WEBVTT

NOTE The Dangers of Tax Reform

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.000
As Mark mentioned, I'm here from Alabama and I come from a state with a Republican governor elected to cut government in 2002,

2
00:00:09.000 --> 00:00:17.000
but who in 2003 attempted to pass the largest tax increase in the history of the state by a very large margin.

3
00:00:17.000 --> 00:00:23.000
In the same bill which the state constitution, thy goodness required, be submitted to the voters,

4
00:00:23.000 --> 00:00:30.000
The governor sought to change the Constitution to make it much easier for every future governor to raise taxes.

5
00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:34.000
The governor invested every bit of political capital he had.

6
00:00:34.000 --> 00:00:39.000
During the push, he enjoyed the plaudits of the press and the fawning of the public sector.

7
00:00:39.000 --> 00:00:48.000
Of course, he was heralded for his steadfast courage, his refreshing honesty, his hopefulness in the face of cynicism and all the rest.

8
00:00:48.000 --> 00:00:59.580
They even tolerated his religious right vocabulary given his claim that Jesus wants higher taxes.

9
00:00:59.580 --> 00:01:03.880
The proposal failed by a vote of two to one and it doesn't take a political scientist

10
00:01:03.880 --> 00:01:06.080
to understand why.

11
00:01:06.080 --> 00:01:09.560
People figured that they fork over quite enough to the government and they didn't want to

12
00:01:09.560 --> 00:01:12.520
give any more money to these birds to feather their nests.

13
00:01:12.520 --> 00:01:17.520
was one of the most inspiring moments in politics that I can remember.

14
00:01:17.520 --> 00:01:22.520
Interestingly enough, the governor was careful not to call his bill a tax increase.

15
00:01:22.520 --> 00:01:24.520
He called it a tax reform.

16
00:01:24.520 --> 00:01:29.520
He claimed he was not raising taxes, he was making them more fair.

17
00:01:29.520 --> 00:01:33.520
He wasn't increasing the burden, he was lightening it on the neediest among us

18
00:01:33.520 --> 00:01:38.520
and merely asking the rich to attend to their civic obligations.

19
00:01:38.520 --> 00:01:41.520
But people saw through this rhetoric.

20
00:01:41.520 --> 00:01:46.520
It used to be said that the Democrats were the evil party and the Republican the stupid party.

21
00:01:46.520 --> 00:01:50.520
My impression of late is that these monikers have switched.

22
00:01:50.520 --> 00:01:54.520
However, not even a conservative Republican who claimed to be devoted to freedom and limited government

23
00:01:54.520 --> 00:01:59.520
could pass off an attempted heist as an act of benevolence.

24
00:01:59.520 --> 00:02:06.520
There are important lessons here for all of us which I would like to apply to tax politics at the federal level.

25
00:02:06.520 --> 00:02:09.520
It's the second term for the President and his friends.

26
00:02:09.520 --> 00:02:14.440
two on Republican control of the executive branch, and there was no obvious project brewing

27
00:02:14.440 --> 00:02:20.560
on the horizon to serve as a convenient lever to prod the donor base. After the first term,

28
00:02:20.560 --> 00:02:25.960
there's always the re-election and the campaign contributions. The Bush administration did

29
00:02:25.960 --> 00:02:30.880
better at this than some of the previous second termers, but the strategy of using elections

30
00:02:30.880 --> 00:02:34.760
to raise money isn't unique to Republicans or Democrats, of course. It's just the business

31
00:02:34.760 --> 00:02:37.400
of Party Politics.

32
00:02:37.400 --> 00:02:38.800
The second term is another matter.

33
00:02:38.800 --> 00:02:43.780
It tends to be the period when the big issues die down and the solid excuses for demanding

34
00:02:43.780 --> 00:02:47.880
more from the partisan donor base tend to dry up.

35
00:02:47.880 --> 00:02:51.440
After all, a political party can't live on tax receipts alone.

36
00:02:51.440 --> 00:02:56.040
It needs the hundreds of millions of dollars donated to the party apparatus by companies

37
00:02:56.040 --> 00:02:58.480
and individuals.

38
00:02:58.480 --> 00:03:03.680
And it's just when the goose starts losing enthusiasm for laying any more golden eggs

39
00:03:03.680 --> 00:03:06.080
that the policy farmers begin to poke at

40
00:03:06.080 --> 00:03:09.840
with a tried and true stick, tax reform.

41
00:03:09.840 --> 00:03:14.840
We saw this in 1984, in 1996, and again in 2004.

