Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No to the Flat Tax, Gold Standard and Other Stale Ideas
National Review ^ | 02/19/2013 | James Pethokoukis

Posted on 02/22/2013 7:41:35 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Free enterprise, free markets, competition, and choice: All are timeless economic principles, but their application can and should evolve with changing economic circumstances. When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, the top income-tax rate was 70 percent, inflation was 13 percent, health-care spending was 10 percent of GDP, and publicly held debt was 26 percent. The average American was 30 years old.

Today, the top marginal tax rate is 40 percent, and inflation is 2 percent. Health-care spending and the debt have both risen by nearly 80 percent as a share of output. The average American is 37 years old. Economics and demography require a reworking of the conservative policy portfolio. But center-right politicians in Washington keep offering same-old, same-old stale solutions. A few examples:

1. The flat tax: In the 2012 Republican presidential race, candidates including Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich proposed a flat tax on personal income. The idea seems likely to pop up again in 2016. Most flat-tax proposals are a version of a flat consumption tax devised by economists Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka. If you were creating a tax code ex nihilo, the flat tax might well be the way to go. Simulations, not to mention common sense, suggest that a flat tax with a low rate would produce a larger economy than the current mess of a tax code does.

But we are not starting from scratch. It would be problematic to transition to a flat tax — at least at the 15–20 percent rate typically proposed — from a tax code that has nearly half of Americans paying no income tax. A flat tax would probably generate too little revenue, making budget deficits worse. One smart way to tweak the idea would be to keep the consumption-tax aspect while adding a more progressive rate structure.

2. The gold standard: The party platform adopted at the Republican National Convention in Tampa included a plan calling for the creation of a commission to consider restoring the dollar-gold link. Been there, done that. A similar panel established by President Reagan dismissed the idea. More recently, a University of Chicago survey of 40 economists found unanimous and vehement opposition to resurrecting the gold standard.

Those results are hardly surprising. The gold standard played a central role in the Great Depression and the severe deflation that accompanied it. Its return would hamstring the Federal Reserve in any effort it made to prevent future recessions from morphing into depressions. The latter, by the way, tend to usher in dramatic expansions in the size of government. A better option would be to anchor monetary policy not in stuff mined from the ground, but rather in futures contracts linked to market forecasts of nominal gross domestic product.

3. The Balanced Budget Amendment: A hot issue in the 1990s, the BBA fell off the radar screen when it looked as if the U.S. faced surpluses as far as the eye could see. But the trillion-dollar deficits of the Obama era have revived the idea. Senate Republicans have submitted legislation for a BBA that would limit government spending to 18 percent of GDP. Putting aside the debate over the wisdom of tying the hands of future Congresses in unforeseen economic circumstances, 18 percent of GDP is too low a long-term spending target given the aging of the U.S. population. Over the next 25 years, 60 percent of the rise of health-related entitlement spending will come from aging, and only 40 percent from inflation in that economic sector. “Even in the unlikely scenario that we completely conquer health cost inflation, we would still have to confront the bigger problem of the growing number of people receiving federal health benefits,” explains former Social Security and Medicare trustee Charles Blahous in a recent analysis for e21.

If you want to implement a BBA, a better long-term target would be 25 percent higher. But why do we need to actually balance the budget? Representative Paul Ryan’s original “Roadmap” plan, for instance, lowered the debt-to-GDP ratio by 30 points over two decades without a single year in the black. Given that the average U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was 37 percent from 1957 through 2007, a better bipartisan policy goal would be to immediately move the debt-to-GDP ratio onto a downward trajectory, back toward that 37 percent level (from a forecasted 76 percent this year) over the next two decades.

Timeless principles with timely policies: It’s time for Washington to start paying attention.

— James Pethokoukis, a columnist, blogs for the American Enterprise Institute.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: balancedbudget; business; economics; flattax; goldstandard; tax; taxation

1 posted on 02/22/2013 7:41:46 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
And this crap is why I don't plan to vote for a Republican again. They've completely sold their principles. Free enterprise, free markets, competition, and choice -- those are all fine things, just so long as you approach them the same way the Radical Democrats would.

I'm done.

2 posted on 02/22/2013 7:47:08 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Bring back US jobs.

Cut the federal budget.

The thing is it is all of those things. We cut off spending at the federal level, but then we export jobs to China.

No. Bring back US jobs now.


3 posted on 02/22/2013 7:52:15 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have a great idea!

Let’s just create this entity that no one can oversee that will just TELL US how much money is in circulation by either printing it on paper or making a data entry in a database.

Then we’ll have all the money we need!


4 posted on 02/22/2013 7:54:54 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

RE: Bring back US jobs now.

Easier said than done... how do we do it?


5 posted on 02/22/2013 8:00:27 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"It would be problematic to transition to a flat tax"

Only for the government programs/giveaways.

I earnd $100 and gov't took $80 ... OK .. done. And I don't "file for an income tax return"

That's problematic?

