the United States is going to dramatically expand in coming decades because of demographic change combined with poorly designed entitlement programs.
- There presumably is a limit to how much of this future spending burden can be financed by borrowing from the private sector (or with printing money by the Federal Reserve).
- Many politicians claim that future spending on entitlements (as well spending on new entitlements!) can be financed with class-warfare taxes, but there are not enough rich people.
My left-leaning friends almost surely would agree with the first two points. But some of them (particularly the ones who don’t understand budget numbers) might argue with the third point.
To confirm the accuracy of the argument, let’s look at this chart from Brian Riedl’s famous Chartbook.
As you can see, even confiscatory 100-percent taxes on the rich (which obviously would cripple the economy) would not be nearly enough to eliminate America’s medium-term fiscal gap.
Heck, even if we look at just the next 10 years and include every possible tax hike, it’s obvious that a class-warfare agenda (which also would have negative economic effects) would not be enough to finance all the spending that is currently in the pipeline.
Here’s another Riedl chart (which even includes some proposals that would hit the middle class).
I’ll conclude with two further observations.
- First, there are plenty of honest leftists (the ones who understand budget numbers,
including Paul Krugman) who openly admit that big tax increases will be needed if the burden of government spending is allowed to increase.
- Second, there are plenty of disingenuous (or perhaps naive) folks on the right who oppose entitlement reform while not admitting that their approach means massive tax increases on lower-income and middle-class taxpayers.
Needless to say, genuine entitlement reform would be far preferable to any type of tax increase.
P.S. In the absence of entitlement reform, politicians will first choose class warfare taxes, of course, but that simply will be a precursor to higher taxes on the rest of us.
P.P.S. The bottom line is that you can’t have European-sized government without European-style taxes. Including a money-siphoning value-added tax.
[…] with John Stossel, I discuss how the United States faces an entitlement crisis that will result in massive tax increases on poor and middle-class households. Or […]
[…] means we will have to make a choice: Either reform entitlements or acquiesce to massive future tax […]
[…] means we will have to make a choice: Either reform entitlements or acquiesce to massive future tax […]
[…] won’t admit it, but their approach necessarilyand unavoidably means huge tax increases on lower-income and middle-class […]
[…] Appearing on Vance Ginn’s Let People Prosper, I discussed spending caps, entitlement reform, past fiscal victories, and potential future defeats. […]
[…] Appearing on Vance Ginn’s Let People Prosper, I discussed spending caps, entitlement reform, past fiscal victories, and potential future defeats. […]
[…] I have repeatedly pointed out that opponents of entitlement reform support big tax increases. And, as I explain in this segment from a recent presentation, they specifically support tax increases on lower-income and middle-class households. […]
[…] Those are the only two choices. […]
[…] won’t admit it, but their approach necessarilyand unavoidably means huge tax increases on lower-income and middle-class […]
[…] won’t admit it, but their approach necessarily and unavoidably means huge tax increases on lower-income and middle-class […]
[…] Theorem of Government points out there is an “unavoidable choice” between entitlement reform and tax […]
[…] Theorem of Government points out there is an “unavoidable choice” between entitlement reform and tax […]
[…] Fifteenth Theorem of Government points out there is an “unavoidable choice” between entitlement reform and tax […]
[…] if you took all of Biden’s taxes and then added some other class-warfare proposals, that would not be enough to finance built-in spending for the next 10 […]
[…] Massive tax increases, inevitably targeting middle-class Americans. […]
[…] all intents and purposes, that is the same as embracing huge tax […]
[…] all intents and purposes, that is the same as embracing huge tax […]
The first consideration is that we make sure all citizens have enough support that they can participate in the capitalist system. A UBI at the poverty level would do that. Everyone should be treated the same, based on family size. This would be a $ for $ decrease in current entitlements. The rich would no longer have tax deductions. Everyone would be treated equally. No one would lose these benefits by earning, so no disincentive to earn. Immigrants and minors could earn up to the UBI tax amount, and receive a rebate on those taxes.
All would be subject to a flat tax on all income. Businesses would collect all taxes. This would reduce the tax compliance burden by about 6 billion man-hours, from our most productive for an additional 2% national growth; fair, transparent, and efficient.
Businesses could deduct only those expenses where the tax has been paid: salaries and domestic services and supplies.
[…] The Unavoidable Choice: Entitlement Reform or Massive Middle-Class Tax Increases — International L… […]
Entitlement reform is a must. When someone is better off not working, they stop working. When you are raking in benefits at the equivalent of $20.00 an hour plus medical, why work? All one needs to do is supplement with some cash-based work, and one can have a middle-income life.
However, I fear our legislators will not raise taxes or cut benefits.