-
Downton’s Class System — and Ours
May 20, 2013 | 9 comments
-
The Mexican Kleptocracy: July 1989
April 19, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The Mexican Kleptocracy
April 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Black Plight: In Conflict With Unions
April 6, 2013 | 0 comments
-
An Assist from the Press
March 16, 2013 | 0 comments
Capitol Ideas
Taxes Won’t Save Us
Chop-logic from Wonderland.
(Page 2 of 2)
But there’s a new element today. Governments can only inflate away their debt if lenders are unwary. Today, market participants are more alert than ever. If incipient inflation is spotted, “bond vigilantes” demand a higher interest rate to compensate for the dollar’s decline. This makes inflation more problematic. Rapidly rising interest rates—they are historically low right now—would soon overwhelm the federal budget. Which means that the Fed has to be careful about its money creation.
Lewis Lehrman, chairman of the Lehrman Institute and normally an optimist, has referred to America’s “dire and deteriorating position as a massive debtor,” propped up “by the exorbitant privilege of the dollar’s role as a global reserve currency.” Our private national wealth, he adds, “has been indirectly pledged as collateral for U.S. government debt and its enormous unfunded liabilities.”
The main problem has been our endless expansion of debt, and the assumption by Democrats and the media that once spending is pushed through, as happened with TARP in 2009, the GOP is trapped. It will have no option but to “raise taxes” to keep pace. The increase in spending is treated as a ratchet that can move only in one direction.
An underlying problem is the tax code, which rewards debt (with tax breaks) and punishes savings (with taxation and inflation). Those incentives should be reversed. But wait, that would help “the rich”…
About the Author
Tom Bethell is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages, and most recently Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? (2009).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (20) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Tom Bethell
More Articles From Capitol Ideas
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/30/taxes-wont-save-us
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Hannah and Her Friends
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
The Avenger| 10.30.12 @ 7:59AM
The President, and his party are economic illiterates. The idiot Paul Krugman is their hero while the brilliant Milton Friedman is their arch enemy.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.30.12 @ 8:21AM
Beautiful summation!
RJ| 10.31.12 @ 2:40AM
Yes, they are idiots, but there is also a lot of arsonist in them. Obama sees 1984 and Animal Farm as the objective.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.30.12 @ 8:21AM
Thanks for a great article.
Jacob McCandles| 10.30.12 @ 9:29AM
Best case scenario: Romney wins, senate goes GOP. Policy becomes tax reduction and economic growth. Without fundemental entitlement reform, even a boom won't save us from runaway debt and inflation. We desperately need to block grant and freeze all means tested programs and allow private options for Medicare.
Mike G| 10.30.12 @ 9:38AM
And we, the citizenry, need to start demanding spending cuts, not spending slowdowns.
buckeyeman| 10.30.12 @ 12:10PM
Even if Romney is elected and takes the action you suggest, our problem is not solved. We cannot "grow" our way out of the debt we have created. The only solution is SEVERE belt tightening - essentially the end of the welfare state. That will not happen.
RJ| 10.31.12 @ 2:43AM
It may very well not happen voluntarily, but the welfare state is unsustainable. There is no doubt that it will be reigned in; the question is what form it will take.
Gary B| 10.31.12 @ 5:30AM
What can't go on, won't go on.
Al Adab| 10.30.12 @ 9:36AM
In economics, as in all other policy matters, the Dem party is hopelessly deluded. Wishing does not make it so and often leads to dangerous decisions. "Facts" as John Adams said, " are stubborn things".
Who Knows?| 10.30.12 @ 11:17AM
“The belief in Washington now—at the end of August—is that Congress will do nothing in October.”
So, this article is two months old?
Anyway, I’m with you, Mr. Bethell---the true vast right wing “conspiracy” is the majority of Americans who are economically illiterate.
After reading Mark Helprin’s piece in yesterday’s WSJ, especially the analysis of China and the vital need for a large and a strong navy, along with other recent stuff, it’s become even more obvious that Americans are suicidally illiterate, when it comes to foreign policy.
Political AND economical dolts!
Mark Steyn is the man. And, maybe even he is too optimistic. America ALONE, given the state of our fat bodied and headed populace, is going to be able to withstand the onslaught of fanatical dictators, from Russia to China to Iran---I wonder.
While America slept---that’ll be the theme historians will examine, in the future, if this country even survives without becoming a satrap to some hardier country.
Why, the top dog of China is worth BILLIONS of dollars, and the 70 guys right below him seem to average a BILLION each! And, Algore has only managed to bilk America of 100 million dollars.