Not to me


Don't know enough about gold to comment


A BBA should not be an A, but an annual plan based on what money THERE IS.


Even a child's lemonade stand does all that ... oh wait ... yeah ... that's right ... it's illegal for a child to sell lemonade without permission

6 posted on 02/22/2013 8:00:45 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Today, the top marginal tax rate is 40 percent, and inflation is 2 percent.

The inflation rate is total B.S. If you don't drive, eat or have health care maybe you could keep you output to 2% more than you spent last year.

7 posted on 02/22/2013 8:03:53 AM PST by Starstruck (I need a 30 round magazine because liberal whine gives me a buzz.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We need a party based on American manufacturing.

Now.

We need to return American manufacturing and do it quickly. We are selling out America’s future.

We need laws, which encourage American manufacturing. And American exports.

Both parties are sold out.

Either we get a party for American trade. Or we start one.

Soon.


8 posted on 02/22/2013 8:06:19 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck

RE: . If you don’t drive, eat or have health care maybe you could keep you output to 2% more than you spent last year.

Also, if you (if you’re single) or your kids (if you are married) don’t have to go to college...


9 posted on 02/22/2013 8:07:13 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

RE: We need laws, which encourage American manufacturing. And American exports.

Let’s take computers and smart phones for instance... how do you encourage companies like Apple and the makers of the Android to manufacture them in the USA, given that we can’t compete with Asia on wages?


10 posted on 02/22/2013 8:09:32 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“and inflation is 2 percent.”

Where, on Mars?


11 posted on 02/22/2013 8:13:59 AM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t know, but what we are currently doing is simply selling everything in the plane before it crashes.

That is not a plan.

Not at all a plan. We need to stop sending American businesses overseas.

Now.

That is the first thing. We need to stop sending American businesses overseas. Period.

Then we need to start bringing US businesses home.

First of all though, we need to stop the damage from getting any worse.

GOP. Anyone?


12 posted on 02/22/2013 8:16:29 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

RE: We need to stop sending American businesses overseas.

For businesses to stop sending manufacturing jobs overseas, they have to be convinced that manufacturing things here is more cost effective than profitable than manufacturing it elsewhere.

That’s just the way things are.

Whatever it is, you’re not going to compete on wages alone. There has to be other components that will attract businesses to manufacture here.


13 posted on 02/22/2013 8:19:36 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

RE: “and inflation is 2 percent.”

Where, on Mars?

_________________

I didn’t know the Bureau of Labor and Statistics hire people on the red planet.... :)


14 posted on 02/22/2013 8:21:29 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yeah... Screw stuff with a 3000+ year history of actually working...

/sarc


15 posted on 02/22/2013 8:24:00 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Ownership of their business is a big one, which is not talked about nearly enough.

When you own an American business, you own it. Depending on which state you settle in, your boss can be somewhat meddlesome, but still you own it.

In China and virtually every foreign country, you own 49% and can be booted out at some time.

That day is approaching.

We need our own business base back.

Start by encouraging US businesses with law changes.

Our laws should ENCOURAGE business growth in America. Not chase businesses away.

Other than that, I leave the topic open for discussion, but we are going about it wrong at this point.

Now we really, truly need to get our focus once again on repatriation of US businesses.


16 posted on 02/22/2013 8:24:57 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Gold Standard didn’t cause the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve did.

Quote from Ben Bernanke:

“Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again. “

Don’t know if these people are lying or are stupid.


17 posted on 02/22/2013 8:31:57 AM PST by desertfreedom765
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

All distractions from the real question of the day - are we to be free or are we to subject ourselves to an ever harsher Federaly tyranny.

They don’t dare have that discussion.


18 posted on 02/22/2013 8:51:40 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

If bringing back the gold standard will hamstring the fed I don’t see anything wrong with that. It will also hamstring the corrupt losers who are spending us into bankruptcy.


19 posted on 02/22/2013 9:17:48 AM PST by peeps36 (America is being destroyed by filthy traitors in the political establishment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You replace all forms of income tax (including business) with tariffs on foreign goods....and American manufacturing returns. Worked well for our economy for the first 140 yrs of its existence. And, we also end trillions of dollars in trade deficits.....that wealth returning to our shores would eliminate the need for income taxes.


20 posted on 02/22/2013 9:22:16 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (GOP = Greenlighting Obama's Programs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I agree, the Repubs are approaching complete worthlessness. Make note that Pethokoutis is the chosen mouthpiece on Economics for AEI + many other questionable publishers. Almost everything out of AEI and much of NRO is just more of the BS from the patsies for the Collective.


21 posted on 02/22/2013 9:53:53 AM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knarf
A BBA should not be an A, but an annual plan based on what money THERE IS.

A Balanced Budget Amendment must have teeth. My proposal is that all members of BOTH houses that fail to pass a balanced budget are ineligible for re-election or for any other federal elective office, permanently.

