Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Fiscal Policy’

Earlier today at the Friedman Conference in Australia, I spoke on the proper design of a tax system.

My goal was to explain the problem of double taxation.

I’ve repeatedly shared a flowchart to illustrate the pervasive double taxation in the current system (my example is for the United States, but many other nations make the same mistake).

And to help explain why this is economically misguided, I developed a (hopefully) compelling visual based on how to harvest apples.

But I’ve always wondered if I was presenting the information in an accessible and understandable manner. So for today’s presentation, I decided to experiment with some different visuals.

Here’s how I illustrated the current system.

As you can see, there are several additional layers of tax on people who save and invest their after-tax income.

And I explained to the crowd that this is very foolish since every economic theory agrees that saving and investment are key to long-run growth.

Even socialism. Even Marxism. (Socialists and Marxists are foolish to think government can be in charge of allocating capital, but at least they realize that future growth requires saving and investment.)

In other words, you don’t achieve good tax policy solely by having a low tax rate.

Yes, that’

s important, but genuine tax reform also means no bias against saving and investment.

Here’s another visual. This one shows the difference between the current system and the flat tax. As you can see, all the added layers of tax on saving and investment are jettisoned under true tax reform.

By the way, there are some people who prefer a national sales tax over a flat tax.

I question the political viability of that approach, but I’ve always defended the sales tax.

Why? Because it’s conceptually identical to the flat tax.

As you can see from this next visual, the difference between the two systems is that the flat tax grabs a bit of money when income is earned and the sales tax grabs a bit of money when income is spent (either today or in the future).

Remember, the goal is to eliminate the bias against saving and investing.

To economists who specialize in public finance, this is known as shifting to a “consumption base” system.

But I’ve never liked that language. What really happens under true tax reform is that we tax income, but using the right definition.

The current system, by contrast, is known as a “comprehensive income tax” with a “Haig-Simons” tax base. But that simply means a system that taxes some forms of income over and over again.

Time for one final point.

Some people like a value-added tax because it avoids the problem of double taxation.

That’s certainly true.

But this final visual shows that adding a VAT to the current system doesn’t solve the problem. All that happens is that politicians have a new source of revenue to expand the welfare state.

If a VAT was used to replace the current tax system, that might be a very worthwhile approach.

But that’s about as likely as me playing the outfield later this year for the New York Yankees.

P.S. The VAT visual is overly simplified and it sidesteps the logistical issue of whether politicians would go for a credit-invoice VAT or a subtraction-method VAT. But the visual is correct in terms of how a VAT would interact with the current system.

P.P.S. All you need to know about the VAT is that Reagan was against it and Nixon was for it.

 

Read Full Post »

As part of today’s sessions at the Friedman conference in Australia, I got to listen to Professor Tony Makin talk about the burden of government spending in Australia.

I want to share several of his slides since he made some very cogent points.

First, he pointed out that debt-financed government spending is bad.

But he also pointed out that tax-financed government spending is equally bad.

In other words, the fiscal burden of government is the total level of spending. How that spending is financed is a secondary concern.

I’ve made similar arguments, so perhaps this won’t be new information for regular readers.

However, Professor Makin augmented the theory with some statistical analysis.

This is how he structured his model.

And here are his results.

His numbers shouldn’t be a surprise. I narrated an entire video that listed study after study showing the same thing.

And even the OECD has, on multiple occasions, produced research showing that bigger public sectors are associated with weaker economic performance. Same thing with economists at the IMF (the political leadership at the international bureaucracies is terrible, but the economists sometimes produce solid research).

By the way, Professor Makin shared some fascinating Australia-specific data looking at spending increases (or decreases) by year. And also broke down the data by who controlled the government.

As you can see (echoing what I wrote two days ago), the supposedly left-wing Hawke and Keating governments were reasonably frugal.

John Howard, by contrast, was supposed to be a right-of-center leader. Yet he fell off the wagon after a strong start (and also set the stage for a very bad Labor government).

In recent years, the right-of-center Liberal-National coalition has done a decent job. It will interesting to see what happens when newly reelected Prime Minister Scott Morrison unveils the next budget.

My two cents (in addition to lowering the top tax rate) is that he should propose some sort of spending cap, like the ones in Switzerland and Hong Kong.

Read Full Post »

With two dozens candidates in the race, it’s not feasible to review the fiscal and economic plans of every potential nominee for the Democratic Party.

But that doesn’t mean I’ll be silent. I’ve written several times about Crazy Bernie’s agenda, and I’ve recently opined about shortcomings in the plans of Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren (I haven’t written about Joe Biden’s agenda since he presumably represents a restoration of Obama’s knee-jerk statism).

Today let’s turn our attention to Pete Buttigieg. Known as Mayor Pete, he positions himself as a pragmatic millennial.

Notwithstanding his moderate demeanor, though, he’s been very aggressive about proposing higher taxes. And, as revealed in this report from Fox, that includes promoting new taxes as part of his unconventional campaign.

On fiscal policy, Buttigieg pushed for four distinct tax hikes when asked about the deficit, saying he favored a “fairer, which means higher” marginal income tax, a “reasonable” wealth tax “or something like that,” a financial transactions tax, and closing “corporate tax loopholes.” …Buttigieg indicated that the long odds didn’t faze him. “There’s a lot of us running for president on the Democratic side, but I think it’s safe to say I’m not like the others,” Buttigieg told Wallace, noting that seeking the presidency is inherently “audacious” — especially given that he would be the youngest person to ever become president. “I would say being a mayor in a city of any size in America right now is about as relevant as it gets,” Buttigieg added.

I agree. Mayor Pete is audacious.

But not because he’s running for President with so little experience. Instead, he’s audacious because his tax agenda is so troubling.

I don’t like that he wants to increase the tax burden. Especially since it’s easy to fix budget problems with some modest spending restraint.

I also don’t like that he wants higher marginal tax rates on households and businesses. Because of exponentially increasing deadweight losses, that’s one of the most economically destructive ways of extracting revenue from the economy’s productive sector.

And I’m most worried about his advocacy of two new sources of taxation. Both proposals would do considerable damage. A financial transactions tax would wreak havoc with financial markets. And a wealth tax would dramatically reduce incentives to save and invest since it’s an explicit form of double taxation.

By the way, Mayor Pete probably supports a national energy tax. At least that’s a logical conclusion given his views on global warming. So we should add that levy to the list as well.

P.S. The only good news is that Buttigieg hasn’t (yet) embraced a value-added tax.

Read Full Post »

Earlier this year, I reviewed new fiscal projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and showed that balancing the budget would be relatively easy if politicians simply limited spending so that it didn’t grow faster than inflation.

Though I made sure to point out that the primary goal should be to limit the burden of spending. That’s because government spending, regardless of whether it’s financed by taxes or financed by borrowing, undermines prosperity by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy.

We now have some new numbers from CBO. The number-crunching bureaucrats have put together their estimates of the latest Trump budget and that’s generated some predictable squabbling between Republicans and Democrats.

Most of the finger-pointing has focused on the (relatively trivial) fiscal impact of the Trump tax cuts.

The Wall Street Journal wisely put the focus instead on the growth of government.

You wouldn’t know it from the press coverage, but there’s some modest good news about the federal budget. The deficit is rising, but not as much as feared because tax revenues are increasing due to faster economic growth. …So why has the federal deficit increased by $145 billion this fiscal year to $531 billion? Because federal spending continued to rise rapidly—7% in the first seven months to $2.571 trillion. That’s $178 billion more than in the same period a year ago. …The media blame deficits on tax reform, but the facts show the main culprit is spending. No one in the political class wants to talk about entitlements but that’s where the money is.

The WSJ’s editorial focused on short-run data.

I want to augment that analysis by looking at medium-run and long-run numbers.

We’ll start with this chart looking at what will happen over the next 10 years. As you can see, Washington is violating my Golden Rule by allowing spending to grow faster than the private economy.

As a result, the burden of federal spending, measured as a share of gross domestic product, is projected to climb over the next decade.

That’s not good news.

(For what it’s worth, since tax revenues will be growing at the same pace as spending, there won’t be any meaningful change in the deficit as a share of GDP.)

Now let’s look at the most-recent long-run data from CBO. These numbers are even more depressing because the spending burden continues to grow faster than the private sector. A lot faster.

Which is why the burden of federal spending is projected to increase from less than 21 percent of GDP today to nearly 29 percent of GDP by 2049.

That’s terrible news.

And if you include spending by state and local governments (which currently consumes more than 11 percent of economic output and also is projected to increase), the terrible news gets even worse.

Moreover, the tax burden is projected to climb as well, and that doesn’t even include any estimate of what will happen if politicians manage to impose a value-added tax, an energy tax, a wealth tax, a financial transactions tax, or any of the other revenue-raising schemes under consideration in Washington.

In other words, the U.S. is on track to become just like GreeceFrance, and Italy.

P.S. There is an alternative to this dismal future. But can we convince politicians to adopt a spending cap and then make it work with genuine entitlement reform? I’m not holding my breath for any of that to happen.

Read Full Post »

Back in April, I observed that, “If you would have loudly condemned a policy under Obama but support a similar policy under Trump, you’re the problem.”

We now have a good test case.

The President already has demonstrated – repeatedly – that he likes to spend other people’s money.

But now he’s unleashing his inner Obama, having reached a tentative deal with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi for a $2 trillion infrastructure blowout.

Notwithstanding the GOP’s supposed belief in the Constitution and limits on the role of the federal government, there are plenty of Republicans on Capitol Hill (especially on the committees that will get to direct this money to various campaign contributors) who will gladly join this spending orgy.

The relevant question, though, is whether there are some good GOPers to stop this boondoggle.

The Washington Post reports that there are some holdouts.

A $2 trillion infrastructure deal outlined this week by President Trump and top Democrats is already losing momentum, as the president’s own chief of staff is telling people inside and outside the administration that the effort is too expensive… Democratic leaders in Congress…said they were pleasantly surprised by the president’s willingness to back a large-scale spending effort. …But the initiative has run into immediate opposition from Republicans who balk at the hefty price tag and from conservative allies who are pushing lawmakers to block it. …Earlier in the administration, Trump praised Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — a potential 2020 foe — for her ideas because, in his view, she was determined to spend more than Republicans. He would tell aides to get a list of projects and “let’s just spend it,” in the words of one former administration official. …Trump always wanted to spend more. …raising fuel tax rates by 35 cents and pegging them to rise with inflation would generate only about a quarter of the necessary revenue over 10 years. …Getting the remaining $1.5 trillion would involve much more significant tax increases… But even fully reversing the corporate income tax cut, which dropped the rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, would not close the gap

One obvious takeaway from this article is that taxes eventually will increase if Republicans don’t get serious about spending restraint.

Indeed, I’ve already warned that Trump’s profligacy is making tax increases more likely.

And another takeaway is that a blank-check approach would violate my rules for sensible infrastructure policy.

The editors at National Review share my concern about the plan for a bipartisan budget-busting package.

Some time ago, President Trump’s team produced a $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan, which was really a $200 billion infrastructure plan with some wishful thinking attached. …now the president has joined forced with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on something new: a $2 trillion infrastructure plan, which also is composed mainly of wishful thinking. …What could possibly go wrong? You can tell this is backward by the fact that the triumvirate has settled on a price tag — an incomprehensibly large one — but is remarkably fuzzy on what’s to be bought with that $2 trillion. …We have been here before, with Barack Obama and his “shovel-ready” projects. The lesson of Obama’s failed stimulus bill — which was in considerable part an infrastructure program — is that doing things backwards does not work. …figuring out how to pay for this is at the bottom of the current agenda. …This is not a sane way to proceed. …The infrastructure scheme deserves to die an early and unlamented legislative death.

It should just “die an early an unlamented legislative death.” It never should have been born in the first place.

I’m not surprised that Trump is supporting a pork-filled budget plan for infrastructure. As I warned back before the 2016 election, he’s a big-government Republican.

What’s not clear, though, is how many GOP lawmakers will support his Greek-style approach to the transportation budget.

Suffice to say that I’m worried. It seems that many Republicans are Bushies rather than Reaganites.

I’ve updated a previous set of images to highlight the problem.

P.S. The correct infrastructure policy for Washington is to have no infrastructure policy. That’s because transportation should be handled by state and local government. Or, even better, the private sector. In my fantasy world, we’d shut down the Department of Transportation and repeal the federal gas tax.

Read Full Post »

Every year, the Social Security Administration issues a “Trustees Report” that summarizes the program’s financing. So every year (see 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, etc) I cut through all the verbiage and focus the numbers that really matter.

