Tag: taxes

–Does your money belong to the government?

An alternative to popular faith

The November 23, 2009 New Yorker contained an article by James Surowiecki, titled “The Debt Economy.” He claims what he calls “tax breaks,” adversely skew the economy and cause people not to “make decisions based on economic fundamentals (but) on tax considerations.”

He gives the example of corporate interest payments vs. dividends. The former are tax deductible “tax breaks”; the later are not, which provides a “debt bias” (his words) to the economy.

Mr. Surowiecki disparages “tax breaks” as being “unnecessary” and having “nonexistent social benefits.” His solution: Eliminate tax breaks.

Consider health insurance. The government encourages companies to provide it by allowing payments to be tax deductible for the companies, and not taxable to the employees – i.e., using before-tax dollars. In contrast, people who purchase their own health insurance must use after-tax dollars. In Mr. Surowiecki’s world, the economy would benefit from eliminating the “tax break” by taxing employees’ health benefits.

This solution suggests taxes are the norm, and tax breaks are departures from that norm. That is, all the money you earn belongs to the government, and only an aberration or “break,” allows you to keep some of it.

I disagree. It is taxes, not “tax breaks,” that skew our economy, forcing decisions away from economic fundamentals. Eliminate taxes and the economy would be steered by the economic fundamentals Mr. Surowiecki craves. All taxes depart from these economic fundamentals. There are no innocuous taxes. They all make a difference. So the very act of imposing a tax, any tax, will skew the economy.

Further, there are no “fair” taxes. You can read a one-page article on this subject at: http://rodgermitchell.com/FairTaxes.html

Tax breaks are less harmful than taxes, not only because taxes skew the economy, but because all taxes remove money from the economy, thereby reducing economic growth.

Taxes are not the norm. Your money does not belong to the government. When deciding whether to tax debt or to “untax” non-debt, the economy would benefit from the later.

*Faith is belief without evidence. Science is belief from evidence.

-How to eliminate federal debt and save the economy

An alternative to popular faith

Here is the solution to the federal debt problem — a solution that involves neither increased taxes nor reduced spending.

The federal debt is caused by deficit spending. Taxpayers do not pay for deficit spending, which by definition is spending above tax receipts. Yet taxpayers find the debt worrisome for two reasons: They incorrectly believe someday, they or their grandchildren will have to pay it, and they incorrectly believe large federal deficits cause inflation.

Those concerns affect efforts to improve our health care system, crumbling infrastructure, bad schools, excessive taxes, bankrupt states, Social Security funding, poverty, joblessness and homelessness, Internet service, NASA funding, military funding, disease research and repeated recessions. The solutions require deficit spending, which debt fear prevents.

Currently the government obtains money for deficit spending by borrowing. It borrows by creating T-securities (T-bills, notes and bonds), then selling them. These T-securities are created in unlimited quantities out of thin air. This method, though still used, actually became obsolete in 1971, when President Nixon took us off the last vestiges of the gold standard. Before then, T-securities were collateralized in part by gold, which limited their issuance. Today, they are collateralized solely by the “full faith and credit” of the federal government, a resource the government has in unlimited supply.

Just as the government now creates T-securities out of thin air, it as easily and prudently could create money directly – also out of thin air and also backed only by full faith and credit.

Ending the creation and sale of T-securities would end the creation of debt. No longer would we suffer over deficits, fears that nations might refuse to lend to us and fears our path is “unsustainable.” Rather than “deficit spending” the process would be called “money-creation,” and what now is called “debt,” would more properly be called “Net Money Created.”

By eliminating debt, we would eliminate taxpayers’ concerns they or their grandchildren would pay it. Further, because the federal government now controls not only the supply, but the demand for U.S. money (via interest rates), large federal deficits have not caused inflation. See chart, below:

Deficits vs. inflation
Since we went off the gold standard, there has been no relationship between deficits and inflation.

The elimination of T-securities would allow us to create the money to solve our many economic problems and to prevent the negative economic consequences of tax increases or spending decreases.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com/

-Richard Koo–If you don’t believe me, believe him

An alternative to popular faith
Listen to Richard Koo’s tape at http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/richard-koo-great-recessions-lessons-learned-from-japan/comment-page-1/#comment-233008. He says some of what I have been saying for the past 15 years. Federal deficit spending is absolutely, positively necessary for economic growth.

I hope our government leaders listen to him, though I doubt they will. They sure haven’t listened to me. The reason: The debt hawks have the nation worried, because they equate federal debt with personal debt. So you hear that your grandchildren will have to pay the debt, and large deficits cause inflation, and surpluses are more prudent than deficits — none of which are true.

So, we struggle with trying to provide universal health care, which the government can and should provide, while debt fear negatively impacts the physical and financial health of millions.

Deficit spending grows the economy and can provide health care, too — and it never needs to be paid back. Never. But Congress, the President and most of the economists simply don’t get it. They don’t even look at our economic history, which repeatedly shows long-term deficit spending is necessary for long-term economic growth.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

–Deficits: The Possible vs. the Certain

An alternative to popular faith

Human beings have difficulty distinguishing threat levels. Despite the absolute fact that airline travel is safer per mile than auto travel, some people drive, even long distances, because they fear the safer air travel more than the dangerous auto travel.

Then think of the people who won’t vaccinate their children against the H1N1 flue, because they fear any unknown, possible adverse effects of vaccination more than they fear the known, deadly effects of the flue.

I was reminded of this human failing when I read an article in which the author claimed the economic recovery was not “real,” because it relied on government funding rather than on private funding. The author seemed to feel government funding was, in some way, artificial – as though we were using saccharine, rather than sugar, to sweeten our coffee.

Of course, money is money, and federal money is indistinguishable in effect from private money. But I suspect the author had something more than artificiality in the back of his mind. He probably understands that the federal government has the unique and unlimited ability to create money from thin air, and repeatedly has proved it never can run out of money. So, what is his concern? He must fear two things: Federal deficit spending might cause inflation and our grandchildren might have to pay for deficits.

As for inflation: Despite current, massive deficit spending we do not now experience an unacceptable level of inflation, and are unlikely to soon. Moreover, in the thirty-five years since we went off the gold standard, large deficits never have caused inflation. Clearly, something is askew with the deficits-cause-inflation hypothesis.

Even if deficits did cause inflation, private spending is identical with public spending; both add money to the economy. So the author should fear the supposed inflationary effects of private and public spending, equally.

As for grandchildren, I am a grandchild of the adults who saw the gigantic deficits of WWII and of President Reagan. Yet, because tax rates have gone down, I never have paid one penny toward those monster deficits. Similarly, if tax rates continue to stay level or decline, as they should, my grandchildren will not pay a penny toward today’s deficits.

What has this to do with the human difficulty distinguishing threat levels? The debt hawks know with certainty, that many millions of people now suffer the devastating effects of unemployment and loss of homes and lifestyle. People are dying, financially, emotionally and yes, even physically.

These same debt hawks believe that at some unknown time in the future, their children, grandchildren or great grandchildren may have to pay some unknown amount toward today’s debt. Yet they fear unknown future damage more than the certainty of today’s. That is why you see people rail against deficits. In essence, they are so afraid they one day may run short of water, they will let a home burn to the ground rather than allowing the fire fighters to save it.

The shame is that many professional economists, who should know better, foster these misguided fears, leading to misguided actions.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com/