Even if Romney wins, without the Senate for at least 2 more years, welcome to Obamacare FOR REAL.
Bad has already gone to worse, and terrible is next for America---just rewards for previous stupidity.
RichTex| 10.30.12 @ 11:54AM
What to do about tax rates? How can we make everyone happy? Here’s my proposal:
First, if you were to poll Democrats as to their favorite president of the 20th Century, chances are pretty good that they would name Franklin Roosevelt. Ask Republicans the same question, and the answer would be Ronald Reagan (although I have my doubts about some of the RINOs in our midst).
Now, simply give everyone an alternative when they file their taxes. If they like Roosevelt, they have the option of paying under Roosevelt rates. Same with Reagan; they could choose to pay under Reagan rates. Remember at the time Roosevelt died in 1944, the rate on the top bracket, over $200,000, was 94%. At the time Reagan left office, the top bracket, over $155,780, was 28%, although there was a rate of 33% for those between $75,050 and that top amount. Of course, these figures are not adjusted for inflation, but then who caused the greatest inflation we’ve seen in the past century?
I would have the tax form ask the question in these words: “Of the following two presidents, which one do you prefer, Roosevelt [check Box 1(a)] or Reagan [check Box 1(b)].” Then when you’re down to calculating your taxes, you would be directed to the rate schedule depending on which box you had checked. Let’s then see how much liberals really like taxes when it comes to their own money.
Al Adab| 10.30.12 @ 2:00PM
You touch on the true underlying problem of our tax system. Tax rates. Why, by any imaginitive process, is one dollar treated differently than any other based solely on the volume or source? There is no distinction in reality between earned dollars and just as the law presumes to treat all individuals equally under law (which is why affirmative action is anathema), so the tax structure should treat all dollars equally. The entire concept of tax brackets violates the equal protection clause of the 14th.
JD| 10.30.12 @ 4:19PM
You demonstrate how thoroughly liberalism has infected even conservatives.
The idea that taxes should be a percentage of income is a liberal idea. It was never just. They conceived it to find a way to get the public to accept tax increases - by raising taxes only on the rich.
A true "flat" tax is not a flat rate, but a flat amount. It's each person paying the same amount, regardless of how hard it is for him to pay it. That is true fairness. Leftists will say that this is unfair, because some get more from government than others. Well, they would have the "some" be the poor, so that hardly justifies charging the rich more.
In any case, we believe everyone should get the same benefit from government, and should pay the same amount for it. This is essential fairness, which the Left fears so much that it calls it "regressive."
If stores charged different amounts for the same product depending on the wealth of the buyer, the injustice would be clear. Yet government does this, and even the nominal "Right" doesn't complain. This reinforces another great Leftist lie - the idea that government is "special" and different from other entities with which we do business. This lie feeds every other abuse the Left would have government commit.
Government services should benefit everyone equally, and we should each pay the same amount for them. Period. Anything else is the slippery slope to Statism.
RichTex| 10.30.12 @ 4:25PM
Some time ago, I wrote that I believe a graduated tax to be a violation of the equal protection clause, and I still hold to that proposition. If we could just get the courts to see it that way. In the meantime...
Al Adab| 10.30.12 @ 4:28PM
JD:
I think we are on the same page here. That is why the founders prohibit a tax on income. It was only with the birth of the Progressive Era that income tax become a reality. It was presented as a penalty on wealth and a redistribution scheme from the start. It is the income tax which supports the welfare state. Without it the entire edifice would (thankfully) collapse.
sylercider| 11.1.12 @ 1:08PM
JD, your idea of a "flat amount" tax is totally bizarre.
A society with a "flat amount" tax would fall apart immediately.
You think millionaires would leave a country with a high progressive tax? Well, what do you think the middle and lower class would do in your "flat amount" tax country?
sylercider| 11.1.12 @ 1:16PM
Let's make it simpler, RichTex: 'Who wants to pay no taxes at all?'.
I bet everyone, including myself, would raise their hands.
But, once you get down to the details, people start to understand that you can't get things for free.
Do you like having an interstate freeway system?
How about a well run electrical grid?
Do you enjoy being able to post comments on the internet?
Do you enjoy the relatively peaceful society we have?
Well, all of this was possible thanks to your, and my, taxes.
JD| 10.30.12 @ 4:10PM
"In the end, only the budget wonks understand what’s going on."
False. Budget wonks do not understand what's going on, or they wouldn't be complicit in it.
RJ| 10.31.12 @ 2:49AM
I have two major fears. First, that the US does not exercise the political will to get its finances in order. Second, that rising interest rates swamp the federal budget due to the amount of present debt. We need much better leadership than we have been getting.