22 posted on 02/22/2013 9:56:46 AM PST by EricT. (The Second Amendment is Tyrant Control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Bring back US jobs now.

Do you think Nike would spend the MILLIONS they give to OVERPAID NBA players to build a factory in the USA?

23 posted on 02/22/2013 10:03:25 AM PST by ExCTCitizen (More Republicans stayed home then the margin of victory of O's Win...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Read about US mfr of office equipment: “A Cautionary Tale Of Outsourcing To China: There Is No Recourse, You Could Lose Everything”


24 posted on 02/22/2013 10:06:01 AM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The gold standard played a central role in the Great Depression and the severe deflation that accompanied it. Its return would hamstring the Federal Reserve in any effort it made to prevent future recessions from morphing into depressions.

That's the point. The Federal Reserve causes the recessions through its incessant money-printing. I'd not only "hamstring" the Fed; I'd abolish it.

A better option would be to anchor monetary policy not in stuff mined from the ground, but rather in futures contracts linked to market forecasts of nominal gross domestic product.

Nonsense. The point of a gold standard is that money should have a fairly constant value. Gold provides that because the amount added each year through mining is a tiny, tiny percentage of the gold already in existence.

I'm disappointed to find out that Pethokoukis is just another advocate of "flexible" money. Very disappointed.

25 posted on 02/22/2013 10:45:23 AM PST by BfloGuy (Money, like chocolate on a hot oven, was melting in the pockets of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No, it only shows that conservative capitalist values were always correct and the whole reason we are in this mess is because socialist values have got us here. There is no easy way out now, but that is what liberal Republicans just can’t understand. The gold standard did not cause the great depression. A recession was caused by the tariff act, and complicated by schemes which the Federal Reserve implemented to try to stop gold from outflowing from Britain. If America wasn’t looking after the interests of another country (Britain) we wouldn’t have gotten into that mess.


26 posted on 02/22/2013 12:33:28 PM PST by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck
I was watching an old youtube video with Peter Schiff debating about 3 other university (liberal) economists (though liberal in that statement might be redundant). In short their opinion pretty much mirrored this article.
1) The economy is doing just fine right now but proposals by Schiff or Rand Paul would cause a severe downturn.
2) Inflation is benign so stop believing your lying eyes
3) We need more inflation to help employment
4) Ben Bernake is a great economic steward and we need MORE not less Federal Reserve attempts to help the economy.
Otherwords, like these Republicans, they live in their ivory tower dream world, where their servants do their grocery shopping and they have jobs that are insulated from economic reality.
27 posted on 02/22/2013 12:36:38 PM PST by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Yes, but let's not go all populist and Pat Buchanan in redefining modern conservatism.

We should support free (but fair) trade. It was trade unions that helped destroy our manufacturing base with their excessive demands. Businesses found savings by moving overseas. You can't really blame them.

With that said, I don't consider China a fair trader, which is why I prefer products made in Korea (Samsung) or Taiwan (HTC) over Apple, which is made in China. If there was a retail outlet that provided Chinese alternatives I would shop there.

28 posted on 02/22/2013 12:40:20 PM PST by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I don’t know about strictly manufacturing, but doing business in America (or Canada for that matter) should start carrying a certain advantage for resource industries. What oil company for instance wants to do business in Nigeria for instance? Or anywhere in South America, which is quickly falling to Communism these days? Why take that political risk? We have an opportunity to exploit (more than we already do) the massive resource we have oil shale, and natural gas.
29 posted on 02/22/2013 12:43:56 PM PST by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

University of Chicago survey of 40 economists found unanimous and vehement opposition to resurrecting the gold standard.


Forty foxes vehemently opposed putting locks on the henhouse door...


30 posted on 02/22/2013 12:45:48 PM PST by garbanzo (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garbanzo
University of Chicago survey of 40 economists found unanimous and vehement opposition to resurrecting the gold standard.
Forty foxes vehemently opposed putting locks on the henhouse door...
People like Bob Dole used to be mainstream conservative Republicans. Then Jack Kemp slapped us alongside the head with a blinding flash of the obvious: by opposing Democrat spending and then supporting taxes to balance the budget to avoid inflation, Republicans were acting as enablers for the Democrats’ “tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect” strategy. Kemp struggled in the 1970s to get Republicans to stop doing it, and finally with Reagan in the White House committed to Kemp-Roth, Kemp triumphed when the income tax rate was slashed and tax revenue essentially doubled over less than eight years.
That is relevant to the Gold Standard, in the sense that Jack Kemp published an open letter to Reagan before his inauguration, advocating that the US government should sell off Fort Knox. His purpose? He asserted that if the US did not have any significant gold reserve, that would ironically put the US on a gold standard. He argued that, without that gold, the only thing sustaining the value of the dollar would then be fiscal discipline. There would not then, in his theory, be any way to operate financially without keeping the books in good balance. The situation, IOW, would be so dangerous it would be safe.

31 posted on 02/23/2013 2:10:41 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson