Sooner or later, there will be a giant battle in Washington over the value-added tax. The people who want bigger government (and the people who are willing to surrender to big government) understand that a new source of tax revenue is needed to turn the United States into a European-style social welfare state. But that’s exactly why the VAT is a terrible idea.
I explain why in a column for Reuters. The entire thing is worth reading, but here’s an excerpt of some key points.
Many Washington insiders are claiming that America needs a value-added tax (VAT) to get rid of red ink. …And President Obama says that a VAT is “something that has worked for other countries.” Every single one of these assertions is demonstrably false. …One of the many problems with a VAT is that it is a hidden levy. …VATs are imposed at each stage of the production process and thus get embedded in the price of goods. And because the VAT is hidden from consumers, politicians find they are an easy source of new revenue – which is one reason why the average VAT rate in Europe is now more than 20 percent! …Western European nations first began imposing VATs about 40 years ago, and the result has been bigger government, permanent deficits and more debt. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, public debt is equal to 74 percent of GDP in Western Europe, compared to 64 percent of GDP in the United States (and the gap was much bigger before the Bush-Obama spending spree doubled America’s debt burden). The most important comparison is not debt, but rather the burden of government spending. …you don’t cure an alcoholic by giving him keys to a liquor store, you don’t promote fiscal responsibility by giving government a new source of revenue. …To be sure, we would have a better tax system if proponents got rid of the income tax and replaced it with a VAT. But that’s not what’s being discussed. At best, some proponents claim we could reduce other taxes in exchange for a VAT. Once again, though, the evidence from Europe shows this is a naive hope. The tax burden on personal and corporate income is much higher today than it was in the pre-VAT era. …When President Obama said the VAT is “something that has worked for other countries,” he should have specified that the tax is good for the politicians of those nations, but not for the people. The political elite got more money that they use to buy votes, and they got a new tax code, enabling them to auction off loopholes to special interest groups.
You can see some amusing — but also painfully accurate — cartoons about the VAT by clicking here, here, and here.
For further information on why the VAT is a horrible proposal, including lots of specific numbers and comparisons between the United States and Western Europe, here’s a video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.
Sooner or later, there will be a giant battle in Washington over the value-added tax. The people who want bigger government (and the people who are willing to surrender to big government) understand that a new source of tax revenue is needed to turn the United States into a European-style social welfare state. But that’s exactly why the VAT is a terrible idea.
I explain why in a column for Reuters. The entire thing is worth reading, but here’s an excerpt of some key points.
Many Washington insiders are claiming that America needs a value-added tax (VAT) to get rid of red ink. …And President Obama says that a VAT is “something that has worked for other countries.” Every single one of these assertions is demonstrably false. …One of the many problems with a VAT is that it is a hidden levy. …VATs are imposed at each stage of the production process and thus get embedded in the price of goods. And because the VAT is hidden from consumers, politicians find they are an easy source of new revenue – which is one reason why the average VAT rate in Europe is now more than 20 percent! …Western European nations first began imposing VATs about 40 years ago, and the result has been bigger government, permanent deficits and more debt. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, public debt is equal to 74 percent of GDP in Western Europe, compared to 64 percent of GDP in the United States (and the gap was much bigger before the Bush-Obama spending spree doubled America’s debt burden). The most important comparison is not debt, but rather the burden of government spending. …you don’t cure an alcoholic by giving him keys to a liquor store, you don’t promote fiscal responsibility by giving government a new source of revenue. …To be sure, we would have a better tax system if proponents got rid of the income tax and replaced it with a VAT. But that’s not what’s being discussed. At best, some proponents claim we could reduce other taxes in exchange for a VAT. Once again, though, the evidence from Europe shows this is a naive hope. The tax burden on personal and corporate income is much higher today than it was in the pre-VAT era. …When President Obama said the VAT is “something that has worked for other countries,” he should have specified that the tax is good for the politicians of those nations, but not for the people. The political elite got more money that they use to buy votes, and they got a new tax code, enabling them to auction off loopholes to special interest groups.
You can see some amusing — but also painfully accurate — cartoons about the VAT by clicking here, here, and here.
For further information on why the VAT is a horrible proposal, including lots of specific numbers and comparisons between the United States and Western Europe, here’s a video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both reduced the relative burden of government, largely because they were able to restrain the growth of domestic spending. The mini-documentary from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity uses data from the Historical Tables of the Budget to show how Reagan and Clinton succeeded and compares their record to the fiscal profligacy of the Bush-Obama years.
_____________________________
Over the years the liberals keep on calling for more spending but our solution is to restrain government growth. The funny thing is that BILL CLINTON BALANCED THE BUDGET BY RESTRAINING SPENDING BUT NOW DEMOCRATS ACT LIKE THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN THE RECIPE FOR SUCCESS.
Good fiscal policy doesn’t require miracles — or dramatic showdowns. All politicians have to do is limit the growth of the public sector. Combined with normal revenue growth, this approach eliminates red ink very quickly.
This is what happened in the U.S. during the Clinton-Gingrich years. Between 1994 and 1999, total government spending increased by an average of just 3% annually. The budget deficit, which was projected in early 1995 (18 months after the 1993 tax increase!) to remain above $200 billion for the rest of the century, quickly became a budget surplus once spending was restrained.
Fiscal discipline also works when it is tried in other nations. Data from the Economist Intelligence Unit reveal that four nations — Canada, Ireland, Slovakia and New Zealand — dramatically reduced budget deficits in recent decades by imposing strict limits on government spending.
Daniel Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.
Interestingly, these data also reveal that the tax burden was stable or falling during these periods of fiscal progress.
Canada, for instance, was in deep fiscal trouble. The burden of government spending had climbed above 53% of gross domestic product in 1992 and the deficit was more than 9% of economic output. Then lawmakers embarked on a new course. Government was put on a diet, and between 1992 and 1997 Canada’s budget rose from $374 billion Canadian to $391 billion, an average annual increase of less than 1%.
This period of frugality paid big dividends. The burden of government spending dropped to 44% of GDP. The budget deficit, meanwhile, completely disappeared. After five years of fiscal discipline, record levels of red ink were transformed into a small budget surplus.
Ireland was in a tailspin by the mid-1980s. The burden of government spending had skyrocketed to more than 60% of GDP and the nation’s deficit was consuming more than 12% of economic output. To avoid a crisis, Irish policy froze the budget. The Irish budget was 14.7 billion euros in 1985, and it was only 14.7 billion euros in 1989.
This four-year spending freeze was enormously successful. The burden of government spending plunged to less than 43% of GDP. The budget deficit also fell dramatically, consuming just 2.7% of economic output at the end of this period.
Slovakia, like many other nations that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet empire, was saddled with a large public sector. To solve the problem, policymakers restrained government. From 2000-03, the Slovakian budget grew from 11.5 billion euros to 11.8 billion euros, an average increase of 1.3%.
This modest period of fiscal discipline had a big impact. The burden of the public sector dropped from 36.9% of GDP down to 29.2% of economic output. During this time, the deficit fell from 8.7% of GDP to 2.0%. Combined with pro-growth policies such as the flat tax and personal retirement accounts, the nation has enjoyed robust growth.
Last but not least, let’s look at New Zealand. The burden of the public sector by the end of the 1980s had climbed to more than one-half of economic output. The Kiwis staged a turnaround by putting a clamp on public-sector spending. Between 1990 and 1995, the New Zealand Budget actually dropped from $39.3 billion New Zealand to $38.8 billion.
This five-year spending freeze put the nation in a much stronger position. The burden of government spending plummeted by more than 10 percentage points of GDP in New Zealand, dropping from 53.5% of economic output down to 43.1%. And a deficit of 4.5% of GDP was transformed during those five years to a surplus of 2.8% of GDP.
This pattern should not be a surprise. Restraining government spending generates good results because the private sector grows faster than the public sector.
Many self-proclaimed deficit hawks in Washington argue that deficit reduction is impossible without substantial tax increases. But American policymakers implemented a big tax cut, in 1997, during the period when the deficit became a surplus.
In other nations, the tax burden actually dropped by significant amounts during the relevant periods — falling by 8.1 percentage points of GDP in Ireland, 1.1 percentage points of GDP in Slovakia, and 3.1 percentage points of GDP in New Zealand. The overall tax burden did rise in Canada, but only by 0.3 percentage point of GDP.
The moral of the story is that limiting the growth of government spending is the right recipe. If the politicians in Washington replicated the spending discipline of these other nations, we would enjoy similar results.
Two percent annual spending increases would lead to fiscal balance by 2021. Limiting spending growth to 1% annually would balance the budget by 2019. A spending freeze would balance the budget by 2017.
Spending Restraint, Part II: Lessons from Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand
Nations can make remarkable fiscal progress if policy makers simply limit the growth of government spending. This video, which is Part II of a series, uses examples from recent history in Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand to demonstrate how it is possible to achieve rapid improvements in fiscal policy by restraining the burden of government spending. Part I of the series examined how Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were successful in controlling government outlays — particularly the burden of domestic spending programs. http://www.freedomandprosperity.org
The Daily Hatch 