42
00:03:15.780 --> 00:03:16.720
In each of these years,

43
00:03:16.720 --> 00:03:18.520
the second term administration announces

44
00:03:18.520 --> 00:03:21.480
that the current tax code needs to be tossed out

45
00:03:21.480 --> 00:03:23.880
and a new one put in place.

46
00:03:23.880 --> 00:03:24.760
And so right on cue,

47
00:03:24.760 --> 00:03:27.560
the Bush administration is named a nine member panel

48
00:03:27.560 --> 00:03:30.280
to look in what should be done to reform taxes

49
00:03:30.280 --> 00:03:33.240
with the goal of legislation in 2006.

50
00:03:33.680 --> 00:03:40.680
The Bush Panel is chaired by former Republican Senator Connie Mack, and the Vice Chair is former Democrat Senator John Breaux.

51
00:03:40.680 --> 00:03:49.680
Other members mostly live off government in one capacity or another, and now live and work in the private, more or less private sector.

52
00:03:49.680 --> 00:03:56.680
And so the institutions represented include Brookings, Stanford, MIT, the Carlyle Group, Charles Schwab.

53
00:03:56.680 --> 00:04:02.680
Bush himself sent up the spirit, I am firm in my desire to get something done.

54
00:04:02.680 --> 00:04:11.680
What this means is that he has every intention of rewriting the tax code, a process that always and everywhere involves winners and losers.

55
00:04:11.680 --> 00:04:19.680
Who ends up winning and losing is not arbitrary. It depends greatly on making one's presence felt within the political process.

56
00:04:19.680 --> 00:04:25.680
But that's the underlying message. The public campaign, of course, does not speak of these matters.

57
00:04:25.680 --> 00:04:29.680
Instead they claim they will make taxes less complicated and more fair.

58
00:04:29.680 --> 00:04:39.680
The reform promises to increase incentives to save and invest, and to stop punishing people for things they should do, and start punishing them for things they should not do.

59
00:04:39.680 --> 00:04:45.680
It promises to stop rewarding lawyers and tax preparers, and permit people to plan their own finances.

60
00:04:45.680 --> 00:04:52.680
It must also promise not to raise taxes on the middle class, must reassure the rich, and not punish the poor.

61
00:04:52.680 --> 00:04:57.680
It must not repeal beloved deductions, but it must hammer abuses.

62
00:04:57.680 --> 00:05:08.680
What all this means in practice is anyone's guess. And truly the point is not to drive a precise plan, or even to pass a plan that does all of the above.

63
00:05:08.680 --> 00:05:19.680
In fact, there's no way all these promises can be kept. There's no simple, fair, non-distorting way to collect $2 trillion a year from the population by force.

64
00:05:19.680 --> 00:05:33.680
The politicians tell us they will find a way. The problem is not so much the goal, but the means and the process, and that if we can just replace the current ways and means with new ways and means, that two trillion will appear without pain and suffering.

65
00:05:33.680 --> 00:05:42.680
As the vice chair of the Bush panel said, quote, our tax code should not scare people, should not threaten people, should not confuse people.

66
00:05:42.680 --> 00:05:52.680
Well, you can try this at home. Go collect two trillion dollars while offering not much in return without threatening, scaring or confusing.

67
00:05:52.680 --> 00:05:57.680
So thus do we hear two messages at once.

68
00:05:57.680 --> 00:06:03.680
In the first we hear about how bad the current tax code is, and it is this message that compels us.

69
00:06:03.680 --> 00:06:09.680
There is more bad to say about the current tax code that could be said by all the politicians in the world.

70
00:06:09.680 --> 00:06:15.240
World. It is the second part of the message where the trouble comes, the proposal to replace

71
00:06:15.240 --> 00:06:21.960
what we have now with something new. Here is the part that is troubling. The magic tax

72
00:06:21.960 --> 00:06:26.440
reform machine that grinds and grinds over the next two years will net billions for the

73
00:06:26.440 --> 00:06:31.440
political class, as every pressure group ponies up to make sure that their point of view gets

74
00:06:31.440 --> 00:06:36.240
a hearing. In the end, however, the average taxpayer and businessmen will have nothing

75
00:06:36.240 --> 00:06:42.240
This is my prediction based on experience and based on the logic of the political situation.

76
00:06:42.240 --> 00:06:48.240
But let's focus on the first part of the tax reform message, the part that is undeniably true.

77
00:06:48.240 --> 00:06:51.240
The current tax code is a disaster.

78
00:06:51.240 --> 00:06:56.240
The tax panel that Bush appointed will surely conclude this, and who could disagree?

79
00:06:56.240 --> 00:07:02.240
Now, if you read the economics text, they will tell you there is such a thing as a neutral tax,

80
00:07:02.240 --> 00:07:07.240
A neutral tax, one that does not distort the operation of the market economy.

81
00:07:07.240 --> 00:07:15.240
But the neutral tax is a myth. In one way or another, every tax punishes productivity in both seen and unseen ways.

82
00:07:15.240 --> 00:07:20.240
It should be obvious that the money individuals pay to Washington could be put to better use in the household budget,

83
00:07:20.240 --> 00:07:24.240
whether it is to save or spend or some combination thereof.

84
00:07:24.240 --> 00:07:30.240
The double taxation that stems from the corporate tax constitutes a direct hit on production.

85
00:07:30.240 --> 00:07:36.160
But as Murray Rothbard shows, even excise taxes but supposedly tax consumption are really

86
00:07:36.160 --> 00:07:39.560
nothing more than taxes on production.

87
00:07:39.560 --> 00:07:43.800
Producers have no way to pass on the cost of the tax to consumers.

88
00:07:43.800 --> 00:07:49.280
To the consumer, the price plus the tax is just a price and the decision to buy or not

89
00:07:49.280 --> 00:07:52.360
to buy follows on that basis.

90
00:07:52.360 --> 00:07:57.000
When you go to the pump to purchase gasoline, you do not make a buying decision based on

91
00:07:57.000 --> 00:08:02.000
and the price of one dollar and then reluctantly cough up another dollar to pay the tax.

92
00:08:02.000 --> 00:08:08.000
No, we consumers make the decision about whether to buy and in what quantity based on the full price,

93
00:08:08.000 --> 00:08:11.000
which is to say the market price plus the tax.

94
00:08:11.000 --> 00:08:15.000
The two are not easily separated because the price is not determined by the cost,

95
00:08:15.000 --> 00:08:19.000
but rather by the interaction of supply and demand.

96
00:08:19.000 --> 00:08:26.000
The tax then cannot be passed on to the consumer any more than any other price hike can be passed on to the consumer.

97
00:08:26.000 --> 00:08:31.240
If the consumer is not willing to pay the higher price, he or she will not pay it, regardless

98
00:08:31.240 --> 00:08:38.000
of the source. To be sure, taxes cause prices to increase, but the quantity of purchase

99
00:08:38.000 --> 00:08:42.240
responds to the will of the purchaser, and those purchasing decisions respond to the

100
00:08:42.240 --> 00:08:47.100
law of demand, which is to say that people will demand more at a lower price than at

101
00:08:47.100 --> 00:08:52.960
a higher price and vice versa. When consumers purchase less, they are punishing

102
00:08:52.960 --> 00:09:04.960
The idea of a consumer tax is something of a myth. It is paid at the retail end, but

103
00:09:04.960 --> 00:09:09.600
the effects shoot back through the entire structure of production from the final seller

104
00:09:09.600 --> 00:09:16.160
to the most remote producer. Same is true of residential property taxes. The tax is figured

105
00:09:16.160 --> 00:09:21.000
into the price of the house, and the judgment of what size house to buy in what neighborhood

106
00:09:21.000 --> 00:09:25.680
is made via calculus that includes everything that goes into the price.

107
00:09:25.680 --> 00:09:31.000
The tax is not easily passed on and an increase in the property tax is a tax on the production

108
00:09:31.000 --> 00:09:32.680
of houses.

109
00:09:32.680 --> 00:09:36.040
There is no such thing as tax shifting.

110
00:09:36.040 --> 00:09:40.640
What is interesting to me is that we seem to intuitively understand this in some sectors

111
00:09:40.640 --> 00:09:42.400
if not in others.

112
00:09:42.400 --> 00:09:47.800
We understand that the cigarette tax is not only a tax on users but a tax on cigarette

113
00:09:47.800 --> 00:09:53.140
Makers and Ultimately on Tobacco Growers. And yet, we talk about increasing the tax

114
00:09:53.140 --> 00:09:58.440
on homes, luxury goods, liquor and gasoline with little thought concerning the effect

115
00:09:58.440 --> 00:10:04.140
on builders, gas stations, drillers and other producers say nothing of the spillover effects

116
00:10:04.140 --> 00:10:10.560
on workers and their families. Murray Rothbard's great book Man Economy and State undertakes

117
00:10:10.560 --> 00:10:16.600
an analysis of every conceivable form of taxation to demonstrate every way in which this occurs.

118
00:10:16.600 --> 00:10:33.600
I won't march through his detailed and sweeping argument, but suffice it to say that he covers income taxes, corporate taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, withholding taxes, every form you can imagine.

119
00:10:33.600 --> 00:10:42.600
There are many books I would recommend, but I would put this section of Rothbard's treatise at the top of the list for required reading for the political class.

120
00:10:42.600 --> 00:10:50.600
If they are going to plunder us, they should at least be denied the luxury of believing that they're doing it for our own good.

121
00:10:50.600 --> 00:10:59.600
The point is that there is no such thing as a neutral tax, and no such thing as a tax that is non-destructive to the production process.

122
00:10:59.600 --> 00:11:04.600
They all harm the ability of individuals to create wealth, trade and produce.

123
00:11:04.600 --> 00:11:11.600
This means fewer resources available for investing in the future, for donating to charity, for spending on leisure,

124
00:11:11.600 --> 00:11:15.600
for Cultivating the Garden of Civilization Itself.

125
00:11:15.600 --> 00:11:19.600
It is nothing short of a miracle of our times and of all times

126
00:11:19.600 --> 00:11:23.600
that wealth and civilization continue to be built despite the unrelenting assault

127
00:11:23.600 --> 00:11:27.600
on our lives and property by the political class.

128
00:11:27.600 --> 00:11:31.600
It is a living testament to human ingenuity and creative entrepreneurship

129
00:11:31.600 --> 00:11:35.600
of the merchant class that they can function so well despite the advance

130
00:11:35.600 --> 00:11:39.600
of the tax state. It is to this class that we owe our wealth,

131
00:11:39.600 --> 00:11:45.500
wealth, freedom and all the improvements in health, art and culture generally.

132
00:11:45.500 --> 00:11:50.940
We live amidst a great revolution in technology and daily we see being brought to market the

133
00:11:50.940 --> 00:11:55.380
most stunning improvements in information technology, transportation, medical care and

134
00:11:55.380 --> 00:11:56.700
so many other areas.

135
00:11:56.700 --> 00:12:02.500
But let us be clear that we owe this not to the taxers but to the creators, not to those

136
00:12:02.500 --> 00:12:07.040
who live off others but to those who make their own way and dedicate themselves to the

137
00:12:07.040 --> 00:12:10.040
and the Improvement of Mankind.

138
00:12:10.040 --> 00:12:13.440
At the Internal Revenue Service's headquarters in D.C.,

139
00:12:13.440 --> 00:12:15.840
you will see a sign above the entrance that says,

140
00:12:15.840 --> 00:12:20.340
taxes are the price we pay for civilization.

141
00:12:20.340 --> 00:12:23.940
It's based on the Hobbesian theory that in the absence of taxes,

142
00:12:23.940 --> 00:12:27.040
there would be a war of all against all.

143
00:12:27.040 --> 00:12:30.240
Actually, all of history shows that taxes are a leading cause

144
00:12:30.240 --> 00:12:32.540
of the breakdown of civilization.

145
00:12:32.540 --> 00:12:35.540
The higher the tax, the less wealth there is to create

146
00:12:35.540 --> 00:12:37.740
and Sustained Civilization.

147
00:12:37.740 --> 00:12:41.020
We have civilization despite taxes,

148
00:12:41.020 --> 00:12:43.620
and it is this fact which is the most notable.

149
00:12:45.100 --> 00:12:47.940
Is there a need to reform taxes?

150
00:12:47.940 --> 00:12:50.660
Yes, always and everywhere.

151
00:12:50.660 --> 00:12:52.100
You can always make a strong case

152
00:12:52.100 --> 00:12:55.120
against all forms of taxation and all tax codes

153
00:12:55.120 --> 00:12:58.100
and all mechanisms by which a privileged elite

154
00:12:58.100 --> 00:13:00.460
attempts to extract wealth from the population.

155
00:13:01.460 --> 00:13:04.660
And this is always the first step in tax reform,

156
00:13:04.660 --> 00:13:07.660
to get the public seething about the tax code.

157
00:13:07.660 --> 00:13:10.300
And do it by way of preparation for step two,

158
00:13:10.300 --> 00:13:13.280
which is the proposed replacement system.

159
00:13:13.280 --> 00:13:15.440
Of course, this is the stage at which you need

160
00:13:15.440 --> 00:13:16.740
to hold onto your wallet.

161
00:13:18.220 --> 00:13:20.380
Hardly a day goes by when I don't receive an email

162
00:13:20.380 --> 00:13:24.180
from someone who has a grand plan to reform the tax code,

163
00:13:24.180 --> 00:13:27.620
replacing the current system completely with something else.

164
00:13:27.620 --> 00:13:29.980
That something is usually the value added tax

165
00:13:29.980 --> 00:13:32.320
or the national sales tax.

166
00:13:32.320 --> 00:13:37.760
The people promoting this plan long for a world in which they are permitted to keep all the money they make

167
00:13:37.760 --> 00:13:41.420
and only the purchases of goods and services would pay.

168
00:13:41.420 --> 00:13:45.600
There are many grave problems with the VAT and the NST, not the least of which

169
00:13:45.600 --> 00:13:49.100
they would have to be at least twenty percent, maybe as much as forty percent

170
00:13:49.100 --> 00:13:52.480
in order to raise enough revenue.

171
00:13:52.480 --> 00:13:55.000
Then there are problems of enforcement.

172
00:13:55.000 --> 00:13:59.180
The U.S. would instantly become host to an even larger underground economy

173
00:13:59.180 --> 00:14:01.340
which in turn would give even more of a rationale

174
00:14:01.340 --> 00:14:03.540
to the central state to invade our businesses,

175
00:14:03.540 --> 00:14:06.380
homes, personal finances,

176
00:14:06.380 --> 00:14:09.680
be essentially unenforceable and yet lead at the same time

177
00:14:09.680 --> 00:14:12.500
to even more of a war over the government against all

178
00:14:12.500 --> 00:14:15.840
complete with even more spies, agents and entrapments.

179
00:14:17.260 --> 00:14:19.700
But there's another danger to the people promoting a VAT

180
00:14:19.700 --> 00:14:21.740
or a national sales tax.

181
00:14:21.740 --> 00:14:24.380
It might actually convince people in Washington

182
00:14:24.380 --> 00:14:26.700
they have a chance to give it a try.

183
00:14:26.700 --> 00:14:28.500
And instead of replacing the whole tax code,

184
00:14:28.500 --> 00:14:35.300
The politicians might try 1% or 3%. If they get away with this, look out. We will inch

185
00:14:35.300 --> 00:14:41.020
up year by year as they try to discover ever more ways of looting us.

186
00:14:41.020 --> 00:14:46.580
This points to the general danger of the idea of a replacement tax. I hear these plans all

187
00:14:46.580 --> 00:14:51.260
the time. People say, let's get rid of the tax I don't like and replace it with one

188
00:14:51.260 --> 00:14:58.200
I don't pay. So people will propose getting rid of the capital gains tax and instead increase

189
00:14:58.200 --> 00:15:03.240
Taxes on Inheritance, or they say, let's get rid of inheritance taxes and put a higher

190
00:15:03.240 --> 00:15:09.680
tax on Americans working abroad. You can think of many of your own variations on this. The

191
00:15:09.680 --> 00:15:13.880
danger here is not in advocating the repeal of a tax. That is something we should all

192
00:15:13.880 --> 00:15:20.040
favor. The danger comes from advocating a new tax to take its place. And if you know

193
00:15:20.040 --> 00:15:25.100
the way politics works, you know that the new tax has a chance to be enacted and the

194
00:15:25.100 --> 00:15:28.340
and the old one not repealed.

195
00:15:28.340 --> 00:15:33.320
Another favorite plan that is still floating out there is the idea of a flat tax.

196
00:15:33.320 --> 00:15:37.540
Steve Forbes was the last prominent politician to advocate this.

197
00:15:37.540 --> 00:15:41.660
His idea was to completely eliminate all loopholes and replace them with an across the board

198
00:15:41.660 --> 00:15:47.500
20% tax or whatever would be necessary to retain revenue neutrality.

199
00:15:47.500 --> 00:15:53.700
The story of how his political career melted as a result has not really been told.

200
00:15:53.700 --> 00:15:58.340
What happened was this, every time Forbes said flat taxes, voters heard, this crazy

201
00:15:58.340 --> 00:16:03.300
man wants to eliminate the deductions I get for my children, charitable giving, mortgage

202
00:16:03.300 --> 00:16:08.820
interest. Forbes quickly protested that while it's true he would eliminate these, his plan

203
00:16:08.820 --> 00:16:14.580
was to cut taxes elsewhere. But voters were a bit too sophisticated to buy into this. For

204
00:16:14.580 --> 00:16:19.320
long and bitter experience suggest the deductions are eliminated, but the new and wonderful

205
00:16:19.320 --> 00:16:30.320
This is good thinking, of course. Imagine that a criminal comes by every once in a while to steal some of the furniture on your porch.

206
00:16:30.320 --> 00:16:34.320
Whenever you leave it out, the criminal might come by and grab a piece.

207
00:16:34.320 --> 00:16:38.320
But for whatever reason, he leaves all your potted plants alone.

