Around the world, advanced economies are facing heightened fiscal challenges, owing to the simple fact that most have bloated, financially unsustainable welfare states. As then-president of the European Central Bank Mario Draghi said when he was serving over a decade ago: “The European social model is already gone.”
Equally, the US risks falling into the same trap if it does not control spending and rein in public debt.
The math is straightforward. Consider the case of welfare-type social benefits that are financed by payroll taxes. The average payroll-tax rate needed to cover such spending (now or later with interest, if financed with government debt) is equal to the dependency rate times the replacement rate — that is, the ratio of benefit recipients to taxpaying workers multiplied by the ratio of average benefits to average wages being taxed.
This equation does not even include the taxes needed to pay for other government-funded programs, from defense and policing to roads and schools. Yes, other kinds of taxes can be used to cover these costs, and various changes can be made to the benefit formulas and tax schedules. Ultimately, though, if you have many people receiving considerable benefits, you will (eventually) have very high tax rates. As Shakespeare’s Hamlet said: “Aye, there’s the rub.”
Make no mistake: High tax rates are not desirable, regardless of the social benefits they support. They can be extraordinarily harmful, because they reduce incentives and thereby damage the economy — starving the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs. By some estimates, Europe’s tax rates are already close to the peak of the Laffer curve, where additional tax hikes no longer increase revenue, and may even cause it to fall.
Moreover, some economists believe that higher taxes are the reason that European economies’ real (inflation-adjusted) per capita GDP is lower than in the US. Even if that is an overstatement of the causality, taxes are almost certainly an important factor. Most European countries collect revenues equal to well more than 40 percent of their GDP, whereas the US ratio is about one-quarter (Canada and the UK are in between, at about one-third).
For example, the US’ after-tax real GDP per capita (in terms of purchasing power parity) is significantly higher than that of Sweden and Denmark — two countries that US progressives eagerly want to emulate. Of course, Swedes and Danes get more publicly provided services, spend less on defense (though they are now committed to raising their meager defense budgets), and work less. But even after accounting for such adjustments, Americans on average are considerably richer.
With populations aging rapidly across advanced economies, the concomitant fiscal pressure on health and public-pension benefits (such as Medicare and Social Security in the US) will only increase. Over the next dozen years, the ratio of people aged 25 to 64 to those 65 and older is projected to plummet in the US, the UK and Canada, from roughly 3:1 to 2:1. That follows the trend already seen in Germany, France and Italy, where the ratio is projected to be well below 2:1 by 2035. In these economies, the fastest-growing demographic group comprises those aged 85 and up. While we should welcome longer lifespans, we must also recognize the associated costs for public budgets.
Worse, with the exception of northern European countries, advanced economies have accumulated much larger public debts over the last decade and a half. For a while, this additional fiscal pressure was masked by extremely low interest rates; but now, interest costs are ballooning everywhere (though they are somewhat more manageable in inflation-adjusted terms). As central banks continue to unwind their huge holdings of government debt (equal to about 20 percent of GDP in the US Federal Reserve’s case), they will be competing with governments’ efforts to finance large new deficits and roll over maturing debt.
While some of the debt-financed spending in response to the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic was justified, the subsequent failure to consolidate budgets was extremely irresponsible, leaving many economies highly vulnerable to another shock. It is now more urgent than ever for governments to reform their welfare states, including by targeting benefits more narrowly to the needy and introducing stronger work incentives. The best approach is to allow for a gradual slowing of spending to avoid the economically disruptive forced changes that Draghi and others (including me) have long predicted.
Back when advanced economies were growing rapidly, leaving greater debt burdens to future generations arguably was not a problem, because it was assumed that our children and grandchildren would be much richer and thus capable of affording higher taxes. But with productivity growth having long since slowed, the intergenerational inequity we have created is indefensible.
Viewed in this light, the policies favored by the political left are a recipe for making a bad situation worse. If we want to support stronger economic growth and intergenerational equity, we should reject proposals for higher tax rates on businesses and personal capital income, as these will reduce incentives to save and invest.
Looking ahead, the renewed risk of war, terrorism and other security threats means that defense spending will have to increase substantially. Economists have long agreed that investments in the military can justifiably be financed by debt, on both efficiency and intergenerational-equity grounds. But to support these necessary outlays, we must get serious about today’s growing fiscal pressures. The sooner policies to address them are implemented, the better. Sadly, few political leaders have been willing to confront reality and propose solutions. Those who do deserve voters’ support.
Michael Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of former US president George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1989 to 1993.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS