It’s tax filing deadline day—an extension from the usual
April 15th. We’re having a flood here in Houston, from storms all
night long. Several hours during the night we got 2-3 inches of rain per hour.
In our neighborhood we got 15.6 inches overnight, double what we got during
Tropical Storm Allison. The nearby bayou went over its banks; it’s a 500-year
flood level. Our neighborhood, relatively new, is built up several feet about
street level, so we’re safe. But a number of neighbors and people we know from
church have some flooding. And the main street we have to take to get out of
the neighborhood has flooded.
Houston's Tax Day Flood photo from Houston Chronicle reader, here |
This afternoon we’re having a bit of a reprieve between
storms that are predicted throughout the week. That should give the water a
chance to flow into the reservoirs down the road. We’re the bayou city for a
reason; bayous (i.e., drainage ditches) are in and around every neighborhood.
Because heavy rains happen here. So we’ve planned for them. And, when whatever
we do is not enough and flooding happens, we dig in and help each other out.
There ought to be some metaphor in here about taxes. One
might be that we’ve been suffering something of an economic catastrophe since
around late 2008—that’s eight years. At last there are signs of the bad stuff
letting up in the not-too-distant future.
I’m looking at the possibility that we could get lower
taxes, simpler taxes, higher growth—all the things that happen when the
government gets out of the way. These things might just happen, if we get the
Ted Cruz tax plan.
It’s a simple plan. He put out an ad this past week,
explaining it in one minute:
You can read the summary on his website.
On Friday Ted Cruz appeared on CNBC’s Squawkbox, where he
talked about his tax plan with Joe Scarborough and team. It was a good
opportunity to hear what the outcome for the economy will be of this simple
plan. So I’m sharing a few portions of it.
Joe Scarborough starts the conversation asking about
economic growth.
Ted Cruz: Growth
is foundational. My number one priority is growth. Every other problem we’ve
got, whether it’s unemployment, the debt, the deficit. Whether it is
strengthening and preserving social security and Medicare, or whether it is
rebuilding our military and keeping us safe—you’ve got to have growth to make
it work. And we have been trapped in stagnation for the seven years. And if we
don’t turn that around, nothing else gets fixed….
Historically, since WWII, our country has grown an average of
3% per year. And yet from 2008 to today it’s averaged only 1.2% a year. If we
stay at… this level of growth, these problems are not solvable….
My economic agenda is focused very directly on growth,
because if you get back to historic levels, 3, 4, 5% growth, suddenly the
federal government numbers turn around dramatically….
Joe S is concerned about what looks like a global problem
and asks about that. Ted Cruz responds with examples from history, from
Coolidge, to JFK, to Reagan, where the right policies turned things around.
TC: Taxation
reform and regulatory reform are the two most potent levers that the government
has. In the 1960s, John F. Kennedy did the same thing. In the 1980s Ronald
Reagan did the same thing. We have three periods in the past century, the 20s,
the 60s, and the 80s, and in every one when we passed tax reform and regulatory
reform, when we reduce the burdens of government on small businesses—and small
businesses are critical; they’re the job creators; they’re the innovators;
they’re the catalysts—the result has been record-shattering growth. We just
need to do what works.
At 13 minutes in, Ted Cruz gets to describe the actual tax plan.
TC: My tax plan is
simple. It is a simple flat tax. For a typical family of four, for the first
$36,000 you earn, you pay nothing. Zero income tax. Zero payroll tax. Nothing.
Above $36,000, each marginal dollar you pay a simple flat tax of 10%.… Everyone
pays the exact same….
Another difference, by the way, no longer do you have any
differential rates between ordinary income and dividends or cap gains…. Everything’s
10%, which means people actually allocate capital based on where it’s efficient,
rather than on what the tax laws say, because the tax laws are neutral to
everything.
And then, on the business side, we abolish the corporate
income tax. As you know we have the most punitive corporate income tax of any
developed country in the world. We abolish the Obamacare taxes. We abolish the
payroll taxes, which are the single biggest tax most working Americans pay. And
we abolish the death tax, which is a tremendously unfair and punitive tax on
farmers, on ranchers, on small businesses. And we replace all of those with a
simple 16% business flat tax.
And the effect is an incredible catalyst for job creation and
wages going up, and bringing jobs back to America. That’s my priority:
high-priced jobs coming back to America, wages going up for everyone.
When government people score a
plan, they give a number on what it will cost. But they assume the tax cut will
do nothing but reduce government revenue. That is called static scoring. Ted
Cruz gets to talk about that, and offers a more likely dynamic scoring
scenario.
TC: I suspected
you might say that, so I actually printed out a comparison of tax plans that
was done by the Tax Foundation. The Tax Foundation is a nonprofit…. It is
nonpartisan, and it scores everybody’s plan. If you look at it the way they
score it, in terms of the cost—Now, the static cost is $3.6 trillion; that’s a
lot of money. But scoring it static is assuming that cutting taxes has no
impact on the economy—that doesn’t make any sense. I mean, that is an
Alice-in-Wonderland scoring.
If you score it with dynamic scoring, which is, you take into
effect what is going to happen when you cut taxes, then the total cost of this
plan is $768 billion. It’s less than a trillion. If you contrast that, for
example, to Donald Trump’s plan, Donald’s plan costs over $10 trillion. So mine
is less than a trillion…. And the difference is, even though Donald’s is more
than ten times as expensive as mine is, my tax plan produces more economic growth.
4.9 million new jobs, coming from this capital investment, increases 44%.
One of the big reasons is that any business, when you invest
in capital, it’s immediately deductible. No longer do you have complicated
depreciation tables. None of that matters. If you make a capital expenditure,
you immediately expense it. That is a powerful catalyst for growth.
And then, the most exciting thing about it is just the impact
on after-tax wages, take-home pay. Every income group, from the very poorest to
the very richest sees a double-digit in after-tax pay. The average family in
America under the Cruz simple flat tax will take home $7600 dollars more. Seven
thousand six hundred dollars. That’s real money that makes a difference for
someone struggling to make ends meet
Around 34 minutes into the conversation, Joe Scarborough brings
in economist Art Laffer. Laffer, best known
for the Laffer Curve, advised Reagan back in the day, and
has helped Cruz in developing his plan. He is asked whether he can verify this
“dynamic scoring.”
Art Laffer: Of
course dynamic scoring’s the right way to do it, Joe…. I did watch the other
segment. I thought Ted did a great job of explaining exactly how it works and
what the dynamics of it would be—except that I think he underestimated the
dynamics that will occur.
If you look at his tax plan, it makes Reagan’s tax plan look
weak, in the 1980s. I would expect to see a greater growth rate, not only
because Obama is worse than Jimmy Carter, but because this tax plan is even
better than Reagan’s. It’s would take the top rate down to 16% on businesses
and 10% on individuals. And I think you’ll get growth rates higher than
Reagan’s, which were enormous, Joe. You’ve got 6, 7, 8% real growth annualized
on a quarterly basis in the years ‘83, ‘84. And in a number of the quarters
you’ll get more than that. Our economy is relatively much worse off than it was
even under Jimmy Carter.
There’s some discussion about the excuses, relating to the
Fed, about why this recession is supposedly different from all others, and then
Ted Cruz is brought back in.
TC: I agree with
Art that the numbers that were estimated, if anything they’re underselling the
GDP impact. My object is a minimum of 5% GDP growth. And I would note JFK, when
he campaigned, he campaigned promising 5% GDP growth, and he ended up producing
5% GDP growth.
AL: And the tax
revenues were much higher too. He went into surplus because of economic growth.
TC: That is
exactly right. And the wealthy ended up paying more. When you cut the tax
rates, the wealthy paid a higher percentage of taxes.
Art, tell us, what would the impact be on the economy? What
would the impact be on working men and women, if we had four years or eight years
of 5% GDP growth, instead of the stagnant 1 and 2% we’ve got right now?
AL: Well, the
impact would be huge. I mean, the biggest driver of tax revenues, Ted, is GDP
growth.
But what very few people have talked about on your plan, and,
if I may, is the revenue impact on cities, counties, local districts, and state
budgets would be enormous as well. And no one’s even looking at that.
The impact on income redistribution would be also huge. I
mean, John F. Kennedy put it so beautifully—you referred to Kennedy, and he was
my hero—John F. Kennedy said the best form of welfare is still a good high
paying job. And creating those jobs will reduce inequality dramatically. And
that will lead to more prosperity everywhere.
So you’re going to have much higher revenue impact. I think
you’re going to get even higher growth rates than 5%. And you’re going to
reduce inequality. What’s not to love in this plan?
Indeed. What’s not to love?
But would those good outcomes really happen? I think they
would. I remember the Reagan years, which is helpful. But I think hearing from
business people is helpful. I came across a five-minute video by businessman/speaker Ryan Moran, in which he talks about the so-called “fair
share” he has to pay. He holds up a check for $170,000 he’s
paying in taxes. This is not his tax bill; he paid the estimated tax in
December. This is just the overage, by which he was off. He explains a bit
about what he’s paying. And then he talks about what he could do with that
money.
Now what could a businessperson do with $170,000? You know
what I would like to do? Hire more people. I’d love to hire three highly paid
people at $55,000, or five people at $35,000. But I can’t. ‘Cause it’s going to
the government…. I’d love to put it back into a business, or back into people….
So the government can’t just create things out of thin air.
It has to take—it has to take— from
what would be productive: hiring people, investing into more products and
services, creating better experiences for customers, putting into a college
fund for my ten-month-old daughter. Any of that would be a better use.
But, no. People got to pay their “fair share.”
It’s not just speculation. People really do make better use
of their money than government does.
I like that a 10% flat tax is pretty similar to what God
does, with tithing. Let’s limit what government takes from us, and limit what
government does with the tax money it gets—to the powers enumerated in the
Constitution.
Let the government-caused catastrophes end. And then watch us
thrive.
No comments:
Post a Comment