First, here’s the data from Table VI.G9 showing annual spending and annual revenue, and the numbers are adjusted for inflation. Everything to the left of the vertical red line is historical data. Everything to the right is an estimate based on “intermediate” economic and demographic projections.

The bad news is that there’s a never-ending increase in the program’s fiscal burden.

The only good news is that country presumably will be much richer in the future, so we’ll have more income to pay all those taxes and finance all that spending.

That being said, the fiscal burden is projected to increase faster than our income, so the economic burden of Social Security will increase over time.

But there’s also a wild card to consider. Simply stated, we have more data from Table VI.G9 that shows the program has a giant, ever-expanding deficit.

Here are the grim numbers (though not quite as grim as last year when the cumulative shortfall was $43.7 trillion). Once again, everything to the left of the line is historical data and everything to the right is a projection.

The obvious takeaway is that the program is bankrupt.

Indeed, a private pension fund with these numbers would have been shut down a long time ago. And its executives would be in prison for running a Ponzi Scheme.

Politicians won’t put themselves in prison, of course, but they eventually will be forced to address Social Security’s huge shortfall. If nothing else, the so-called Trust Fund (which isn’t a real Trust Fund since it is filled with IOUs) runs out of money in 2035.

The interesting question is what sort of “solution” they choose when the crisis occurs.

Sadly, many politicians are gravitating to a plan to impose ever-higher taxes to prop up the system.

A far better approach is personal retirement accounts. I’ve written favorably about the Australian system, the Chilean system, the Hong Kong system, the Swiss system, the Dutch system, the Swedish system. Heck, I even like the system in the Faroe Islands.

The bottom line is that there’s been a worldwide revolution in favor of private savings and the United States is falling behind.

P.S. If you have some statist friends and family who get confused by numbers, here’s a set of cartoons that shows the need for Social Security reform.

P.P.S. As I explain in this video, reform does not mean reducing benefits for current retirees, or even older workers.

Read Full Post »

There are two things everyone should understand about the federal budget.

Sadly, the politicians in Washington generally aren’t interested in sensible fiscal policy. They have a “public choice” incentive to spend more money in hopes of buying more votes.

Congressman Chip Roy, a freshman from Texas, is one of the few lawmakers who objects to the spend-like-there’s-no-tomorrow mentality in Washington.

Here’s some of what he wrote for the Hill.

…both parties appear to have reached a consensus on one major issue: busting spending caps is their solution to disagreements over spending. …Members of my party would be happy to agree with Democrats’ demands to spend outside our means, so long as they get all the money they want for defense. …The truth is Washington is all about power rather than solving the problem. It’s politically easier for Republicans to press for defense spending and Democrats to push for non-defense spending… Years of out-of-control spending and poor decision making is catching up with us.

He specifically wants to maintain the spending caps that apply to annually appropriated outlays.

Instead of wringing our hands and finding political convenient reasons to spend outside our means, Congress should stick to the caps. Doing so will force us – Republicans and Democrats – to sit at the table and negotiate—a lost art in Washington… allowing an across-the-board sequester to kick-in is more responsible than what Congress appears on track to do. …we must act now to do our job. We must stick to the budget caps.

He’s right about the desirability of a sequester.

Indeed, the sequester that took place in 2013 was the biggest victory for fiscal discipline during Obama’s presidency.

Sadly, politicians since then have been jumping through all sorts of hoops to avoid a second sequester. And the Democrats in the House of Representatives are proposing to bust the spending caps once again.

Here’s a chart prepared by Republicans on the House Budget Committee.

By the way, I’m not citing material from Republicans because they deserve praise.

So even though House Democrats are now proposing something that’s “absurdly terrible,” Republicans don’t have much credibility on the issue.

I’ll close with an observation about Greece’s fiscal tragedy.

There was no single decision that caused that country’s economic crisis. Instead, it was hundreds of short-sighted choices to spend more on Program A, Initiative B, Plan C, and Project D, along with every kind of tax increase under the sun.

And when some people warned that the fiscal orgy eventually would produce bad consequences, they were dismissed or ignored.

Sadly, American is heading down the same path. We know the solution, but politicians are more interested in buying votes than doing what’s right for America.

That includes the President. Trump has the power to force a sequester. All he has to do is veto any spending bill that busts the caps. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: