Pixel Tracker

Tuesday, December 11 , 2018, 12:23 pm | Fair 67º

 
 
 
 

Veronique de Rugy: Tax Reform 2.0? Let’s Do Better

Republicans and President Trump are talking about tax reform 2.0. Unfortunately, it's futile without first having a real conversation about controlling spending.

Indeed, the White House isn't just unserious about cutting spending; it's contributing to the problem. It's time for a broader approach.

Don't get me wrong. There are a few tax changes we should hope for.

Some key provisions from the 2017 tax reform 1.0, particularly tax rate cuts for individuals, expire in 2025. Removing the uncertainty would be good.

Ideally, we'd level the playing field for as many Americans as possible by getting rid of deductions for state and local income tax and mortgage interest, and then lighten their load by further cutting the corporate income tax rate and indexing capital gains to inflation.

While we're at it, why not implement large and flexible universal savings accounts?

And in light of the administration's reckless trade behavior, what about subjecting an executive trade action that lowers the tax-reform 1.0 gains we receive to congressional approval?

Some of these tax reductions could be "paid for" by getting rid of tax carve-outs and other expenditures, which often distort how Americans spend money and benefit some of us far more than others.

However, without serious spending restraint, any further tax reform -- even pro-growth reform -- is unsustainable in the long run.

The Congressional Budget Office has projected an increase in deficit spending from $665 billion in 2017 to $1 trillion in 2019. After that, it's red ink all the way.

Not surprisingly, this leads to astronomical debt: from $20.2 trillion in 2017 to $33.8 trillion in 2028.

Other signs are pointing to an acceleration of our fiscal problems.

We have known for a while that Social Security is in trouble. The program has been running a permanent cash flow deficit since 2010.

If Congress doesn't change the law that administers the program — and considering how much debt we have already, that will be difficult — benefits could fall by over 20 percent by 2034, harming the poorest Americans the most.

Meanwhile, Medicare and Medicaid spending continue their run to the sun. This administration and Congress, like their predecessors, continue ignoring the telltale signs of insolvency.

Far from seeming concerned, the president just authorized $12 billion for American farmers in an attempt to alleviate the negative consequences of his own efforts to start a trade war. That follows many instances of Congress and the White House joining forces to jack up defense spending and non-defense spending, not to mention bursting the sequester spending caps.

Don't they understand that failing to keep spending in check while cutting taxes will inevitably result in the need for higher taxes down the road?

Arguments to ignore the problem abound: "We can't address our debt by cutting discretionary spending"; "Entitlements are the real problem, so who cares about budget caps?"; "No one wants to control spending, so let's focus on tax reform and grow the economy."

No wonder we are in this fiscal mess.

Considering what Democrats have in mind for fiscal policy if they regain power, Republicans might want to get their house in order to protect the 2017 tax reforms.

New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, wants to raise the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent, impose a carbon tax and put a "Buffett tax" in place to cover a ridiculously small percentage of the cost of "Medicare for All."

As economist Milton Friedman said, the real size of government is measured by how much the government spends, not by the taxes we pay.

Most of us would like our taxes to be lower. But it's only a matter of time before a continued failure to control spending comes back to bite us where it hurts.

Mark my words: The problems we fail to solve now will one day lead Republicans to accept a value added tax perched on top of our income and payroll taxes, a carbon tax and higher tax rates on all of us.

— Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a columnist for Reason magazine and the Washington Examiner, and blogs about ecomomics for National Review. Click here to contact her, and follow her on Twitter: @veroderugy. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.