208
00:16:38.320 --> 00:16:42.320
Then the criminal rings the doorbell one day and he says,

209
00:16:42.320 --> 00:16:50.320
Let's make a deal. Leave all your furniture out, and I won't touch it. I'll just take the potted plants.

210
00:16:50.320 --> 00:16:53.320
Overall, he says, you're going to be better off.

211
00:16:53.320 --> 00:16:59.320
Now, if you go for this deal, you probably deserve to have both your furniture and your potted plants stolen.

212
00:16:59.320 --> 00:17:05.320
Forbes found himself in the position of this criminal, who proposed to start taxing you here,

213
00:17:05.320 --> 00:17:09.320
in exchange for which he will stop taxing you there.

214
00:17:09.320 --> 00:17:13.440
This is not a deal voters are drawn to any more than they are drawn to politicians who

215
00:17:13.440 --> 00:17:17.960
propose to increase any taxes at all. Quite wise.

216
00:17:17.960 --> 00:17:24.400
For my part, I'm a champion of the loophole, as was Ludwig von Mises. He was attending

217
00:17:24.400 --> 00:17:29.060
a conference in the 1950s at which economists were all denouncing loopholes, and he rose

218
00:17:29.060 --> 00:17:35.460
to their defense. Let us be grateful for the fact that there are still such things as these

219
00:17:35.460 --> 00:17:38.500
These honorable gentlemen call loopholes, he said.

220
00:17:38.500 --> 00:17:42.480
Thanks to these loopholes, this country is still a free country, and its workers are

221
00:17:42.480 --> 00:17:48.340
not yet reduced to the status and distress of their Russian colleagues.

222
00:17:48.340 --> 00:17:51.900
A loophole is nothing more than the chance to keep your own money.

223
00:17:51.900 --> 00:17:57.460
It's not a subsidy, it's not a tax spending, it's not corporate welfare, it's not a special

224
00:17:57.460 --> 00:18:00.980
privilege, it's just a window of freedom.

225
00:18:00.980 --> 00:18:02.820
Loopholes should be expanded as much as possible.

226
00:18:02.820 --> 00:18:12.820
There should be ever more of them. A completely loophole economy, where there were maximum opportunities for not paying tax, might finally arrive at the idea of freedom.

227
00:18:12.820 --> 00:18:19.820
Thus do I suggest that we never bite when someone dangles on a hook the idea of closing loopholes.

228
00:18:19.820 --> 00:18:24.820
And this raises the question of precisely what we should support.

229
00:18:24.820 --> 00:18:33.820
The only tax plan anyone should trust is the most simple, the one that proposes to lower existing taxes.

230
00:18:33.820 --> 00:18:41.820
I must really say this again because it is the most important single point you can remember when evaluating whether to support a tax reform or not.

231
00:18:41.820 --> 00:18:49.820
The only trustworthy plan is that that proposes either to lower or eliminate an existing tax, period.

232
00:18:49.820 --> 00:19:06.820
Now an ideal reform would also propose equivalent spending cuts. In fact, in the most strict sense, there can be no tax cut without spending cuts since we must all pay one way or another for the burden of government as measured by spending. But we must leave that aside for now.

233
00:19:06.820 --> 00:19:13.820
As we think about the Bush tax reform, remember to measure it by the strict standard of whether it cuts an existing tax.

234
00:19:13.820 --> 00:19:20.180
Tax. If it does not, or if it proposes to raise other taxes along with the cut, to support

235
00:19:20.180 --> 00:19:24.660
it is to entrust your future to a political class that has about as much interest in your

236
00:19:24.660 --> 00:19:30.700
well-being as the criminal who steals your porch furniture. You're taking a major risk

237
00:19:30.700 --> 00:19:37.140
in taking his word on anything. Let's examine the proposal to create what are called private

238
00:19:37.140 --> 00:19:42.780
investment accounts within the social security system. This is a major feature of the Bush

239
00:19:42.780 --> 00:19:45.780
and the British Administration's tax plan.

240
00:19:45.780 --> 00:19:49.780
As everyone knows by now, the idea creates a world-class fiscal headache

241
00:19:49.780 --> 00:19:54.780
because it diverts the revenue stream flowing from payers to beneficiaries.

242
00:19:54.780 --> 00:19:57.780
This is the problem called the transition cost.

243
00:19:57.780 --> 00:20:00.780
If the costs were to be picked up by the general revenue

244
00:20:00.780 --> 00:20:04.780
and otherwise payers were free to do with their money what they wanted,

245
00:20:04.780 --> 00:20:07.780
I think every free marketeer would support it.

246
00:20:07.780 --> 00:20:09.780
And if we pursued this idea to its end,

247
00:20:09.780 --> 00:20:19.780
is abolishing Social Security as we know it, and leaving in its place a straight-out welfare program for older people who need or expect money from the government.

248
00:20:19.780 --> 00:20:26.780
I would be for this too, since it would get rid of the idea that somehow Social Security is an insurance program.

249
00:20:26.780 --> 00:20:32.780
It is not. It is a transfer program. I would be forgoing this route in baby steps.

250
00:20:32.780 --> 00:20:38.180
50% cut in the payroll tax would be magnificent, the 10% cut would be great, a 1% cut would

251
00:20:38.180 --> 00:20:42.620
be great. Any cut would be great because it would mean that people could control more

252
00:20:42.620 --> 00:20:47.060
of their own money, businesses would face a lighter burden and there would be more wealth

253
00:20:47.060 --> 00:20:53.740
available for people to prepare for their older years via savings and genuine insurance.

254
00:20:53.740 --> 00:20:57.700
There have been so many innovations in the financial industry in recent years that the

255
00:20:57.700 --> 00:21:01.880
private sector would be in a perfect position to meet the needs of every citizen without

256
00:21:01.880 --> 00:21:05.880
without having to be prodded and browbeaten by the Federal Government.

257
00:21:05.880 --> 00:21:08.880
Never before has it been easier to save and prepare,

258
00:21:08.880 --> 00:21:11.880
balancing known and unknown factors in our individual futures

259
00:21:11.880 --> 00:21:15.880
through a combination of insurance and investment and savings plans.

260
00:21:15.880 --> 00:21:19.880
And not only ones that provide an income stream for our own lifetimes,

261
00:21:19.880 --> 00:21:24.880
but work to assist our loved ones in the causes we care about after our death.

262
00:21:24.880 --> 00:21:29.880
But I'm sorry to report this is not what the Bush administration proposes.

263
00:21:29.880 --> 00:21:34.960
Instead of actual private accounts, the Bush administration is proposing to create a brand

264
00:21:34.960 --> 00:21:41.420
new program of national mandatory savings, and it wants to create this new program which

265
00:21:41.420 --> 00:21:46.980
would have been regarded as socialistic in 1900 and fascistic in 1920 at the expense

266
00:21:46.980 --> 00:21:53.760
of the existing social security structure. This, I submit, is not a good idea. Call it

267
00:21:53.760 --> 00:21:58.160
private accounts, individual retirement accounts if you want, but from the point of view of

268
00:21:58.160 --> 00:22:04.180
of Individuals, it is still a tax, because it is money that, taken by you from force,

269
00:22:04.180 --> 00:22:08.720
by force, that you cannot control, is taken on a promise that it can be returned to you

270
00:22:08.720 --> 00:22:14.080
at some day in the future, and in the way the government decides best.

271
00:22:14.080 --> 00:22:19.280
Now notice how the campaign to reform Social Security is taking a familiar route. First,

272
00:22:19.280 --> 00:22:24.400
the administration makes a strong case against the status quo. When it comes to any tax,

273
00:22:24.400 --> 00:22:30.500
This is the easy part. They have rightly said the program is unstable, unsustainable, discourages

274
00:22:30.500 --> 00:22:36.060
investment, is a bad deal. Certainly true not only of Social Security but of every other

275
00:22:36.060 --> 00:22:42.320
government transfer program. But what about the replacement? Is a new program for national

276
00:22:42.320 --> 00:22:47.760
force saving something unheard of in American history a good idea? Is it smart to require

277
00:22:47.760 --> 00:22:54.180
that young people fork over money to a quasi-private system? Is it going to invite a great deal

278
00:22:54.180 --> 00:23:00.540
A deal of intrusiveness into the markets that was never in veil and tailed by Social Security.

279
00:23:00.540 --> 00:23:04.300
Government will tell you what funds you may or may not put your money in, and how and

280
00:23:04.300 --> 00:23:08.780
when you may withdraw that money, or even whether you're going to withdraw it at all

281
00:23:08.780 --> 00:23:12.540
or whether they'll purchase a government annuity for you.

282
00:23:12.540 --> 00:23:16.060
There will develop a symbiotic relationship between preferred financial groups on Wall

283
00:23:16.060 --> 00:23:21.260
Street and the collection bureau for the private accounts, which means a great deal of potential

284
00:23:21.260 --> 00:23:23.060
for corruption.

285
00:23:23.060 --> 00:23:26.660
There will be a floor put on the account so that they will never be allowed to fall below

286
00:23:26.660 --> 00:23:31.820
a certain minimum, thus introducing a too-big-to-fail doctrine.

287
00:23:31.820 --> 00:23:35.460
People can reasonably claim that it was not their choice to save this money, so the federal

288
00:23:35.460 --> 00:23:39.940
government should take some responsibility for guaranteeing their investments.

289
00:23:39.940 --> 00:23:45.780
To those of you who think this proposed system is a good idea, I might ask this question.

290
00:23:45.780 --> 00:23:50.020
Why isn't the Bush administration simply cutting the payroll tax?

291
00:23:50.020 --> 00:23:54.820
I can't see that this plan is any more or less viable than a proposed forced national

292
00:23:54.820 --> 00:23:57.020
savings plan.

293
00:23:57.020 --> 00:24:01.380
The answer is that the Bush administration genuinely believes in creating a new forced

294
00:24:01.380 --> 00:24:03.180
savings scheme.

295
00:24:03.180 --> 00:24:05.220
It desires such a thing.

296
00:24:05.220 --> 00:24:09.540
To observe this is simply to observe that these people do not understand markets, do

297
00:24:09.540 --> 00:24:14.100
not accept a basic postulate of the free market idea, and do not trust people to manage their

298
00:24:14.100 --> 00:24:15.780
own money.

299
00:24:15.780 --> 00:24:16.780
That's the reason.

300
00:24:16.780 --> 00:24:21.780
Of course, what you've just heard does not fit in with any analysis you may have heard elsewhere.

301
00:24:21.780 --> 00:24:26.780
The left claims that the Bush administration has a secret plan to rob older Americans,

302
00:24:26.780 --> 00:24:31.780
while the right wants you to believe that the creation of so-called private accounts is physically sound

303
00:24:31.780 --> 00:24:34.780
and consistent with the freedom to choose.

304
00:24:34.780 --> 00:24:37.780
But this is what you get at tax reform time.

305
00:24:37.780 --> 00:24:42.780
Partisans sign up on all sides, and you can no longer trust what you hear or read.

306
00:24:42.780 --> 00:24:49.500
To make matters worse, it is a very long time before you will ever know what is in the legislation.

307
00:24:49.500 --> 00:24:54.100
The White House makes a proposal, it is hammered out in congressional committees, brought to

308
00:24:54.100 --> 00:24:59.500
a vote in both houses, and then finally we arrive at the really crucial stage that civics

309
00:24:59.500 --> 00:25:04.560
texts never talk about, although Congressman Ron Paul does talk about, and that is the

310
00:25:04.560 --> 00:25:06.600
conference committee.

311
00:25:06.600 --> 00:25:10.180
This is where all the crucial decisions are made in secret.

312
00:25:10.180 --> 00:25:14.500
It's also the stage that for whatever reason the press seems to care less about because

313
00:25:14.500 --> 00:25:17.740
the public drama is over.

314
00:25:17.740 --> 00:25:19.820
What is the end result of tax reform?

315
00:25:19.820 --> 00:25:24.680
Well, we've had reformed taxes frequently in the last century and you need only look

316
00:25:24.680 --> 00:25:28.100
at the rise of federal revenue to see where this has gotten us.

317
00:25:28.100 --> 00:25:33.540
Ever more of our earnings going to Washington and ever fewer choices on how we can use what

318
00:25:33.540 --> 00:25:35.540
remains.

319
00:25:35.540 --> 00:25:39.480
Let me close with a proposal that we abolish the income tax.

320
00:25:39.480 --> 00:25:42.960
It took in $873 billion last year.

321
00:25:42.960 --> 00:25:44.700
Now if we cut the budget by that amount,

322
00:25:44.700 --> 00:25:46.560
we would end up with a completely gutted

323
00:25:46.560 --> 00:25:47.820
federal government, right?

324
00:25:48.840 --> 00:25:51.280
Actually, we would end up with a federal budget

325
00:25:51.280 --> 00:25:54.520
of about 1.5 trillion, which is where it was

326
00:25:54.520 --> 00:25:57.860
in the last year of Bill Clinton's second term.

327
00:25:59.000 --> 00:26:00.460
If anybody thinks the federal government

328
00:26:00.460 --> 00:26:03.600
was too small back then, I can only recommend

329
00:26:03.600 --> 00:26:06.740
a complete education in economics, politics,

330
00:26:06.740 --> 00:26:09.280
and the truth about human freedom.

331
00:26:09.280 --> 00:26:14.920
Thus do I end this talk with a call not for reform, but for an end to the income tax.

332
00:26:14.920 --> 00:26:19.920
It should be replaced with nothing at all. In any case, that would be a good first step.

333
00:26:20.920 --> 00:26:22.920
Thank you very much.